Re: Vaccine taken off the mkt. because of poor sales-HUH?

On May 27, 6:09 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 27, 7:15 pm, chronichel...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 27, 3:11 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am just guessing also...but my experience tends to indicate to me,
that it was pulled, because of fear of liability exposure...and NOT
just the threat of a large amount of litigation.

I'm not sure I understand this one very well, wouldn't liability
exposure mean larger threat of litigation?

Well, what I was thinking of there, was to try to contrast the mere
threat of litigation with an assessment of the potential merits of
that litigation.

A lot of frivolous, baseless suits being filed is one thing. If they
are completely without merit..(as Steere and others seem to have
claimed, since)...you probably hire a firm to dispose of them, if you
have a viable product...the product's longterm value is certainly
worth defending in Court. You don't dump a commercially viable and
useful product because of the negative PR of a couple looney lawsuits.

But...if the lawyers look at it...and think that there may be some
exposure...possible payouts, damages...different deal. You know,
that's part of what lawyers get paid to do...predict your chances.

In products liability cases, I guess the estimations of liability can
be pretty cold-blooded. (I remember hearing of some remarkable cases
involving estimates of payouts in wrongful death cases versus the cost
of correcting design defects in auto manufacturing cases that
basically turn your stomach. The cost of correcting the defect per
unit, multiplied times number of units...and weigh that against
estimates of payouts, total, in wrongful death cases. If the cost of
correcting the defect is less...then it doesn't get fixed, as it has
been alleged...).

Did you see that (as well) in the movie Fight Club? I remember that
the main character explained that . I now know is real (I suspected
it but didn't put too much energy on that)

I am, again, speculating...but what I have always felt, watching
this...is there must have been someone saying that we might have some
exposure on this thing...they must have thought there was a reasonable
chance plaintiffs would be able to show that the vaccine was
triggering a type of arthritic condition, itself. That's just how I
have been accustomed to thinking the world works (or doesn't,
according to your view).

I do not really know.

I understand your point now, which is the same way I feel about it.

(I would have to think that any possible further actions on the
vaccine thing would now be barred by statute of limitations, anyway

yes, I guess.

That settlement with the vaccine is in the line with the "victory"
over the IDSA through A.G B investigation.

I find this part to be completely untruthful:

Stephen A. Sheller, a Philadelphia lawyer involved in the half dozen
class-action lawsuits filed in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania,
said
the case was never about "putting hundreds of millions of dollars" in
plaintiffs' pockets, it was about public safety.

"Our goal was to warn the public about the vaccine," Sheller said.

I think his clients will strongly disagree with him.



.

Relevant Pages