Should the responsible Merck executives go to jail?

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
this trial you speak of?

it usually consists of more than 200 words and a reuters article.

[/ QUOTE ]

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Should that junior exec do jail time? How much and what kind? What's red collar crime worth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Falsifying risk of death information should be considered murder. Murder for profit is just as unethical as a hitman for hire.

[jba]

lets just put all these bastards in jail the lot of them

who the [censored] is john galt anyways


sorry if i caused the move

[InchoateHand]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Vioxx, as I'm sure you in your medical capacities know



Resist the urge to be dickless more.

[/ QUOTE ]


[censored] you asshat. Do you have any idea how to [censored] read? Matt Flynn is an ACTUAL physician, so I was noting that my comment was not directed AT him in some lecturing tone.

Jesus [censored] christ, pull the bottle of self-righteousness dipshitedness out of your [censored] ass.

Kids these days...no [censored] respect.

The point was that HE ALREADY KNEW THE SUCCESSFUL USES OF VIOXX, but that mental midgets such as yourself where most likely clueless, an implicit comment you felt compelled to prove as quickly as possible.

[lapoker17]

Judging any of this based on that wire report with quotes from only one side is just wrong. Thanks to a-holes like kozlowski and ebbers, all big businesses are now presumed guilty far too often. I just don't like when people allow bias to cloud things that should be about facts. When they all come out, if Merck f'd up, I'll be right there with you, but there is far too much money swirling around in this one (go read some articles about the plaintiffs attorneys in Texas) for me to believe either side just yet.

[InchoateHand]

Okay, then we agree. I certainly don't presumptively think "big business evil, Merck bad" here, though I'm certainly more inclined to trust NEJM, on its face, than a boilerplate denial.

It would be great if there is no wrongdoing here, and hopefully the courts will function effectively. If there is, however, I hope they will also act as punitively towards this offence as they do towards, what are in my view, lighter crimes.

[lehighguy]

Yes, they should go to jail.

Falsifying information that leads to death is like murder.

Wether or not Vioxx falls within what you consider acceptable limits is irrelevent, the witholding of information is the crime.

[jba]

it is ridiculous on it's face to think that a corporation would have the final say in whether or not a drug is safe enough to go to market. How significant was the inclusion/exlusion of three patients having heart attacks (and it is my understanding is that many vioxx users have existing heart conditions) to the NEJM on vioxx being approved for market? How is FDA approval linked to NEMJ? (I honestly have no idea)

almost every drug worth anything has side effects many potentially fatal. if there is some data that merck is legally obligated to turn over and it is found that they failed to do so, string them up, reckless endangerment all the way. If it is currently an ethics issue it should certainly not be and that would point to a failure of congress.

I don't know much about this story but everything I have learned so far points to incompetence in government regulation and greediness of trial lawyers, nothing too surprising.

[Voltron87]

i had a pretty long discussion with my dad about similar stuff today, he works as a statistician in public health trials (mainly stroke medication, some minor work in other neurological things). his attitude, which is what i now believe after hearing him explain it, is that the executives should go to jail. he is well aware that the drug can still greatly benefit a great deal of patients, and can be worth the risks, but the executives need to be held accountable for knowingly lying about the risks of their medication. that is pretty much about as bad as it gets. this is of course if it is proven that the allegations are proven true in public, which they havent been yet.

the FDA may have unnecessarily pulled the drug, but what does that have to do with whether the executives should go to jail?

[InchoateHand]

I take Blarg's entirely un characteristic silence as a tacit admission that he was, if I were to use the mot du l'année dernière, PZWNED.

Luckily I do not stoop to such internet speech, so I see no need to remind him thoroughly asshatish his unlearned remark was.