Most reasonable people expect that a drug company would care for its patients and would do everything possible to save their lives - or at least not see them die while it knows that it can stop it. But according to a top Merck scientist, Ed Scolnick, when Merck found out that more patients were dying in a trial on Alzheimer's patients than those on a placebo, Merck told the FDA (to complete its legal obligation) but kept the critical information from doctors and patients.

Scolnick admitted that as early as 2001 Merck knew that Vioxx was killing people and the public should have been told. Instead the drug was recalled only in September of 2004, resulting in as many as 140,000 personal injuries (with 60,000 deaths in the US alone).

In another startling finding by noted biostatistician Richard Kronmal, he has found that not only are Vioxx patients are more likely to suffer from heart attacks and strokes, they also have a higher probability of getting Alzheimer's Disease.

It is interesting though that Ed Scolnick who was involved very closely in defending Vioxx from all its critics did not actually see this specific piece of data. His emails that have ridiculed the FDA and all other scientists show how little regard the company had for anyone who did not agree with them. In another email that was presented in court, Scolnick wanted a "boil in oil" a stock analyst who wanted to criticize Vioxx.

Related article: Merck intimidated all Vioxx critics

The law firm that is spearheading Vioxx litigation from almost all vicims overseas has announced yet another lawsuit againt Merck. This time it is the victims in South Africa who have filed a class action lawsuit against the drugmaker that has admitted in court hearings that it knew about deaths of some users as early as 2000 but did not inform physicians unless they specifically asked about it. The drug was recalled only on September 30, 2004.

David Anstice, a Merck executive said last week that the company met its legal obligation to inform the FDA about data on deaths of people in several study trials, one known as VIGOR and others on people with Alzheimer's disease. Those studies found many more people on Vioxx than other pain-relievers died from a variety of causes, including heart attack. However, since it was not required to report that data voluntarily to patients and doctors, it continued to aggressively market the drug even as people worldwide were dying. And by exploiting the legal loopholes, not only did Merck abuse the FDA, it also ignored warnings from the agency when it did act. At the same time, the company also continued to intimidate anyone who questioned the safety of Vioxx.

Related article: Merck is still deceiving everyone about Vioxx

In the Mike Humeston versus Merck trial, we have already heard how drugmakers abuse the FDA. The opinions of Ed Scolnick are very enlightening to anyone who ever plans to work at the FDA. If this is the opinion the drug industry executives have of the overall agency, what about whistleblowers like Dr. David Graham - the scientist who exposed the mess at the Agency, estimated the number of injuries from Vioxx, and presented solid proof why the drug should have never been approved.

Well, he now has many supporters. Dr. Benedict Lucchesi has already said that Merck's position on the safety of Vioxx is unsubstantiated. His views were in line with those of Dr. Richard Kronmal who analyzed a lot of statistical data and showed that Merck let a trial continue despite the fact that people were dying.

Intimidation of Vioxx critics

It is no secret that Merck put together a plan to "neutralize" any critic of Vioxx. Along with Merck employees, the company was using other "experts" who wanted to stop any criticism of the drug. Professor Lee Simon of Harvard University was threatened by Louis Sherwood, then a senior vice president at Merck, for raising questions about the drug. Since Merck is so well connected, the company was successful in hurting the career of Dr. Simon - a part of their neutralization effort.

Another victim of Merck's anger was Dr. Gurkirpal Singh who was also threatened by Merck after he requsted some data on Vioxx as part of his research.

In testimony today, David Anstice, a Merck executive accepted the fact that Louis Sherwood was asked to stop contacting Vioxx critics but refused to admit that these people were intimidated.

Related article: Merck ignored FDA warning letter on false Vioxx safety claims

All Americans now know that they cannot trust the FDA since it is very close to the pharmaceutical industry. For instance, pharma industry employs lobbyists specifically for the FDA. There are also more pharma lobbyists than members of Congress. FDA collects hundreds of millions of dollars in fees from pharma companies that makes up a major portion of its budget. And finally, drugmakers fund the election campaigns of (mostly Republicans) politicians.

