Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   50 years ago a woman may have taken a drug that may have caused an additional 1 in 50 chance of her daughters getting cancer and may have been made by a company that is still around. Or in legal language, jackpot   (boston.com) divider line 17
    More: Interesting, des, Eli Lilly, Las Cruces, premature birth, drug companies, prenatal exposure  
•       •       •

2437 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Jan 2013 at 11:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



17 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-04 09:19:29 AM  
The sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they have compelling anecdotal evidence within their family: Their mother took DES while pregnant with Donna, Michele, Andrea and Francine. All had reproductive problems and developed breast cancer in their 40s. But their mother did not take DES while pregnant with the oldest sister, Mary Ann. She did not have fertility issues and has not had breast cancer.

So it isn't possible that your older sister simply escaped some genetic predisposition?

Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis-based drug company being sued by the sisters, dominated the market for DES. The company argues in court documents that there is no evidence that the women's mother, Frances Melnick, even took DES. She and her doctor are dead, and the drug company says there are no medical records documenting her treatment.

Case dismissed.
 
2013-01-04 09:52:46 AM  
<i>The sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they have <b>compelling anecdotal evidence </b> within their family </i>

Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean...
 
2013-01-04 10:19:12 AM  
I think the proper legal term is Ch-Ching!
 
2013-01-04 10:23:15 AM  

KyngNothing: <i>The sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they have <b>compelling anecdotal evidence </b> within their family </i>

Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean...


Anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence.
 
2013-01-04 10:27:09 AM  

St_Francis_P: KyngNothing: <i>The sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they have <b>compelling anecdotal evidence </b> within their family </i>

Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

Anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence.


That's what I heard
 
2013-01-04 10:43:29 AM  
 Or in legal language, jackpot

"Legal language" is usually used to describe something densely packed with obfuscatory terminology.  I figure you literally mean "in plain language".
 
2013-01-04 11:03:04 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: St_Francis_P: KyngNothing: <i>The sisters, who grew up in Tresckow, Pa., say they have <b>compelling anecdotal evidence </b> within their family </i>

Those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

Anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence.

That's what I heard


Heresy!
 
2013-01-04 11:30:37 AM  
I thought Obama took care of these types of lawsuits?
 
2013-01-04 12:04:34 PM  
My grandmother took DES while she was pregnant with my mom. My grandmother has had both breast and uterine cancer. My mom has had some interesting issues as well, though all benign so far. There's no doubt in my mind that it's at least somewhat DES related, and researchers are still trying to figure out if there's differences in the third (my) generation as well.

/my family doesn't believe in lawsuits.
 
2013-01-04 01:22:00 PM  
This is what happens when liberals keep voting for more lawyer pay bills, making it easier and easier, and requiring less and less evidence, for mass lawsuits on no basis.

A study or a drug with 3 participants would be laughed out by the FDA. Yet this lawsuit has legs.
 
2013-01-04 01:52:54 PM  

MyRandomName: This is what happens when liberals keep voting for more lawyer pay bills, making it easier and easier, and requiring less and less evidence, for mass lawsuits on no basis.

A study or a drug with 3 participants would be laughed out by the FDA. Yet this lawsuit has legs.


probably because 48 other women currently have lawsuits in boston against des manufacturers, the fact that the drug was pulled in 1971 for having caused vaginal cancers, and that manufacturers had several other similar suits they settled out of court.

it is weird that their mother's medical records no longer exists.
 
2013-01-04 03:04:22 PM  

MyRandomName: This is what happens when liberals keep voting for more lawyer pay bills, making it easier and easier, and requiring less and less evidence, for mass lawsuits on no basis.


what you have said above is more nonsense than the case in the article.
 
2013-01-04 04:07:13 PM  
This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2013-01-04 09:53:29 PM  

not5am: MyRandomName: This is what happens when liberals keep voting for more lawyer pay bills, making it easier and easier, and requiring less and less evidence, for mass lawsuits on no basis.

A study or a drug with 3 participants would be laughed out by the FDA. Yet this lawsuit has legs.

probably because 48 other women currently have lawsuits in boston against des manufacturers, the fact that the drug was pulled in 1971 for having caused vaginal cancers, and that manufacturers had several other similar suits they settled out of court.

it is weird that their mother's medical records no longer exists.


Not really. Probably showed she didn't take the drug. *Poof* No medical records, but we DO have all these anecdotes about her taking the drug!
 
2013-01-05 03:52:13 AM  
i truly, sadly doubt that the women who deserve compensation for their suffering will get compensation. there are plenty of lawsuits but the media doesn't exploit how often the pay outs never get paid out. corporations have long ago learned to follow the insurance industry model of screwing customers like a hardware store. sorry for the bad pun, i love hardware stores.

the woman who years ago was hot crotch victim of scalding McDonald/s coffee received no where near the awarded sum. truth be told, their coffee was served balls to the fire scalding hot, big time. but it was her own stupid to crotch it. $3M no, a few 100K yes is what was paid.

/ did you try the bread?
 
2013-01-05 10:39:16 AM  
"The company argues in court documents that there is no evidence that the women's mother, Frances Melnick, even took DES. She and her doctor are dead, and the drug company says there are no medical records documenting her treatment. "

Good luck, ladies.
 
2013-01-05 12:02:14 PM  
$5 million investment and the hope he could make a profit

There is his problem right there. Profit is an evil word.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report