<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court Reinstates Vioxx Lawsuit Against Merck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/court-reinstates-securities-lawsuit-against-merck/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/court-reinstates-securities-lawsuit-against-merck/</link>
	<description>News, Comment and Conversation</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: steven budge</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/court-reinstates-securities-lawsuit-against-merck/#comment-372067</link>
		<dc:creator>steven budge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:31:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15358#comment-372067</guid>
		<description>what court do you appeal to when the nj supreme court denis petition for certification</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what court do you appeal to when the nj supreme court denis petition for certification</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justice in Michigan</title>
		<link>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/court-reinstates-securities-lawsuit-against-merck/#comment-371770</link>
		<dc:creator>Justice in Michigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=15358#comment-371770</guid>
		<description>I wonder what the "alternative grounds" are...

This doesn't seem like an obvious preemption issue, but I suppose Merck could argue that the info they released was in turn with what FDA required as "public info" and that, if more was required, it would be FDA's responsibility, not Merck's.

Uh oh, I'm beginning to think like a defense attorney.  Too bad my salary doesn't.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder what the &#8220;alternative grounds&#8221; are&#8230;</p>
<p>This doesn&#8217;t seem like an obvious preemption issue, but I suppose Merck could argue that the info they released was in turn with what FDA required as &#8220;public info&#8221; and that, if more was required, it would be FDA&#8217;s responsibility, not Merck&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Uh oh, I&#8217;m beginning to think like a defense attorney.  Too bad my salary doesn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.160 seconds -->

