It turns out the whole 18-month thing that Merck claimed for Vioxx is untrue. There was a "mistake" in the statistics. Honestly, I'm not sure it ever made any sense to me anyway. What I wonder is whether it's grounds for appeal. If a jury is shown completely incorrect and misleading evidence -- evidence that is practically the cornerstone of the defense, is it a valid trial at all?

I'm not sure. But if I were Mike Humeston, I'd be pretty pissed off right now.