tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post4859794505563231251..comments2024-03-27T21:03:58.972-04:00Comments on Just A Life Sciences Blog...: Mrs. Boles' Fosamax® ONJ Lawyer Will Have To Wait -- To Appeal His Sanctions OrderUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-82781687322516191362012-04-04T09:04:06.870-04:002012-04-04T09:04:06.870-04:00Yes -- I think Boles III is still awaiting a Septe...Yes -- I think <i><b>Boles III</b></i> is still awaiting a September 2012 date.<br /><br />As to the rest of yours, I guess that's what juries are for -- to figure out what were the facts. [All of what you wrote involves a series of allegations, not facts -- at least not facts, as found by the only jury to consider Mrs. Boles' case -- just to be clear.]<br /><br />In any event, a duly sworn federal trial court jury found Mrs. Boles' damages from Fosamax were to be compensated at $8 million. They were all right there, live in the courtroom, and apparently weren't persuaded that Mrs. Boles' smoking was the primary cause of her injuries.<br /><br />Perhaps they also expected that Merck would have warned about the increased risk to smokers -- who take Fosamax over long (greater than 3 year) stretches, without a drug holiday -- of seeing ONJ appear.<br /><br />Truly, the later developed study evidence suggests that profits were put ahead of patients, here --inasmuchas putting someone on Fosamax for life generates huge steady revenue streams for Merck, but many -- including Mrs. Boles, it seems -- didn't have osteoporosis at all, when they were started on Fosamax.<br /><br />That expansion of the definition of what conditions it ought to be prescribed formay well explain the size of the verdict.<br /><br />There is essentially no real, recognized disease called "osteopenia" -- it is term invented by Whitehouse Station marketing teams -- all allegedly, of course.<br /><br />It is the precursor to osteoporosis -- but "inventing" it greatly expands the eligible patient pool. That is Mrs. Boles' case.<br /><br />And so, I do expect large damages in the fall of 2012.<br /><br />Do stop back -- I appreciate your take on it -- I just don't get to the same conclusions, given Merck's part in the "semi-" off-label marketing effort (osteopenia v. osteoporosis), here.<br /><br />Namaste <br />All that you've writtencondorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11014613306197942748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4241416962008169508.post-36158552241945062532012-04-01T22:54:16.794-04:002012-04-01T22:54:16.794-04:00Is it now likely that Boles III is going to be put...Is it now likely that Boles III is going to be put off until September?<br /><br />Of course the jury could still decide that damages will be set as extremenly low as the $8 million verdict was exceedingly high.<br /><br />Ms Boles major contribution to her own condition as a heavy smoker despite all the information available to her must make her responsible for most of the damage. And perhaps she sohould have sued the tobacco companies if she felt someone other that her had to take the blame for what her smoking did.Gorrickianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17162183390916965240noreply@blogger.com