I finally read Snigdha Prakash’s book, “All the Justice Money Can Buy: Corporate Greed on Trial,” about some of the lawsuits brought by people who alleged they were injured by Merck’s painkiller Vioxx, which, according to some estimates, caused up to 140,000 cases of heart disease and up to 56,000 deaths over five years.
I’m usually not a “can’t put this down” kind of book reader, but Prakash – in her first book – glued me to the story with great skill. She won the Gene Roberts Book Award by the Fund for Investigative Journalism for her work on the book.
My yellow highlighter grabbed this excerpt from late in the book:
“Why isn’t this Tuskegee?” (Harlan) Krumholz (Yale cardiologist) demanded, comparing Merck’s decision to keep testing Vioxx on Alzheimer’s patients after it was know that Vioxx was hurting them to the infamous syphilis studies in Tuskegee, Alabama.
The epilogue to the story, as Prakash reports, is that the federal multidistrict litigation against Merck ended in a settlement:
“Merck would pay $4.85 billion to resolve some 50,000 claims. …
Payouts to heart attack plaintiffs ranged, on average, from just under $100,000 to $375,000.” …
…the deal’s biggest winner was Merck. The company would put almost all the Vioxx personal injury cases behind it for just under $5 billion. Add in legal expenses of roughly $2 billion, and the total tab of $7 billion was still a far cry from the $25-50 billion in liability that investment analysts had predicted right after the Vioxx withdrawal. …The plaintiffs’ lawyers also fares well, receiving 32% of their clients’ settlement awardx or more than $1.55 billion in fees plus “reasonable” expenses. …
It would take Merck less than a year to earn back the $4.85 billion it had agreed to pay Vioxx plaintiffs. …
“We ended up settling for something that was not reasonable. We were not happy,” (one plaintiff’s wife) said. …
“When you seek justice at this level, it becomes less about the plaintiff and more about the money. Somebody won big…but it wasn’t us,” (the plaintiff) said.
On her website, Prakash posted an old Daily Show clip about one of the trials (below). Whether by parody or by book, this is a chapter in drug company history that cannot be told often enough and can not be forgotten.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Ken Leebow
February 15, 2012 at 9:45 amConstant and ongoing reminders to try to stay off meds … if you can.
Trite, but true … Let food be thy medicine and let thy medicine be food. – Hippocrates
BTW, here’s a really funny Big-Phrama rant by Bill Maher … http://bit.ly/wNagw1 – Every time I watch it, it makes me laugh … mad too.
Joy Simha
February 15, 2012 at 12:44 pmGary,
Thank you so much for this coverage. It all makes sense now!
Joy Simha
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like