Part of why so many lawsuits regarding medical injuries and complications from prescription medicines take so long to resolve is that it is very difficult to get hard data on the matter quickly enough to help conclusively decide a case. It is in pharma companies’ interests to promote the benefits of their medications over the risks, and they naturally are inclined to look at the positive results when weighing their decisions.

Then there’s the fact that different people react in different ways to medicines. Certain side effects are very rare, or restricted to only a portion of the population at large. As an analogy, not everyone is allergic to seafood or shellfish, but those who are adamantly cannot take certain treatments in which shellfish play a part. The fact that these patients aren’t in the majority does not change the fact that they’re still harmed if a doctor prescribes them such treatments.

Whether Yasmin and Yaz fall into this category is still a matter of heated contention, both legally and scientifically. Several recent studies illustrate this point, as highlighted in an article published by the FDA this April.

The first studies mentioned seem to suggest that Yasmin at the very least has a comparable effect to other COC contraceptives. The researchers looked specifically at the risk for venous Thromboembolism, a potentially fatal pulmonary condition that has been linked in some cases to COC medicines.

However, another set of studies suggested that the women who experience increased heart and embolism complications when taking Yaz or Yasmin may have preexisting conditions. Specifically, the studies suggest that those suffering complications made up only a very small portion of the study, in such small numbers that they can be dismissed as statistically insignificant.

These difficulties aren’t meant to imply that there is no risk when taking Yasmin, but they do demonstrate just how hard it is to get solid information out of scientific examinations. It isn’t a matter of television science where the DNA evidence is ready in an hour — these cases take time, and a great deal of expertise is required to successfully navigate the maze of issues.