Vioxx

$253 million??? I thought this seemed a bit absurd. (see link)

I'm in no way defending Merck or excusing them for the possibility of obfuscating risks. But it seems to me that although the studies show a nearly doubled risk of cardiovascular events (heart attacks & strokes) in patients taking the drug for 18 months or longer, it would be difficult to prove that any particular patient suffering an MI or a stroke would be in the statistical group over and above the basline group at risk for these events in the placebo arm of the study.

In other words if 1/1000 of the placebo group had a heart attack and 2/1000 in the Vioxx group had a heart attack, would Merck be responsible for both patients suffering heart attacks in the Vioxx arm? Or would it be resposible for 2-1=1? And if so, which one?

I acknowledge too that having seen billboards advertising for class-action Vioxx lawsuits and knowing the sometimes greedy, litiginous, and dishonest nature of the American public may sway me unduly toward the drug manufacturer's side. Then again, 90% of the settlement is punitive--for dishonesty in advertising, I presume--and it seems just a little out of the realm of 12 small-town jurors to set such a precedent for the inevitable and numerous cases to come.

It sure is nice to have a personal forum! Comments are welcome.