tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post1686690562264403404..comments2024-03-27T21:03:58.972-04:00Comments on Just A Life Sciences Blog...: The End Draws Nigh, For Fosamax® Femur Fracture MDL Claims -- Materially Good News For MerckUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-2500667285519231972015-06-29T17:45:03.443-04:002015-06-29T17:45:03.443-04:00I hope this is the case. I started Propecia in 20...I hope this is the case. I started Propecia in 2003. I was diagnosed with ED in 2006 and depression with cognitive issues in 2009, all prior to the label change. I was only 26 at the time I began taking it.<br /><br />I first spoke with my counsel in late 2011, so we're almost at the 4 year mark for me. Obviously a lot has been going on, but from the outside, sometimes it just seems like 4 years of nothing. I think once the bellwether cases are selected, it will make it feel like the case has finally started moving.<br /><br />Thanks for covering the case on here. I just found the blog and it is helpful to see case info here instead of having to look through PACER all the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-28386834629072457832015-06-26T17:53:43.093-04:002015-06-26T17:53:43.093-04:00I would think so... something to the effect where ...I would think so... something to the effect where there are doctor's records indicating a diagnosis of ED shortly after taking Propecia and prior to the label warning change. An even stronger case would be if that person started Propecia at a fairly young age and more bonus points if there is proof the plaintiff was healthy prior to taking Propecia.<br /><br />Mr. E<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-11783551968823636252015-06-23T23:13:38.786-04:002015-06-23T23:13:38.786-04:00So a really strong case might be someone that coul...So a really strong case might be someone that could show sudden and demonstrable sex drive collapse shortly after starting drug?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-91149695919050647492015-06-22T12:29:41.531-04:002015-06-22T12:29:41.531-04:00Quite so, on all points, Mr. E.
I'd say that,...Quite so, on all points, Mr. E.<br /><br />I'd say that, if the good doctor's study notebooks show a marked decrease in sexual functioning, and well prior to a time when Merck undertook to revise the label -- with or without FDA input... That might make all claimants in that time frame winners.<br /><br />But we shall have to wait and see -- about all of it.Condorhttp://shearlingsplowed.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-91526798276038935612015-06-22T11:25:15.917-04:002015-06-22T11:25:15.917-04:00As always, thanks for the info. Proving "decl...As always, thanks for the info. Proving "declining sexual prowess" in a court of law could be difficult but if the plaintiff had blood work done showing their hormone levels were far below normal that could be significant. Also, proving they were healthy prior to taking Propecia could be tricky so it seems every case will be very different from the next.<br /><br />Mr. E<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-84384683537853575332015-06-22T10:12:00.454-04:002015-06-22T10:12:00.454-04:00Just a few thoughts, Messrs. I and E --
There is ...Just a few thoughts, Messrs. I and E --<br /><br />There is a policy in the common law, that any actor ought not be held more culpable for making a warning, unless that warning caused greater injury.<br /><br />So, rarely will a warning be the basis of liability.<br /><br />Doubly so, where a federal agency REQUIRES the exact verbiage in that warning -- FDA literally dictates how these warnings are to read. So Wyeth v. Levine, in part, is about protecting drugmakers -- when they follow the FDA's explicit commands.<br /><br />NOW, if a plaintiff's injury was foreseeable BEFORE the warning -- no matter the source of the warning -- and s/he was in fact injured prior to the warning, or the warning was inadequate as a matter of law, AND can show that s/he would NOT have used the drug, if the warning had been given -- then, that plaintiff wins.<br /><br />Finally, Propecia may be unlike Fosamax in that sexual dysfunction may appear slowly, over time -- in the femur Fosamax cases, an injury occurred all at once -- a sudden, inexplicable femur fracture. Easy to mark the date of manifested injury, and so easy to pinpoint the applicable warning. <br /><br />All of which is to say, if plaintiffs can show declining sexual prowess, not primarily caused by simple advancing age, and show it during a period when Merck and or FDA ought to have known -- and warned -- that would be a winner.<br /><br />All others will be much closer calls.<br /><br />Just my musings -- from an unaided memory.<br /><br />Namaste<br />Condorhttp://shearlingsplowed.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-55981038333679903562015-06-21T15:05:25.816-04:002015-06-21T15:05:25.816-04:00"True..... but wouldn't the FDA's opi..."True..... but wouldn't the FDA's opinion carry more weight than Merck's in a court of law in regards to the label change?"<br /><br />I would think so, but I don't really know. I mean...the label change to me seems enormously important and practically proof that something's up with all of this. If Merck used to not warn of side effects that they are now mandated to warn about, that seems like proof that there was a failure to warn. - Mr. IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-73733757987897500152015-06-20T22:57:00.616-04:002015-06-20T22:57:00.616-04:00True..... but wouldn't the FDA's opinion c...True..... but wouldn't the FDA's opinion carry more weight than Merck's in a court of law in regards to the label change?<br /><br />Mr. E<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-18397292473873402582015-06-20T20:49:35.137-04:002015-06-20T20:49:35.137-04:00As to the admission of guilt, that also makes sens...As to the admission of guilt, that also makes sense to me, but perhaps Merck would argue that they were compelled by the FDA and still "don't believe there's a causal link" or something (i.e., they would not outright admit guilt). - Mr. IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-10132419563249890682015-06-20T20:48:01.336-04:002015-06-20T20:48:01.336-04:00And again, while I don't really know what I...And again, while I don't really know what I'm talking about here...I would imagine that plaintiffs who took the drug after the label change might have a stronger case against their prescribing physician whereas a plaintiff before might have a stronger case against Merck. But that's just what makes sense to me; no real knowledge of the process. - Mr. IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-28608742187362956552015-06-20T19:43:51.277-04:002015-06-20T19:43:51.277-04:00Mr. I beat me to the punch... that is exactly the ...Mr. I beat me to the punch... that is exactly the question I was going to ask. I know the label update is going to be a huge part of the Propecia MDL so the question is how does it affect the plaintiffs? Does it weaken the cases of those who came after? Conversely, does it strengthen the cases of those that took Propecia before the label change? Will the plaintiffs argue that the label change was essentially an admission of guilt?<br /><br />Mr. E<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-37742143591792564732015-06-20T16:42:26.354-04:002015-06-20T16:42:26.354-04:00Thanks for that. It is especially helpful for fol...Thanks for that. It is especially helpful for folks like me that haven't followed this stuff in the past. <br /><br />So does it seem like in the Propecia case that the plaintiffs that took the drug further in the past (i.e., before the warning label was updated) will have stronger cases than those that took it more recently? - Mr. IAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com