Vioxx Trial #1: Is Merck getting 'battered?"

Online at the New York Times there is a well written analysis of the first trial in Texas. It's worth a read. Comments include:

<>Mr. Lanier conducted an examination of Dr. Alan S. Nies, a retired Merck scientist who led the Vioxx development program in the 1990's. Dr. Nies appeared defensive and seemed to lose his temper. There was reference to a Harvard study that would have looked at the drug's heart risks. On the stand Nies testified that the study was unethical, thus it was never conducted. Unfortunately for Merck, there was a contract that was negotiated, prepared, and executed ... by Dr. Nye.

The Times does not pull punches in its article. It stated that Lanier presented " evidence in a scattershot way ... . " before resting his case. It does note, correctly in my opinion that a key point was when Dr. Santanello (for Merck) admitted that a document overestimated the risks faced by patients taking placebos, or sugar pills, in some Merck clinical trials of Vioxx.

My comment: Perhaps I am naive, but it make sense for Merck to settle this case now, given which cases are next on the dockets throughout the USA. If not, and there is a significant verdict, you may see Mr. Lanier being associated on many more claims.