Jets Insider.com Forums - View Single Post - Lawsuit Claims Merck Overstated Mumps Vaccine Effectiveness

JetPotato · 06-25-2012, 06:54 PM

[QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430]The only information you are likely to get from the unsealing of the suit is that of the whistleblowers. [/QUOTE]

Interesting. So you figure Merck presented no evidence of its own to defend themselves? You figure that there aren't extensive records of research, development, clinical trails and an FDA filing. Care to explain?

[QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430]
So, given what we already know about their decision to come forward, [/QUOTE]

Which is what again? I see we know these two guys' names, the fact that they are former Merck employees, and we know that they stand to make a 10% whistleblowers fee in any money recouped for the government. What else?

[QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430]
yes, I'm inclined to believe that what they reported is the truth. [/QUOTE]

I see. So you're willing to assume, based on no facts of either sides of the case, based on a gut feeling? Do you think that there's any possibility that you're just a little biased against a company that you misguidedly believe is "untouchable"? Ask Merck how untouchable they were in their dealing with the FDA over Vioxx. Or their merged partner's $500 million consent degree from the agency.

[QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430]
Merck stood (stands) to lose quite a bit (market share, aka profits) had the allegations been proven true. They have little to fear from any kind of civil litigation as their product is 100% exempt from liability with regard to injury, lack of effectiveness, design defects or any other thing under the sun. This is about protecting the bottom line. Anything about the interest of public health is ancillary to that.[/QUOTE]

And what, above all else, guides a pharmaceutical company's bottom line? Hint: it's the trust of doctors and patients who buy their products. Not just their one vaccine, but their entire portfolio. Which is why these companies go to great lengths, investment and sacrifice years of patent exclusivity to get same and effective drugs to their patients. Because as soon as you lose public trust, you are doomed.

Sorry bud, I understand why you're jaded. But until we know the facts, no conclusion can be made.

06-25-2012, 06:54 PM	#11
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,209	[QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430]The only information you are likely to get from the unsealing of the suit is that of the whistleblowers. [/QUOTE] Interesting. So you figure Merck presented no evidence of its own to defend themselves? You figure that there aren't extensive records of research, development, clinical trails and an FDA filing. Care to explain? [QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430] So, given what we already know about their decision to come forward, [/QUOTE] Which is what again? I see we know these two guys' names, the fact that they are former Merck employees, and we know that they stand to make a 10% whistleblowers fee in any money recouped for the government. What else? [QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430] yes, I'm inclined to believe that what they reported is the truth. [/QUOTE] I see. So you're willing to assume, based on no facts of either sides of the case, based on a gut feeling? Do you think that there's any possibility that you're just a little biased against a company that you misguidedly believe is "untouchable"? Ask Merck how untouchable they were in their dealing with the FDA over Vioxx. Or their merged partner's $500 million consent degree from the agency. [QUOTE=Jetworks;4500430] Merck stood (stands) to lose quite a bit (market share, aka profits) had the allegations been proven true. They have little to fear from any kind of civil litigation as their product is 100% exempt from liability with regard to injury, lack of effectiveness, design defects or any other thing under the sun. This is about protecting the bottom line. Anything about the interest of public health is ancillary to that.[/QUOTE] And what, above all else, guides a pharmaceutical company's bottom line? Hint: it's the trust of doctors and patients who buy their products. Not just their one vaccine, but their entire portfolio. Which is why these companies go to great lengths, investment and sacrifice years of patent exclusivity to get same and effective drugs to their patients. Because as soon as you lose public trust, you are doomed. Sorry bud, I understand why you're jaded. But until we know the facts, no conclusion can be made.