Legal Lessons

The Evidence in the Big Vioxx Case 

The verdict in the Vioxx case is a clear example of how our civil justice system allows just ordinary Americans to hold even the largest and wealthiest corporations accountable when they put their bottom line before the health and safety of the public. The facts presented during the Vioxx trial showed that Merck distributed and promoted Vioxx without properly disclosing the dangers of the drug. The following document summarizes some of these key facts that were highlighted by the media during the course of the trial.

Early scientific studies indicated that Vioxx increased heart risks

• Internal Merck documents indicated that the company was aware of the problems with Vioxx as early as 1997. In fact, the company's top scientist stated in March of 2000 that a clinical trial of Vioxx confirmed that the drug had heart risks. Despite their knowledge of these problems, Merck aggressively marketed the drug.
• "With the help of Dr. David Egilman, another of his expert witnesses, Mr. Lanier also clarified the chronology of Merck's evolving knowledge of Vioxx and its risks. By presenting company documents and e-mail messages among top Merck scientists, Mr. Lanier has shown that Merck was concerned about Vioxx's possible heart risks even before a 2000 clinical trial -- called Vigor -- showed Vioxx caused five times as many heart attacks as naproxen, an older painkiller." [The New York Times, 8/6/05; emphasis added]

Despite problems, Merck appeared to have rushed approval for Vioxx

Even though Merck was aware of the problems with Vioxx, the company tried to rush federal approval of the drug. Documents presented during the trial seem to indicate that the company was more concerned about competition from rival drug makers than they were with health and safety of consumers.

• "On Friday, for example, Mr. Lanier staged a withering examination of Dr. Alan S. Nies, a retired Merck scientist who led the Vioxx development program in the 1990's. The lawyer presented documents that appeared to show that Merck tried to rush federal approval for Vioxx because it feared that Celebrex, a competing drug by Pfizer, would get approval first." [The New York Times, 8/6/05; emphasis added]

Merck's aggressive marketing practices were highly misleading

"Merck told its sales representatives that its painkiller Vioxx did not increase the risk of heart attacks, according to a Merck training video played on Wednesday for jurors in the first Vioxx lawsuit to reach trial. The video, which had never before been publicly shown, also depicts actors playing Merck representatives avoiding a question about Vioxx's potential to increase blood pressure -- a documented side effect. While the training tape was never shown to doctors or consumers, its existence may further undercut Merck's claim that the company properly disclosed Vioxx's risks during the five years the drug was on the market. In the video, an actress playing 'an obstacle' to Vioxx sales says, 'I'm afraid Vioxx causes M.I.'s' -- a reference to myocardial infarctions, or heart attacks. In response, an actress playing a Merck sales representative says, 'That's not true.' ... Merck made the videotape in 2000, as it struggled to increase Vioxx sales despite concerns by doctors and independent scientists that the drug might damage the heart." [The New York Times, 7/21/05; emphasis added]