Got a blog tip? Contact us

« Fighting back | Main | Bomb away »

Could Vioxx come back from the grave?

I don't know how many of you are following the Vioxx story but it's taking a surreal turn.

First, a quick recap: Merck withdrew Vioxx from the market in September 2004 when evidence linking the drug to fatal heart attacks became too much to ignore. (By some estimates, Vioxx has caused tens of thousands of deaths.) The news sparked a slew of lawsuits from survivors and the verdict in the first of these cases came back on Friday. The jury ruled against Merck and awarded the plaintiff -- whose husband died of a heart attack after taking Vioxx -- a symbolic $253 million.

Coverage of the trial in today's Wall Street Journal was sympathetic to Merck, pointing out the varied ways that the plaintiff's lawyer manipulated the jury emotionally. Merck's lawyers argued that Vioxx didn't kill this particular guy -- and there's good reason to believe they're right. But the jury blamed Merck anyway because the company clearly buried evidence of the drug's dangers and fought to keep it on the market. Merck plans to appeal, but the verdict is bad news for the company, seeing as it has 4,000-plus trials to follow, some of which are bound to have better plaintiffs and all of which are guaranteed to have the same unsympathetic defendant.

But here's the surreal part: buried in the WSJ article is an indirect quote from a member of Merck's board, William G. Bowen, saying that Merck is "is mulling whether to put Vioxx back on the market--partly to blunt plaintiff attorney's ammunition."

I had to read that twice but that's what it said. So not only did Merck representatives know about Vioxx's ill effects in advance, not only did they fight to keep it on the market after discovering the heart problems, but they're considering bringing back the drug to help sway future court decisions! (Apparently, they are unconcerned about creating more plaintiffs.)

That's the only info the Journal article had about bringing Vioxx back, so I looked elsewhere and found this Houston Chronicle story from August 9, which ends with this paragraph:

Since [Merck pulled the drug off the market], a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel has determined that other drugs in the same class as Vioxx also have increased heart risks and that Vioxx could be put back on the market with appropriate label warnings.

So, unless I'm reading this wrong, the FDA is essentially saying "the competition is killing people, so it's only fair let Vioxx kill 'em too."