It will be interesting to do the math to see whether AZ can get away with giving fifty cents to each plaintiff the way Lilly did for Zyprexa. (30000 plaintiffs diabetic or dead divided by 1.2 billion). Someone else on here stated that those living with diabetes were a vulnerable bunch, most on Medicaid, and so how well were they defended. How well was MY CASE defended? Let me tell you, it wasn't pretty what I saw. Many lawyers refuse involvement in mass torts; at least some for ethical reasons.

Judge says the science isn't there. What does that mean? It means that high paid lawyers were able to beat up plaintiffs experts. I don't know any self respecting doc that wouldn't tell you that second generation antipsychotics can't cause diabetes based on a read of the existing evidence. So a judge now tells us that the "scientific evidence" isn't there? Did she take science in high school let alone get a medical degree?. This should be cause for patient advocates to raise their arms in angry protest. Where is the rationale for this "judge" to say that there is no evidence that antipsychotics can cause diabetes? where? where is the outrage?

exactly, Doug, this was ridiculous!!