It’s been on the market 27 years man I’m pretty sure they knew that side effects didn’t go away after stopping the medication thus people were stuck with them. PFS
1 Like
Does this mean settling for a pittance is a very bad idea when we may be within a few years of finding a concrete causative link?
I can’t comprehend why some have taken these settlements of thousands of dollars unless they have been forced into premature action by something I don’t understand. I know virtually nothing of law.
I’m not kidding when I say you may want to join up with the parents of post-Accutane patients and suicide victims if you are going to go this route. MHRA have more or less slammed the door in their faces on the issue of sexual dysfunction and suicide.
2 Likes
This is really a difficult and complicated question to answer and I can’t speak for why other people maybe did or didn’t agree to the settlement.
But the lawyers used questionable tactics to get people to sign. They disclosed very little information about the settlement, they gave an artificially pressured time line to sign, and at least I was personally threatened that they would drop my case and nobody else was interested in taking the cases.
It’s always hard in life to be the relatively smaller guy.
2 Likes
Well, living a life in the shadow of being wrecked by a drug puts one in a position of feeling pressured to take any money they can for the sake of survival.
Makes sense in the context you provided why some of those who took the settlement later came here to say they felt like their lawyers were in cahoots with Merck.
Yes, it’s not quite accurate to say the lawyers were “in cahoots” with Merck but it felt like it at times. With any human relationship, there are always conflicts of interest in life. Sometimes the lawyers success is aligned with your success, but never entirely. There are ethical rules set by the bar association that prevent lawyers from totally fucking over their clients. Especially towards the end of cases, the lawyers are less aligned with their clients, and like Merck, all the lawyers want to wrap things up as quickly as possible and call it a day. That’s when it probably most feels like they’re “in cahoots”.
2 Likes
Are you sure that is the case if proof that Person X caused the injury emerges only years later? Lets say I took finasteride in 2014, and know of its side effects in 2015, but can proof a causation only 10 years later 2025.
Would the law really prohibit me from filing a lawsuit if I do it immediately after needed evidence emerges?
Btw.: In my case the doctor told me that people didnt actually belief in the permanent side effects warning.
What good is a label if the medical field doesnt belief in it and lets patients know?
We need a better label and the medical field needs to change their tune.
There is no contradiction between 1) someone knowing something and 2) not being able to prove they knew it beyond reasonable doubt. Burden of proof is called a burden not by coincidence. In fact, I am quite puzzled anyone would even suggest that 1 must necessarily lead to 2. This makes no sense.
In addition to the Reuters article info, which @Frustrated is talking about, there is a lot of additional incontrovertible evidence that Merck absolutely knew everything about finasteride based on decades of animal research with the substance and with DHT.
And gullible people like me took that hook line and sinker, believed in merc that was a useless hormone because they were scientist and experts… I will never trust the medical system again.
2 Likes
The liability laws in Europe are different form the US. As far as I know, in Europe you have a liability case if there is a plausible causative link between your injuries and the drug. I.e. burden of proof is lower. This is a recent development in EU law I think. Research it.
I totally get this belief but it is something that needs to be improved. We’ve all been horribly burned by the medical system and it would be uncontroversial to say that it has some huge blindspots and flaws. The medical system is designed in spirit to help people and when things get scaled up and industrialized, it creates problems. In time, I hope you learn to heal from this traumatic experience and find and use the benefits of the health care system. Of course, it is always important to have a healthy dose of skepticism.
If the evidence is so clear we can look forward to the success of the foundations petition demanding that the FDA update the leaflet to reflect the symptomatology of PFS. Lets see if that happens.
1 Like
I think the only way we will get any real justice is if a major celebrity admits to having PFS.
1 Like
It would be great if the FDA acts on the petition but it wouldn’t change what’s already out there. There are a lot of politics within the FDA, Trump is still the head of state, and there is institutional inertia to do nothing.
Same thing with respect to the Ukrainian scandal. The facts are all out there in plain site for everybody to see but politics will play a role in the Congressional process. Whether or not Congress acts on it doesn’t change whether or not there is enough evidence to show something happened.
Just read the materials already.
I remember when someone burned themselves with coffee and they sued McDonald’s and won. I feel like genetic damage and increased suicide and depression is a bit more serious than a coffee spill.
We will win this. Merck is probably already preparing for these studies that are coming out.
3 Likes
In the U.K. if you have had an injury you have 3 years to file a claim that’s what I know from my own experience and I don’t know how it works in America exactly but I got numerous replies from lawyers over there talking about statutory of limitations act so I assume there is a time restriction on this from date of injury.
Just wanted to chip in with two things re the Reuters article: The stuff revealed suggested Merck were aware of enduring sexual dysfunction. Whether you can extrapolate that to awareness of “PFS” at that time is a matter of opinion. PFS has multisystemic effects and does not need to need to entail sexual dysfunction per se.
In terms of the evidence presented to the court, unless there’s been an update to the Reuters’ motion for an explanation, no one knows why the judge resealed the info. No explanation was given.
3 Likes
It’s not going to matter in the U.K though as Merck is based in New Jersey and that is were the motion has to be filed so I’m not sure on what limitations America has pertaining to time and injuries or if it’s similar to here.
The defoliant, Agent Orange, was an epic catastrophe and somehow veterans, and even non-veterans, suffered exceptional damage often leading to disability. This isn’t including citizens of countries where it was used.
IIRC, information was released that the link between dioxins (Agent Orange was chock-full of them) and health effects was known by chemical manufacturers and the US military but no punitive action was taken against them and no reparations were made by either entity to victims due to the statute of limitations being up.
In European nations, it may be a different story.
1 Like