Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: SSL operation failed with code 1. OpenSSL Error messages: error:14077410:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:sslv3 alert handshake failure in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents() [function.file-get-contents]: Failed to enable crypto in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26

Warning: file_get_contents(http://webbiscuits.net/images/blan.gif) [function.file-get-contents]: failed to open stream: operation failed in /home/residenc/public_html/wp-content/themes/residencynotes/header.php on line 26
Wednesday, September 27th 2006

Batting .555

Point of Law points to the most recent Vioxx decision – Smith v. Merck – going to Merck in less than three hours.

A federal jury ruled in favor of Merck & Co. Inc. on Tuesday in a lawsuit over the painkiller Vioxx, finding there was not enough evidence to link the drug to a Kentucky man’s heart attack.

The jury, made up of six women and two men, deliberated for only about three hours before reaching a verdict. The jurors left the courthouse without commenting on their decision.

Robert Garry Smith, 56, claimed in U.S. District Court that the drug contributed to a heart attack he had 3 1/2 years ago. He said he had taken Vioxx for knee pain for about 4 1/2 months but didn’t realize at the time of the heart attack that Vioxx may have been a cause for concern.

Smith, like Garza (also see here), doesn’t even really have evidence he used Vioxx.

Beck said Smith’s medical records immediately following the heart attack do not show Smith told doctors he was taking Vioxx.

Beck said Smith’s memory might be hazy on that point, and added, “Often our imperfect memories are influenced, even unconsciously, by our own self interest.”

I basically just duplicated Point of Law’s post, but they provide excellent links.