But the Bergstresser case does not quite end there. As with most such failure to warn claims, the plaintiff “failed to indicate what further warning should have been given, or that any alternative warning would have prevented his physician from prescribing” the drug or device at issue. Id. at *23. Moreover, the plaintiff has not alleged what “appropriate” monitoring information should have been given, or that any such information would have prevented his doctor from prescribing the medicine. The court’s conclusion is less conclusory than the plaintiff’s allegations: “The plaintiff cannot in a conclusory manner simply allege that his injury would not have been resulted if his physician was provided with some unspecified information. He must provide sufficient factual allegations as to why the information provided to the intermediary was inadequate, what information should have been provided, and how that information would have caused the intermediary to act differently which would have prevented the plaintiff’s injury.” Id. at *24.