that must decide whether a particular warning was adequate based on the particular facts of the case — e.g. the actual adequacy question is of fact. Id. at 103. Further, "[gjenerally, expert medical testimony is required to determine whether the drug manufacturer’s warning to the medical community is adequate,” which we do not have at the motion to dismiss stage. Demmler, 671 A.2d at 1154. 30 . If we reached the merits of the LID issue, any direct-to-consumer C'DTC”) advertising exception would likely not apply. This is because, in the eight years since Perez, the New Jersey Supreme Court case making an exception to the LID for direct-to-consumer advertising, was decided, no state has joined New Jersey. In re Norplant Contraceptive Prods. Liab. Litig., 165 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Meridia Prods. Liab. Litig., 328
holding that dtc exception to the learned intermediary doctrine should not be created recognizing exception recognizing doctrine recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine holding that a statute that created a counselorclient privilege should not be retroactively applied to records created prior to the statute because of the presumption against retroactivity