Merck Wins New Jersey VIOXX(R) Product Liability Case; Jury Rejects Claims of Long-Term VIOXX User

"The company acted responsibly, the science was on our side, andthe jury agreed," said Jim Fitzpatrick of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, amember of Merck's defense team in Doherty v. Merck. "Mrs. Dohertywould have suffered a heart attack whether she was taking VIOXX ornot. Before ever hearing of VIOXX, Mrs. Doherty had multiple riskfactors for heart disease, including high cholesterol, diabetes, highblood pressure and obesity."

Today's verdict marks the third time in four cases that a NewJersey jury found in Merck's favor on a plaintiff's product liabilityclaim.

In the case, Merck presented evidence that it carefully studiedVIOXX before and after FDA approval, and consistently made the resultsof those studies available to the FDA and the medical community.

The jury also found in Merck's favor on the plaintiff's consumerstatute claim, specifically finding that Merck did not misleadconsumers in its marketing efforts.

"Merck is pleased with the jury verdict," said Kenneth C. Frazier,senior vice president and general counsel of Merck. "Today's outcomereinforces our commitment to defend these cases on a case-by-casebasis."

Elaine Doherty, a homemaker from Lawrenceville, N.J., alleged thatshe took VIOXX 25 mg daily from June 28, 2001, until she suffered aheart attack on Jan. 19, 2004, at age 65. She continued to take themedicine until Merck voluntarily withdrew it from the market inSeptember 2004.

Merck was represented by Diane Sullivan of Dechert LLP, inPrinceton, N.J., and Paul Strain of Venable LLP, in Baltimore, Md. Ms.Sullivan was the lead counsel in the first New Jersey case, in whichthe jury found that the Company acted responsibly in providinginformation to the medical community.

This is the seventh case that has gone to trial. In April, a NewJersey jury rendered a split verdict in a case involving twoplaintiffs. The jurors rejected a claim by Thomas Cona that VIOXXcontributed to his heart attack, and found in favor of John McDarby.Merck plans to appeal the portions of the verdict that it lost. InFebruary, Merck won the first federal case when jurors in Plunkett v.Merck rejected claims that VIOXX caused the heart attack of a Floridaman. In November, jurors in New Jersey ruled in favor of Merck, inHumeston v. Merck, the first New Jersey case. Finally, Merck intendsto appeal last August's plaintiff verdict in a Texas state court inErnst v. Merck, as well as April's plaintiff verdict in a Texas statecourt in Garza v. Merck.

An eighth case is currently under way in Los Angeles.

About Merck

Merck & Co., Inc. is a global research-driven pharmaceuticalcompany dedicated to putting patients first. Established in 1891,Merck currently discovers, develops, manufactures and markets vaccinesand medicines to address unmet medical needs. The Company devotesextensive efforts to increase access to medicines through far-reachingprograms that not only donate Merck medicines but help deliver them tothe people who need them. Merck also publishes unbiased healthinformation as a not-for-profit service. For more information, visitwww.merck.com.

Forward-Looking Statement

This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as thatterm is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of1995. These statements are based on management's current expectationsand involve risks and uncertainties, which may cause results to differmaterially from those set forth in the statements. The forward-lookingstatements may include statements regarding product development,product potential or financial performance. No forward-lookingstatement can be guaranteed, and actual results may differ materiallyfrom those projected. Merck undertakes no obligation to publiclyupdate any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of newinformation, future events, or otherwise. Forward-looking statementsin this press release should be evaluated together with the manyuncertainties that affect Merck's business, particularly thosementioned in the cautionary statements in Item 1 of Merck's Form 10-Kfor the year ended Dec. 31, 2005, and in its periodic reports on Form10-Q and Form 8-K, which the Company incorporates by reference.