Should the responsible Merck executives go to jail?

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain to me how anyone got pwned or how this issue is complicated? i skimmed yours and blargs' posts and didnt see much stuff worth debating.

[InchoateHand]

No, Blarg tried to call me out for being a jerk to Matt Flynn, when I wasn't be a jerk to Matt Flynn, and then disappeared...

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
That sort of playing around is not comparable to the usual corporate crime like embezzling, and should be punished severely. It would be a terrible example to corporate America if they were shown both that there are no significant drawbacks to falsifying data and lying to regulatory agencies, nor to playing fast and loose with American lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my thinking.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Vioxx, as I'm sure you in your medical capacities know, is still the best NSAID ever developed. I'm mad at the executives on many accounts--including the fact that because of their unethical behaviour, people who probably SHOULD take this drug---those suffering from rheumatoid arthritis for example--won't anymore because of the stigma attached to it, and their physicians'entirely legitimate fears regarding liability.

[/ QUOTE ]

The FDA often seems to be in the business of avoiding egg on the face. Plus they make ridiculous moves to falsely address problems. E.g., they wil soon require all pregnancy tests done for monitoring on Accutane to be done in a certified lab instead of with over-the-counter urine tests in the doctor's office. Somebody thought it was a bright idea to make sure the tests were good, never bothering to calculate that the move would cost over $4 billion and millions of patient-hours miminum per birth defect prevented. I conclude that FDA panels should be required to be at least a third people with math or epidemiology degrees, and that law should require the panel to do a simple cost-per-event-prevented analysis and sign off on spending other people's money.

Many people who benefitted tremendously from Vioxx but not other antiinflammatories would glady and rationally take the extra risk.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems a little less than murder to me, but still something to punish harshly to deter others and encourage whistle-blowing.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this trial you speak of?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

NEJM 2000 article. You can google it.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inchoate,

No offense even considered - I read it as you intended.

Blarg,

Thanks for the response anyway.



Very entertaining read here.

Matt

[CORed]

Fudging data is unacceptable. Criminal charges, as well as civil liability, are definitely in order.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Will the jury decide on the amount of time the person gets or just whether the person is guilty of that crime?

criag

[/ QUOTE ]

With the notable exception of death penalty cases, in th US, usually the jury determines guilt or innocence, and the judge sets the sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

NEJM publishes what they get. The articles are reviewed by other doctors prior to publication, but data are not verified - really no way to do that.

FDA approved the med based on the studies done by the company. Adverse event rules require reporting of heart attacks. I do not know if the FDA got full disclosure, but it is a serious infraction if they did not.

With full knowledge of the heart attack risks, presumably the drug would have had much lower sales, but I do not know that.