Friday, February 22, 2008

Peer Review Discovery in Bextra/Celebrex Litigation

Pharmalot has the editorial from Science. For a view on the other side (i.e., not panicked at the prospect of discovery into peer review), see my Nebraska Law Review article from last year. The SSRN draft is here; feel free to send me an e-mail to get a reprint.

--BC

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2008/02/peer-review-dis.html

Experts & Science | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00e55079829b8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Peer Review Discovery in Bextra/Celebrex Litigation:

Comments

I had no history of heart trouble but after taking 400mg of celebrex for ninteen months I had a heart attack , scaring on my heart, and an irregular heartbeat which I now live with. I filed suit over three years ago but continue to wait for an outcome..My MD, my reumatologist , and my cardioloist all say that celebrex caused my heart problems and ruined my life..I have since discovered that the FDA is nothing more than a " rubber stamp " agency that is in bed with the drug companies... The American public continues to be lab rats for Pfizer..how long are we going to let this go on ? The Republicans continue to protect them with the help of the Republican Supreme Court..Shame on them all !!

Posted by: Don Hughes | Feb 26, 2008 12:55:20 PM

Pfizer should be held ctiminally liabel for their drug Celebrex...Instead they just duck and dodge and take no responsibility....Thanks for the heart attack Pfizer...And thanks for ruining my life.

Posted by: Don Hughes | Feb 26, 2008 12:58:31 PM

When NSAIDS get tested, subjects get taken off aspirin, due to overlap of effects. They do not block thromboxane, to thin the blood as aspirin does. Thus the risk of heart attacks gord up for the drug group and for the placebo group.

The rate of heart events in these two groups, in the Vioxx trial, is no longer statistically significant when the proper Fisher's Exact test is done. The difference certainly is too small to have any clinical significance.

Vengeful, scapegoating plaintiffs blame drug companies for adverse heart events caused by their lifestyle choices and for their innate risk factors. Out of control, pro-lawyer rent seeking, totally biased judges allow these meritless cases to continue. Huge payouts enrich the lawyers.

Every penny comes from the care of other patients. As a patient, I would support a patient direct action self-help group to deter this unjust lawyer and judge plunder of clinical care. These biased judges are enemies of clinical care, and threaten its quality.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Feb 28, 2008 12:51:24 AM

Post a comment