So you would think that they would have warm feelings for each other. After all, the FDA pretty much does what the drug companies want. Well, it turns out in the world of business that nobody cares about what you do for them.

In the ongoing Vioxx trial of "Mike" Humeston versus Merck, there is a lot of disappointing news for FDA employees who are in bed with the pharma executives but are instead literally seen as whores by them.

"You were FANTASTIC," Edward Scolnick, president of Merck Research Laboratories until 2002, wrote to his Vioxx development team in a Feb. 8, 2001 e-mail (presented in the court by attorneys for the plaintiff) after a Merck presentation to an FDA advisory committee. "You made them look like grade D high school students."

When a colleague called the proposed warning about dangers of Vioxx "ugly" in an e-mail, Scolnick responded: "It is ugly cubed. They are #&$% (expletive)."

"I have never seen being nice to the FDA, except on rare occasions, pay off," he wrote in another e-mail.

"I assure you that I will not sign off on any label that had a cardiac warning," Scolnick wrote in a November 2001 e-mail referring to the cardiovascular risks of the painkiller.

Lesson: Don't write what you feel in an email. You never know when it will end up in court.

Related article: Merck deliberately ignored FDA warning on Vioxx safety risks

In the ongoing trial in the case of Humeston versus Merck, one of the main points of contention is when Merck knew about the risks of Vioxx and what did it do about them. It is becoming quite clear now that Merck continued a well-organized campaign to massage the facts while it has data that showed that Vioxx was just too dangerous a drug to stay on the market.

Chris Seeger, the attorney for Frederick "Mike" Humeston pulled out a press release from May 2001 with the title "Merck Confirms Favorable Cardiovascular Safety Profile of Vioxx" (by the way, it is no longer possible to find this document on Merck's website nor the FDA's letter to Merck but thanks to Google's cache we were able to retrieve the latter document).

Thomas W. Abrams, Director, Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications at the FDA wrote a waring letter to Merck President and CEO Raymond Gilmartin (who has since been fired for mishandling the recall of Vioxx). "Specifically, we refer to promotional audio conferences given on behalf of Merck by Peter Holt, MD, a press release, and oral representations made by Merck sales representatives to promote Vioxx. As part of its routine monitoring and surveillance program the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) has reviewed your promotional activities and materials and has concluded that they are false, lacking in fair balance, or otherwise misleading in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and applicable regulations."

The wording of the letter was very strong and accused the firm of minimizing the risks found in the VIGOR trial and misrepresenting the safety of the drug. The letter specifically mentioned that patients on Vioxx were observed to have a four to five fold increase in myocardial infarctions (MIs) compared to patients on the comparator non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), Naprosyn (naproxen). Since the FDA is a government agency, it only did what the bureaucrats love to do - write memos. Most experts now believe that the right thing to do at that time was to ban Vioxx.

While the FDA criticized the fact that Merck was hypothesizing that Aleve may do a better job at protecting the heart but "that there is another reasonable explanation, that Vioxx may have pro-thrombotic properties." The FDA letter further continued, "You have also engaged in promotional activities that minimize the Vioxx/Coumadin (warfarin) drug interaction, omit important risk information, make unsubstantiated superiority claims against other NSAIDS, and promote Vioxx for unapproved uses and an unapproved dosing regimen. In addition, in misrepresenting the Vioxx/warfarin drug interaction you also misrepresent Vioxx’s safety profile by minimizing the potentially serious risk of significant bleeding that can result from using Vioxx and warfarin concomitantly."

The letter mentioned that by minimizing these potential risks and misrepresenting the safety profile for Vioxx raises significant public health and safety concerns. In a later study the FDA estimated that as many as 140,000 Americans have been injured by Vioxx and 60,000 may be dead.

Misleading audio conferences

It is also widely known that Merck hired several pseudo-experts who were getting paid by the company for speaking about the safety of Vioxx. One of them was Dr. Peter Holt who also attracted FDA's attention. The agency thought that "The promotional audio conferences identified above, arranged by, and presented on behalf of, Merck were false or misleading in that they minimized the MI results of the VIGOR study, minimized the Vioxx/Coumadin drug interaction, omitted important risk information, made unsubstantiated superiority claims, and promoted Vioxx for unapproved uses and an unapproved dosing regimen."

