Hang on; the US case wasn't about someone being blinded by Vioxx, it was about someone being killed and AFTER Merck were made aware of a report which indicated that the risk of heart attack was multiplied 6 times by Vioxx. The victim, Robert Ernst was 59, and Merck were found to be negligent in that case. Now I don't favour hamstringing medical research, but in this case, 103 UK Vioxx related DEATHS have already been notified, and the number could rise to as many as 2,000; and that's after Merck were aware of increased risk of heart attack, but elected not to issue any warning. Worldwide, the total could be 60,000 deaths. UK volunteers participating in clinical trials were not given essential safety information, including warnings of potentially fatal complications. I'm not shedding ANY tears for Merck on that basis.Sunday Times
Quote Originally Posted by Dr. David Graham, US Food & Drug Administration, reported in the Sunday Times
“This,” Dr David Graham, a senior US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official, told a stunned Senate committee last November, “would be the rough equivalent of 500 to 900 aircraft dropping from the sky.”

He described it as “what may be the single greatest drug safety catastrophe”.
Still think that it's "crazy"? Because I don't. We're talking about corporate negligence that dwarfs the Ford Pinto case, or even Thalidomide (a drug which by the way is still in use, since it is safe and effective in many circumstances).