But I do want a complete record, on Boles I and II, here.
Very early in the morning on June 7, 2010, Merck put out a press statement -- but did not link to it -- on the front page of its website. The statement, in essence, said Merck would defend itself vigorously in Boles II, the "bellweather" Fosamax® trial getting underway that morning. Merck left the release buried on a backpage, for company news. Now a few regional papers are running it, without additional commentary. I am sure that is what Merck was hoping for.
I am also sure it was hoping bigger papers would have done so, and done so on Monday or Tuesday. The whole episode seems a little desperate -- and a little out of character for the usually tight-lipped press corps in Whitehouse Station -- in any event, do go read it, but take it with a truckload of salt. This much of it is beyond dispute:
. . . .The plaintiff in the case alleges she used Fosamax from 1997 to 2006 and that she suffered various jaw problems and complications following two tooth extractions in June 2002, including a several day hospitalization in 2004 to treat her condition. . . .
Our clinical trials, conducted both before and following approval, have involved more than 28,000 patients, including more than 17,000 treated with Fosamax," said Bruce N. Kuhlik, executive vice president and general counsel of Merck. . . .
Like I said -- this smells like a little bit of jittery nervousness, out of Whitehouse Station.
What New Merck's General Counsel fails to mention is that those trials were conducted, in part, on people who didn't have osteoporosis, at all. The data was thus skewed by being derived from an overly-healthy population -- vis-a-vis the people who actually ought to have been taking the drug, for bone-disease:
I'll report any additional actual news, out of Judge Keenan's Manhattan federal District Courtroom, right here. [Much later update, of an auspicious. . . birth. Smile.]
No comments:
Post a Comment