Regarding the press release that we could not find, as indicated above, the FDA says that "is also false or misleading for similar reasons stated above. Additionally, your claim in the press release that Vioxx has a "favorable cardiovascular safety profile," is simply incomprehensible, given the rate of MI and serious cardiovascular events compared to naproxen. The implication that Vioxx’s cardiovascular profile is superior to other NSAIDS is misleading; in fact, serious cardiovascular events were twice as frequent in the VIOXX treatment group (101 events, 2.5%) as in the naproxen treatment group in the VIGOR study."

Merck sales reps deceived doctors and FDA

Further the notorious sales reps of Merck who learned how to dodge safety questions from doctors by training through games like Dodgeball also were mentioned by FDA in the warning letter. "Merck sales representatives have engaged in false or misleading promotional activities that also minimize the potentially serious MI results observed in the VIGOR trial. Specifically, Merck sales representatives made false or misleading statements to DDMAC reviewers at two different professional meetings. At your exhibit booth during the 119th Annual Meeting of the Maryland Pharmacists Association (MPhA), in Ocean City, Maryland, June 9 – June 12, 2001, your representative stated that the increased MI rate seen in patients on Vioxx in the VIGOR study is due to the fact that naproxen works just like aspirin (i.e., inhibits clotting and platelet aggregation). In addition, during the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (ASHP), in Los Angeles, California, June 3 – June 6, 2001, your representative stated that Vioxx had a greater MI rate in the VIGOR trial because naproxen is cardioprotective, having platelet effects similar to aspirin. These statements made by your sales representatives are misleading for the reasons stated above," the FDA wrote.

Merck ignored FDA warnings

"Due to the seriousness of these violations, and the fact that your violative promotion of Vioxx has continued despite our prior written notification regarding similar violations," the FDA wanted Merck to act immediately. But as is well know now, Merck and FDA simply dragged the process for years due to bureaucratic delays. The drug was left on the market for another three years even as Merck and FDA fought over the language on the label of Vioxx.

Merck's desperation at the Humeston vs Merck trial in Atlantic City is apparent. When Diane Sullivan violated the terms of the trial, she received a reprimand from Judge Carol Higbee. In fact Merck's legal team behaved in such a manner that the Judge threatended to declare a mistrial.

You would hope that the company would learn and not repeat the bad behavior. On the other hand, after world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Benedict Lucchesi declared that even one dose of Vioxx can lead to heart attacks and strokes, another Merck attorney Stephen Raber literally started to shout at him. Things got so ugly that Judge Carol Higbee had to intervene and ask the attorney to keep his voice down.

Dr. Benedict's testimony may very well prove to the decisive factor in Merck's second loss in Vioxx litigation. The company suffered a major setback when it lost its first trial in Angleton, Texas.

Recommended article: Merck continues its deception campaign

One of the most remarkable piece of testimony in Vioxx litigation came from world-renowned cardiologist Dr. Benedict Lucchesi. In total contrast to Merck's position that a patient must take Vioxx for a minimum of 18 months to suffer a personal injury, he says that even intermittent use can cause a heart attack. He went so far to say that someone who has taken Vioxx even once may be at risk.

This has far reaching consequence on which patients can sue Merck. All this time, attorneys were discouraging anyone who had not taken the drug for 18 months to come forward. They were also reluctant to take those cases where the patient had not suffered a heart attack. However, today's testimony shows that almost all the 20 million people who took the drug were injured in some way even if they did not have a heart attack or stroke.

In cross-examining Dr. Lucchesi, who is widely regarded as an authority in the world of cardiology, Merck lawyers tried to discredit him despite the fact that he invented the pacemaker and has been a professor at University of Michigan Medical School for decades. The company's legal team failed to block his testimony twice in the past. In the end, Dr. Lucchesi stood his ground except that he admitted that Vioxx is safe for many people.

Related article: Merck continues with its deception campaign

When someone of the credibility of Dr. Benedict Lucchesi says that Merck put profits ahead of human life, you have enough reason to trust him than the company. But Merck is not giving up. In fact, the company is desperately trying to change public opinion through aggressive advertising - the same tactic it used to sell Vioxx to unsuspecting victims who did not need it and never benefited from it.

