Re: Lawsuit questions need for Lipitor

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:

I think we're discussing law instead of medicine now. Suffice it to say that
juries tend not to understand science and the arcane tangle of subgroup
analyses, post hoc tests, significance levels, and the like.

They're called upon to do so all the time in criminal trials. Some trials are tried only in front of a judge, waiving the jury.

The OP (you) 
described a suit against the maker of a drug because analysis of the
statistical data is claimed (I guess) not to show that the drug helped a
subgroup to which the plaintiffs belong, whilr the maker included that
subgroup in its advertising. Something of that sort.

A good example of a suit that shouldn't see light of day, IMO.

Not if the makers intensely promoted the potentially harmful product for those in whom benefits were unlikely.

Surely we can have courts and suits without providing the keys to Fort Knox
to attorneys? The system needs repair.


It can be better, but I don't think it's as broken as you do.

I'd fix criminal courts first, so fewer innocents are unfairly locked up or put to death.

Susan
.