Merck Scores A Vioxx Victory
Kate DuBose Tomassi, 08.03.06, 10:15 AM ET
Merck won its second Vioxx suit in a month late Wednesday, when a =
California jury ruled against a man who claimed he suffered a heart atta=
ck =
after taking the drug.
The jury in Grossberg v. Merck rejected the claims of the plaintiff, who=
=
said his 2001 heart attack was caused by what the company characterized =
as =
"intermittent, s****adic" use of Vioxx.
The lawsuit tally is favoring Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ), which =
=
has now won five cases involving Vioxx claims and lost three. A ninth ca=
se =
is in now in federal court in New Orleans.
"The verdict is consistent with what we have always said. Merck acted =
appropriately in providing information to the medical, scientific and =
regulatory communities. We firmly believed that Vioxx was not the cause =
of =
this heart attack because the data do not sup****t that infrequent, =
s****adic use of Vioxx contributes to heart attacks," the company said in=
a =
news release after the verdict.
Merck voluntarily withdrew the arthritis treatment from the market in =
2004, after studies indicated an increased incidence of heart attacks =
among users.\
And speaking of hating every drug made by every pharmaceutical in the
history of mankind...
as if winning a case based on s****adic use relieves them of liability =
in =
the first place what with fasttracking the drug
Nov 2003:
Merck stock =3D $60
Nov 2004:
Merck stock =3D $26
Looks like losing Merck o was not
such a financial loser move as everyone told me it was back in 2000 huh?=
=
Crazy? LIKE A FOX, sure!
I SPIT on all the people I used to work with who invested their entire
****tfolio in Merck when Vioxx hit the market, and they were at $80/share=
..
over time prices normalize
last price --41
|