While prescription drug advertising edged downward by 0.4 percent to $2.25 billion during the first half of this year, according to TNS Media Intelligence, as pharmaceutical companies cut back on consumer marketing in the face of increased public and governmental scrutiny, Merck did the opposite. During this period, Merck spent $8.9 million on image ads, up from $4.6 million during all of last year. And if you thought Merck was advertising its drugs through one of those "talk to your doctor about XYZ," you are wrong. Merck actually embarked on a "Putting Patients First" campaign trying to project an image of a company that actually cares about patients. Hard to believe when it keeps attacking the patients in the ongoing Vioxx litigation.

So why would Merck become so aggressive now with advertising? A review of Merck's board of directors will tell you that since last year Rochelle B. Lazarus, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide (advertising and marketing communications) has joined the firm as a director.

You can, however, get some consolation from the fact that you are not alone in Merck's well-organized campaign to deceive and mislead. It is doing the same to its employees. After the company lost the Carol Ernst's lawsuit, the company CEO Richard Clark said, "We have great strengths as a company, a business that is fundamentally sound, and a critically important life-saving mission...Nothing in last week's verdict changes that."

Recommended article: Merck's tactics invite judge's anger

KB Moll, the US based law firm that has already helped Vioxx victims from Italy, England, France, Australia and Canada is now helping New Zealand citizens sue Merck in the US. Since Merck is an American corporation and all of the drug development, testing, sales and marketing was coordinated out of the company's offices in the US, it is possible to sue the company there even if you are not a US citizen or resident.

Another reason why lawyers overseas prefer to sue in the US is that the product liabilities laws are clear and straightforward. The American attorneys are also willing to work with their clients under a system in which they pay nothing if the case is not decided in their favor (in which case the lawyers get a sizeable portion).

The first lawsuit was tried in Angleton, Texas and Merck was convicted of causing the death of Robert Ernst. The second trial Humeston VS Merck is in progress in Atlantic City and indications from first week of trial point to a second defeat for Merck.

Related article: Merck put profits ahead of human life, expert charges

In a country that otherwise seems to value life so much it is sad to see that not much had been heard from pro-life groups about the Vioxx tragedy. 140,000 personal injuries and as many as 60,000 Americans dead. But that does not mean that some honorable people are not upset. One of them is Dr. Benedict Lucchesi, the world-famous scientist who worked on the pacemaker. While testifying today in the Humeston vs Merck trial in Atlantic City today, tears came into his eyes as he said, "They (Merck scientists) are putting profits before life."

As is already known, when Vioxx was found to increase the rate of heart attacks more than Aleve, instead of doing anything about it, Merck simply paraphrased the conclusions to say that Aleve was a safer drug for the heart. Since the recall of Vioxx, a lot of new information has emerged on Merck's aggressive marketing tactics.

It is generally agreed that Merck knew all along that Vioxx side effects were just too high but the company wanted to compete with Pfizer's drugs Celebrex and Bextra. According to documents presented in court, Merck's own scientist Briggs Morrison and a consultant Dr John Oates also highlighted the risks of the drug but the marketing heads prevailed. The drug was eventually launched and heavily promoted through direct-to-consumer advertising.

The sales reps at Merck were trained in avoiding questions related to risks of Vioxx and they played games like Dodgeball to learn how to do that when doctors probed them.

Related article: Federal Vioxx trial on schedule in Texas

The speculation about the start date and venue of the federal Vioxx trial is now over. The trial will begin as originally scheduled on November 28 this year, though not in New Orleans, due to Hurricane Katrina tragedy. Instead, it will be conducted in Houston not too far from Angleton, Texas, where Merck lost the lawsuit filed by Carol Ernst.

US District Judge Eldon Fallon has discussed the matter with all parties involved and everyone is on board with the decision. Evelyn Irvin Plunkett is suing Merck for the death of her husband, Richard Irvin Jr., a man in his early 50s who had a sudden heart attack one month after taking Vioxx. She is being represented by Andy Birchfield.

