Merck trial - round one

The opening statements only took a couple of hours in the third Merck Vioxx trial in Houston, yesterday.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Birchfield said Merck knew about Vioxx's safety problems before it was launched. Birchfield quoted internal e-mails, including some from Merck scientists who raised warning flags about its cardiovascular risks, to support his assertions.

Merck made a "premeditated, financial decision" not to warn patients about the drug's risks because it wanted the revenue the former $2.5 billion seller would generate, and longed to beat Pfizer's competing drug, Celebrex, in the marketplace.

Merck's lawyer, Phil Beck, told jurors that Vioxx didn't trigger Irvin's heart attack and that the company acted responsibly at all times in its development and marketing of the drug.

"There is no evidence of short-term use (of Vioxx) causing heart attacks," Beck said.
He spent the better part of his allotted hour for opening statements explaining to jurors how pain relievers work and how Vioxx was a major advance because it was gentler on the stomach than other treatments such as aspirin.

"Mr. Irvin's problem was not that he took Vioxx; it was that he had coronary heart disease," Beck said.

Insiders' view: Early days. B team presenters. Let's wait for the heavyweight "characters" to weigh in. One interesting point; the jury is only six people.

Psychologically, one wonders if Mercks cuts of 7,000 jobs was arranged to match the number of Vioxx cases. Also, the timing of the announcement of the cuts, the day before this trial started....premeditated, or just chance?

Star Ledger