VIOXX AND ARRHYTHMIAS . . . In the ongoing Vioxx trial in Texas, one of Merck's defenses is to say: "even if Vioxx is unsafe, it did not cause this particular plaintiff's injuries." In today's Wall Street Journal, the defense is explained like this:

Merck has maintained that there is no way Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst's death because his death certificate says he died of an arrhythmia--the interruption of the normal heart-beat rhythm. Merck says there is no link between Vioxx and arrhythmia.

Merck's theory is that Ernst's arrhythmia was caused by Ernst's atherosclerosis. See also Overlawyered. Interestingly, however, while Vioxx argues that there is no direct link between Vioxx and arrhythmia, there is also no direct link between atherosclerosis and arrhythmia. Meanwhile, a doctor not connected with the Vioxx litigation told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Vioxx and arrhythmia can be related:

"Atherosclerosis by itself doesn't cause an arrhythmia," said Anne Curtis, chief of the division of cardiology at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Fla., and an expert in arrhythmias. Dr. Curtis, who hasn't looked at Mr. Ernst's autopsy report nor any of his medical records, nor is she involved in any of the Vioxx cases, said it is potentially possible that a blood clot caused a heart attack, which then led to an arrhythmia, and ultimately death.

Since Vioxx causes blood clots, this is undoubtedly the direction plaintiff's counsel is heading in Texas. Links to the Wall Street Journal articles are unfortunately not available. My collected Vioxx posts are here.

Comments

[Ted]

I discuss the judge's rulings on Point of Law, in my speech at AEI, and in a forthcoming publication, two of which are publicly available to anyone who wants to Google for them, and the third will be soon enough.

Either Blue or Lanier was proud enough of the Oprah remark that they repeated the strategy and its motivation to the WSJ. They thought it significant, so it's more than a "little comment." Certainly Ms. Blas remembered it well. It's substantive enough that Merck has indicated (in one interview, if not in their official press release) that they may make it an appellate issue.

Evan is too intelligent a wordsmith to not know that he's made a specious attack on my use of the phrase "just shy of jury tampering."

[Aaron]

You can address the judge's rulings in other contexts but you are incapable of doing so here, where you instead prefer to carry on about Oprah? You'll excuse me for being unimpressed.