This case is very similar to that of Mike Humeston who also took the Vioxx for just two months. The trial is currently underway in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Merck has been arguing that Vioxx causes no injuries unless it is taken for at least 18 months.

Related article: Texas Medicaid fraud case against Merck

We had reported earlier that during the pre-trial stage, Merck legal team had tried to block Dr. Benedict Lucchesi among others from testifying. Now as we said before Dr. Lucchesi is not just another doctor on the block. He is actually one of the most respected experts in the field of heart diseases not only in the US but worldwide. And if that does not impress you enough, he was on the team that built the pacemaker.

Well, Merck another unsuccessful attempt to block him from testifying but Judge Carol Higbee rejected it on the simple ground that the company had its chance at the pre-trial stage and it is too late to change the rules. One of the key points that he is expected to make is that even though Mike Humeston took the Vioxx for a very short period of time, the damage was done and he suffered from a heart attack. This is a direct onslaught on Merck's central argument that Vioxx killed only those people who took the drug for more than 18 months.

Related article: Merck's approach invites reprimand from judge and even threat of a mistrial

The second day of trial in the Humeston versus Merck has not gone well so far. There were sharp differences between Chris Seeger and the Merck legal team during the pre-trial stage, but that is fairly common. But things got ugly rather quickly.

First, as we reported earlier, Judge Carol Higbee threatened to declare a mistrial since Merck attorney Diane Sullivan violated the agreement that was reached prior to the start of the trial. She was not supposed to criticize trial lawyers during her presentation which she did.

But that was not enough for the Merck legal team. In their desperate attempt to win this case, a dispute over a 2005 FDA memo sparked another verbal exchange that did not look very professional. Judge Higbee has refused to let this document be presented in court since she calles it "unscientific" and full of contradictions. At that point Sullivan jumped from her chair, and as horrified court attendees looked on, she shouted, "This is unfair, this is really unfair."

A mistrial is likely to benefit Merck since the company's strategy is to drag Vioxx litigation process so that more plaintiffs get discouraged and do not file more lawsuits.

Related article: Profile of jurors in the trial

Merck's desperation was clearly visible at the second day of Humeston vs. Merck trial. A lot is at stake. The company lost its first case in Angleton, Texas and most analysts believe that it is unlikely that Merck will win this case either. However, since the company has not changed its fundamental legal strategy, it is resorting to "dirty" tactics often favored by conservative think tanks and business organnizations - blame the tort lawyers for all the ills of America.

Things got so ugly at one point that Judge Carol Higbee threatened to declare a mistrial today. Despite earlier agreement among the lawyers and the judge, the attorney for Merck, Diane Sullivan, attacked trial lawyers and charged that Frederick "Mike" Humeston was surrounded by lawyers. "That's not science, that's lawyering, lawyering, lawyering," she shouted as horrified judge and others in the courtroom cringed in their seats.

Humeston took Vioxx for injuries sustained during the war in Vietnam and within a matter of two months suffered a heart attack. The dispute is over the role of Vioxx. Merck lost almost of all its motions in pre-trial hearings and is under tremendous pressure to win this case. While it has backed off from its earlier offer to settle some cases, it may have to agree for some kind of global settlement if it loses the New Jersey case. Vioxx litigation is estimated to cost the company anywhere between $50 to 65 billions.

Recommended article: Should you settle or go to trial?

As opening arguments began in the Humeston vs. Merck trial today, Merck has a serious problem. One of its key witnesses, Dr. Merlin Wilson, a rheumatologist, will not be able to give testimony at the trial since he has been affected by Hurricane Katrina.

While the doctor and his family were able to evacuate on time and are now in Houston, Texas, his clinic and all his personal effects have been destroyed. It is not clear at this time but it is likely that Hurricane Katrina may also delay the federal lawsuits trial that was scheduled to start in New Orleans.

Dr. Wilson has prescribed Vioxx to his patients in the past and was expected to testify about the safety of Vioxx.

Related article: Profile of jury in Vioxx trial

Looks like former president Bill Clinton has a family member who has been hurt by Vioxx. Clinton recently spoke at an investor's forum in Hong Kong.

