Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Allan Thoen's avatar

Welcome to the world of mass tort lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers based on adverse event reporting. Some patients report having extremely common symptoms after taking the drug, then everyone taking the drug starts looking for it, and pretty soon a disproportionate number of patients on the drug have reported the symptoms. Buckraking plaintiff lawyers get involved and pay experts with prestigious credentials to give opinions that amount to nothing more than "consistent with". FDA request new studies from the manufacturers which are inconclusive or take years, and a "consistent with" caution gets added to the drug labeling which further fuels the litigation. Some judges let the case go to the jury, some juries buy the theory and award large damages and hundreds of millions or billions are paid in settlements without regard to whether there is persuasive evidence of causation in general or in the specific cases. Often the matter is only resolved years later when enough people have taken the drug that it's possible to run epidemiology studies that are large enough to have sufficient statistical power to be persuasive. That system has made many lawyers rich, but that's about all there is to commend it.

Expand full comment
dysphemistic treadmill's avatar

Thanks, Ms. Shure. I sympathize with your exasperation. Your views line up with those of Cheryl Rofer, whom I also respect.

I am a great hater of the Putin regime, and I am sure that he would be happy to directly attack our embassy personnel if he could.

But there's no good proposal for a mechanism of injury here. And when I ask my more credulous friends for hard evidence, all I hear is... *crickets*.

Expand full comment
107 more comments...

No posts