Oooops!!

Merck has some 'splainin' to do. NYTimes (07.19.05):

"In a 2001 letter to doctors, Merck seriously understated the heart risks faced by patients taking its painkiller Vioxx, according to evidence presented Tuesday in the first Vioxx lawsuit to reach trial." At Vioxx Trial, a Discrepancy Appears to Undercut Merck's Defense

Merck's letter said "only 0.5 percent had incurred 'cardiovascular events,' or heart and circulation problems." Which means that only 20 out of "the more than 4,000 who took Vioxx during the study" experienced problems. On the other hand, there was this pesky "internal analysis of the study" which said that "14.6 percent of the Vioxx patients - or 590 people - had cardiovascular troubles while taking the drug", and that "2.5 percent, or 101 people, had serious problems, like heart attacks." ""In testimony Tuesday, [senior Merck scientist Dr. Nancy] Santanello struggled to respond to [plaintiff's lawyer W. Mark] Lanier's repeated questions about the letter." Struggled? That might be an understatement. "'You know the way this is written is wrong, isn't it?' Mr. Lanier asked her." "'It's not very precise,' Dr. Santanello said." Not really, considering the the actual percent in the letter was understated by a factor of almost 30. "'The letter does say to read the study for complete information,' she said." Damn doctors, thinking they could just rely on one itty-bitty letter. "Mr. Lanier also played Merck's television advertisements for Vioxx, which did not mention the drug's possible heart risks. Later, he showed the jury e-mail messages between two top Merck executives in which they complained about the Food and Drug Administration's proposed label for Vioxx. In one message, Dr. Edward M. Scolnick, Merck's top scientist, referred to the F.D.A. officials as 'bastards.'"