While he spoke on a whole range of political, social, and economic issues, one of the questions that was asked was about where he saw the right balance between protecting individuals and companies' rights after the recent Vioxx verdict in Texas.

"Well, the Vioxx case is actually a hard case -- and, I have a member of my family who suffered a long-term health problem from taking Vioxx by prescription - because we now know that the company (Merck) knew, before they even marketed Vioxx, what the dangers were," he said.

While Clinton favors some form of tort reform but he thinks that "there should be some alternative penalty which can be imposed if you can prove a company deliberately brought a product to market when its only experts told 'em not to do it, which is what happened with Vioxx. And a hell-of-a-lotta people got hurt on that deal."

As we reported earlier that jury selection has been completed in the Humeston versus Merck trial for which opening arguments begin on the morning of September 14, we have some more details on the jurors. This is important because after the verdict was announced in the Carol Ernst case, Merck, many business-friendly publications/columnists, and conservative groups had attacked the jurors instead of agreeing that Merck had knowingly sold a dangerous product. They accused jurors of being less educated, unable to understand complex issues, and totally biased against a drug firm.

Here is a brief background on some of the jurors:

• 8th grade reading teacher
• Bookkeeper at a china company
• Accountant at a hotel
• Stay-at-home mother
• Prosecutor
• Wife of a retired surgeon

We believe that American law allows any American citizen to become a juror in any litigation. Therefore, a juror's education or IQ or background should not be an issue. And if that jury members fail to understand something the fault is not with them, the fault is with the attorneys who failed in their task.

In fact, after Carol Ernst won her lawsuit, Dr. David Graham was the first one to congratulate them for their fair decision.

Recommended article: Texas jurors acted professional in delivering the Vioxx verdict

An important milestone has been achieved in the Humeston vs. Merck trial going on in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The lawyers on both sides have agreed to pick a ten-member jury consisting of seven women and three men.

The plaintiff, Frederick "Mike" Humeston, a Vietnam veteran is accusing Merck that Vioxx caused his heart attack. The company is, however, steadfastly denying that there was any link between his attack and Vioxx, even though the company recalled Vioxx because of higher incidence of heart attacks. Merck is arguing that people at his age, particularly if they also happen to be obese, often have heart problems.

You can add one more country to the list of countries whose citizens have sued Merck. According to Ynetnews, Israeli citizens plan to sue Merck in the United States. In another announcement today, an American law firm filed another class action lawsuit on behalf of Canadian citizens. Similar lawsuits by residents of France, Italy, UK, and Australia were filed earlier.

Attorney Vered Sadot who is representing Israeli Vioxx victims has a personal reason for taking on this case. Her father, Yosef Gutfeld, suddenly died due to a heart attack. He was taking Vioxx.

Not that Vioxx victims need any reminder about the unethical business practices that Merck used to mislead them, but a recently released movie "Side Effects" shows some of the dirty tricks that drug companies use to market their products. Now this is no movie based on a fictional story. On the other hand, Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau has turned her ten years' experience as a sales rep for a top drug company (not disclosed) into a darkly funny – and enlightening -- feature film starring Katherine Heigl ("Grey's Anatomy").

"Side Effects" reveals the strategies that pharma companies use to market their products to doctors. “Even the medical community has had limited knowledge as to what is really going on behind the scenes of these companies,” Slattery-Moschkau notes. “It was important to me to raise awareness with both doctors and patients.” She is absolutely right since Merck engaged in a well-organized deception campaign to mislead not only patients but also doctors, scientists, and the FDA.

Slattery-Moschkau filmed the entire production on a budget of less than $200,000, in Madison, Wisconsin, where she lives with her husband and children, A “closet writer,” she jotted down some of her astonishing experiences while in the industry on “stickie notes.” Eventually, she had a whole pile of them, and “the script practically wrote itself.”

“I reached out to Hollywood, found an agent for the project, and everyone the agent showed it to come up with more ideas about how to dumb it down. It got so generic; it was like a bad TV movie of the week. There was no more pharmaceutical industry in it. Then my husband said, 'ever thought about making it yourself?' Boom! I was off and running.

