class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

FORUM

« Bush signs CAFA | Litigation lobby can't get its talking points straight »

February 18, 2005


FDA panel: Vioxx safe enough for market

"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meeting in Gaithersburg, Maryland, voted 17-15 that the benefits of Vioxx may outweigh its link to heart attacks and strokes in some patients. Earlier today, the panel voted to keep Pfizer Inc.'s similar painkiller Celebrex on the market, also with a warning highlighted in a black box on its label." (Bloomberg)

Back on Nov. 18, our editor linked to a Wall Street Journal editorial arguing that the Vioxx withdrawal might have been a mistake. See also our postings Oct. 4, Nov. 9, Nov. 18, Dec. 18, Dec. 27, Dec. 31, Jan. 5, Jan. 27, and Feb. 8.

Aside from allowing back on the market a drug deemed highly valuable by some of its consumers, what is the impact of the decision? The Bloomberg report quotes Steven Sean Hill, who manages a $3.5 billion fund at First Investor's Corp., as saying "I would think that it's going to make it harder for lawyers to make a legal case." One can only hope.

Posted by James R. Copland at 05:59 PM | TrackBack (1)



categories:
Medicine and Law
Vioxx/Drug Litigation









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.