Originally published November 3 2005
Attorney accuses Merck of concealing information about Vioxx's dangers
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Attorney Christopher Seeger made his closing argument against Merck in the second Vioxx case brought to trial, and in his closing statements criticized the pharmaceutical giant for inadequate safety testing.
Inc. knew its painkiller Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and failed to inform doctors and the public in order to protect profits, an attorney for a man who blames the withdrawn drug for his 2001 heart attack told jurors on Tuesday.
In his closing argument, Christopher Seeger, lead attorney for the plaintiff in the second Vioxx case to go to trial, accused Merck of concealing evidence that the drug was associated with a rate of heart attacks five times higher than for from another common pain reliever, naproxen.
The jury began deliberating on Tuesday afternoon after receiving instructions from the judge.
Merck had said it believed naproxen had heart protective qualities which accounted for the difference in heart attacks seen with Vioxx in a study conducted years before the one that led Merck to pull the Vioxx from the market last year.
Seeger, in closing arguments lasting almost two and a half hours, rejected claims by the company that Vioxx did not cause the rupture of plaque in a coronary artery of his client, 60-year-old postal worker Frederick Humeston, that triggered the heart attack.
Using an animated slide of a coronary artery to illustrate his point, he argued that the drug inhibits the formation of prostacyclin -- a substance that prevents the formation of blood clots -- which in turn lead to heart attacks.
Vioxx had annual revenue of $2.5 billion before it was pulled from the market after a study last year showed long-term use doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
"Merck calculated cardiovascular warnings would cost the company 50 percent of its profits through 2006," Seeger said, referring to labeling on the drug the company declined to provide.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml