Merck owes its victory in a recently concluded Vioxx trial in New Jersey largely to the testimony of J. Michael Gaziano, a Harvard cardiologist who expressed his doubts that Vioxx, and not stress, triggered the 2001 heart attack in Frederick "Mike" Humeston, who argued otherwise.
Michael Gaziano had opined in a previous case that he did not see a link between ephedra and heart problems, a view at odds with the Food and Drug Administration, and he said the same about phenylpropanolamine.
He also had received significant money from Merck – up to $125,000 for his work on Vioxx over the last three years, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer – as well as from other drug companies, including Wyeth and McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, makers of Tylenol.
Now here J. Michael Gaziano was saying that short-term use of Vioxx was safe, too, and that while the data on long-term use raised "concerns," they were not iron clad. His opinions, which seemed to contradict most experts, were mooted by Merck's withdrawal of the drug but are not necessarily wrong.
Indeed, at least one heart specialist says the Vioxx suits (Merck is still facing thousands) do pose tricky scientific questions.
Source: The Scientist
No comments:
Post a Comment