The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
after that case the attorneys appealed judge sarris's decision not to allow the other cases to come through and the plaintiff's attorneys won and I believe the damages in in the broader case were a little over three hundred thousand dollars excuse me 300 million dollars
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the judge on the case who is a great judge and really trying to do the right thing had not allowed other other lawsuits against uh against other by other payers against Pfizer to go through to to be tried in her court because she said you can't prove that every doctor was influenced by Pfizer's marketing and if you can't prove that every prescription was influenced by Pfizer's marketing then one of the circuit appeals court had said you can't try the case