(MIS)QUOTED IN THE ECONOMIST . . . Thanks to the reader who emailed me the news that The Economist quoted me in "The lessons of Merck's bad day in court" (August 27 print edition).

Although not available online, here's the paragraph in which I was quoted:

Mark Lanier, the plaintiff's lawyer, made much of Merck's allegedly deliberate economy with the truth, and played on the current public hostility towards the drug industry to win his case. This was despite the lack of any scientific evidence that Vioxx actually killed Mr Ernst. Evan Schaeffer, another personal injury lawyer, says that it had been widely assumed this lack of evidence made the case "unwinnable for the plaintiffs".

I've been interviewed by The Economist before, but not about Vioxx, so I assume the writer was quoting a Vioxx post where I wrote as follows:

One important thing to take away from today's verdict, even though it will presumably be reduced by virtue of the Texas law on punitive damages, is that this was a case perceived to have causation problems that made it virtually unwinnable for the plaintiffs.

The quote in The Economist implies that I thought the plaintiff's case in Ernst v. Merck lacked causation evidence. In fact, I only said that this was the perception, largely because it's what Merck told the press. My views about the plaintiff's scientific evidence were directly the opposite, as I said in my post "Vioxx and Arrhythmias."

My collected Vioxx posts are here. If you are (a) someone who was harmed by Vioxx or (b) a lawyer who wants to refer your Vioxx cases to a highly-competent team of mass-tort lawyers, look here.

Comments

[Yeoman]

Neat that the Economist would stop in here to mine quotes from you, however. Quite a feather in your cap, really.

[Evan]

Yeoman: I agree. Thanks.

[Mike]

After that article, what incentive is there for you to address both sides here? If the tort reformers are going to twist (strike that: lie about) what you say, then really, you have to sacrifice some candor.

[Evan]

Mike: The article was written by someone at The Economist, not a tort reformer. Although I know the magazine often slants its coverage in the same way that a tort reformer might, it was probably just a case of sloppy writing rather than something deliberate. Am I being naive?

[Ted]

I suspect the Economist got it from Overlawyered, where Walter did quote you correctly, which in turn would answer Mike's question about incentives.

[JR]

"One important thing to take away from today's verdict. . . . is that this was a case perceived to have causation problems that made it virtually unwinnable for the plaintiffs."

With all due respect, part of the problem comes from your use of passive voice with the actor omitted. You stated that the case "was . . . perceived." Did I perceive it? You? Tort reformers? Plaintiffs' attorneys? Merck? There is not a clear actor in your sentence.

[Evan]

JR: Yes, the passive voice is fraught with peril. You have a good point.

[Mike]

Once I wrote: "Even if x, B still loses because he can't prove y." The response said, "Given that they conceded we've proven a..." So now I always write, "Even if x (and we don't concede x), B still loses because he can't prove y."

Thus: "[T]his was a case perceived (wrongfully) to have causation problems that made it virtually unwinnable for the plaintiffs."

Awkward? Sure. But lawyers and journalists are very good at taking license with one's words. So I've learned that unless I want to provide authority for my opponent's arguments, it's better to be a little awkward.