Despite strong opposition from Merck regarding broadcasting the Vioxx trial in Humeston case, it is very likely that TV cameras will be allowed in the court room. Judge Carol Higbee rejected the compay's arguments in a decision today. The trial begins Monday morning in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

While Court TV was the one to make the request for live coverage of the trial, it is unclear who will actually carry the broadcast live. Several television channels have expressed interest in the broadcast, but at the time of publishing of this article, it was unclear which channel will carry the trial live and at what time. Court TV is scheduled to do a live feed on the Internet.

Apart from being able to block testimony by an ethics expert, Merck has essentially lost all its motions in pre-trial proceedings, including a request to block experts from testifying before the jury.

While Merck was successful in blocking the testimony of an ethics expert in the Humeston vs. Merck trial starting next week, the company failed to convince that Judge Carol Higbee also block medical experts from testifying. Mike Humeston's attorney, Chris Seeger, will now be able to bring several top scientists that include :

1. Benedict Lucchesi is an expert in arrhythmias and recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award In Medical Education from his employer University of Michigan Medical School. In the Carol Ernst vs. Merck trial he testified that Vioxx led to the death of Bob Ernst. The jurors were convinced by his argument and held Merck responsible for Ernst's premature death.
2. University of Washington biostatistician Richard Kronmal is an expert in computer algorithms, cardiovascular data analysis, and clinical trials and will be able to provide insights on how Merck manipulated data to hide the risks of Vioxx.
3. Nicholas DePace is a well-known cardiologist in the Philadelphia area and has contributed enormous amount of research in the area of heart diseases. He is a Clinical Professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, a Fellow of The American College of Cardiology and, a Fellow of The American College of Chest Physicians.

Recommended article: No television broadcast of Humeston vs Merck trial

It is widely believed that Merck used unethical business practices in the manner in which it launched Vioxx and how long it took before announcing a recall in September last year. In fact, recent evidence confirms that as many as two years before the drug was launched the company knew that it was a dangerous drug.

So it was no surprise that Merck opposed testimony of an ethics expert, Michael Hoffman, executive director of the Center for Business Ethics, at Bentley College in Waltham, Massachusetts. Hoffman has written or edited 16 books on business ethics and is the author of over 60 articles. He is the past President of the Society for Business Ethics. For now, though, Merck's wish has been granted by Judge Carol Higbee and the jurors will not be hearing if Merck violated its own motto, "Where patients come first," because in the Vioxx case it is now very clear that profts came ahead of patients.

Michael Humeston vs. Merck starts next week and right now pre-trial hearings are going on in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Recommended article: Merck opposes broadcast of Vioxx trial

Victims of painkiller Vioxx and attorneys who are helping them were hoping that they would be able to watch the Humeston Vs Merck trial on Court TV. Apparently, Merck does not think that it is such a good idea. It is afraid that if more victims and lawyers watch the trial, it is going to hurt the company in forthcoming trials.

The company filed a motion early this week requesting a ban on television cameras from the courtroom during the trial. The channel is watched in 85 million homes in America. By any account, the Vioxx litigation is the largest ever recall of a product. The drug is estimated to have killed as many as 60,000 people in the United States alone and many more in other countries.

The lawsuit filed by Mike Humeston claims that he had a heart attack after he started taking Vioxx to relieve pain from wounds received during the Vietnam war. Jury selection begins on the 12th while opening arguments are expected to start Wednesday.

Related article: Pre-trial differences between Merck and Chris Seeger, attorney for Humeston

Federal Vioxx trial unlikely to be delayed

The federal Vioxx trial that was scheduled to start after Thanksgiving in New Orleans may not be delayed as the court has temporarily relocated to Houston, Texas. The court is in the process of relocating for three months, and then relocating to Baton Rouge in Louisiana.

At this time there is no specific announcement on the status of the Vioxx trial but all other proceedings have been delayed. However, if there is a delay, it is likely to be short. According to the clerk in Houston, they will try to stay as close as possible to the original schedule.

Hurrican Katrina has devastated the city of New Orleans and it is unclear what has happened to the documents in the court offices.

Related article: Humeston vs. Merck scheduled to start next week in New Jersey