Well currently it is. Maybe in the future it wont be and then a court case makes sense.
I am not siding with Merck. I just dont buy into the “Merck had conclusive information on the fact that finasteride caused PFS” and that “a big percentage of people is affected” narrative. To me it seems to go counter to available facts and anecdotal evidence.
I know there is an emotional need for some to say that the entire company from top to bottom is corrupt, a high percentage of people is affected and lawyers should jump to take on our case but are too lazy/corrupt to do so. To me that seems like a very emptional and infantile way to look at the situation.
-
Currently the number of registered members/survey participants clearly shows that a small number of people are severely affected. Maybe there is a larger number of people who are very mildly affected so that its hard to make a connection. But the claim that a high percentage of finasteride takers are severely affected is nonsense.
-
Merck, at least in the courts and lawyers opinion, could not have had conclusive information on PFS being caused by finasteride, otherwise they wouldnt have been able to settle for what amounts to basically nothing. At least that seems obvious to me. Maybe someone familiar with American law can explain to me, how a prove of Merck having conclusive information on PFS would not be enough to get a nice compensation.
-
Lawyers therefore are now making a rational decision, unless there were studies not properly looked at in the last court decision.