So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this.
Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
"you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something."
You can't, in theory.
In practice this sort of thing happens all the time. I had a judge issue a clearly unconstitutional order limiting my speech (there was no action on my part leading up to this, it was a broad order applying to more than just me). My lawyer's take was that while it was clearly not allowed, it wasn't particularly important so best to just ignore it.
Family court telling a father not to tweet mean things and any court telling a journalist, with a track record of publishing, not to publish, are clear and separate things.
Legally they are the same action, and they obviously violate the same laws. Specifically, they violate the prohibition on restricting someone's freedom to engage in the mass-production of speech, which is known as "freedom of the press". What are you trying to say with the public figure link?
There’s a very different case history for “freedom of the press” than “freedom of speech.” Legally, they’re different.
“Freedom of the press” has focused on the need for an informed public and institutional autonomy of the press. It is a public, not private, right.
The freedom of the press also has a commercial element. It’s controversial to say “corporations have freedom of speech.” It uncontroversial and obvious that corporations have freedom of the press.
“Freedom of speech” has focused on individual speakers. There’s a public element, but private speech is still incredibly important.
> Blackstone, for instance, wrote in 1769 that “[e]very freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press.” Jean-Louis de Lolme, an author widely cited by 1780s American writers, likewise wrote in his chapter on “Liberty of the Press” that “[e]very subject in England has not only a right to present petitions, to the King, or the Houses of Parliament; but he has a right also to lay his complaints and observations before the Public, by the means of an open press.”
> State supreme courts in 1788 and 1791 similarly described the liberty of the press as “permitting every man to publish his opinions,” and as meaning that “the citizen has a right to publish his sentiments upon all political, as well as moral and literary subjects.”
> Several early state constitutions echoed this as well, providing that “[e]very citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”
The difference between freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that the press involves mass production, making it easy to communicate a message to large numbers of people at low cost. When people rephrase "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" as "the freedom to speak, write, and print on any subject", the freedoms to speak and write come from the freedom of speech, and the freedom to print (or publish) comes from the freedom of the press.
If you feel comfortable elaborating, can you explain broadly the purpose for the judge's order? I have heard stories of judges doing things like that during the time period of a divorce or custody battle.
I'm not going to elaborate other than to say my speech was restrained due to someone else's actions, but family court is definitely an area where common practice has strayed very, very far from anything resembling constitutionality.
Yep, ex parte family law orders should be available for extreme situations, but they are widely abused, only need to meet a legal standard of preponderance of evidence, do not require underlying criminal conduct, and can deprive a person of constitutional rights for months or more. They were technically temporary orders pending a full hearing, but those hearings can be delayed for a variety of reasons. In one order based on allegations, a person can lose access to their property, children, and more, all without being able to defense themselves or even participate in the hearing. It’s messed up.
In my case, it was not issued ex-parte. In fact, it was not even requested relief. My impression is that these sorts of prior restraints are so normalized that they're applied as a matter of course.
Wow, sorry to hear that. Can definitely introduce significant mistrust in the system and for good reason. Hope things have worked out better in the long term for you though!
They should have followed through and popped open the can on their Congressperson then, rendering it now a political issue.
If you want to see the Judiciary rein it in, get a Congressperson involved. The Executive is fudged for, the Legislative can rewrite the entire corpus with due process.
Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith.
The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith":
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this.
It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith; the comments section has a substantial amount of comments from software engineers thinking they're qualified to rip apart the work of people who are professionals in their fields, usually with high levels of derision.
Regardless of what HN rules say, anecdotes are literally the worst way of supporting an argument, subject to no end of observer biases.
> It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith
Do you have examples of similar forums that are better examples? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I haven’t been able to find a better forum where the commentary is (mostly) full of honest, thorough, and respectful discourse. If HN is “laughable”, I’m certainly interested in recalibrating.
1) I am not saying it is proof or a valid argument. I am saying we should not assume the poster is lying just because they’re uncomfortable providing details about something that is likely personal or legal in nature.
2) That there are HN commenters who don’t follow the guidelines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
3) I did not “conveniently” leave out that sentence, which implies malice on my part. I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The strongest plausible interpretation of the GP’s comment is that they are telling the truth but can’t or are uncomfortable sharing details due to legal or personal matters, especially given that it was posted with a throwaway account, which the guidelines also specify is OK for sensitive information, implying that the GP was posting… sensitive information. As before: please try to assume good faith.
> I left it out because I deemed it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.
The scope of that sentence assigned to it by the only other sentence in that paragraph was indeed "irrelevant" to your claim "assume good faith" is a general policy for HN comments.
It was beyond disingenuous, and you're still being disingenuous; you're now shifting the goalposts.
> As before: please try to assume good faith.
You selectively quoted in a way that radically changed meaning in order to chastise another user making a comment you didn't like. This isn't a matter of "faith." You're running around telling other people how to act.
No, I didn’t. If you read it even with that sentence attached it still applies, as I clarified in my followup comment to you. It just wasn’t needed for that particular reading, and your reading was not the strongest plausible interpretation. The goal posts have remained unchanged.
Furthermore, I read through some of your other comments and might add: I haven’t found one in which you’ve been anything but negative. Please consider reading through your comments and adjusting your general demeanor on this forum; I’d argue there’s a reason every third or fourth comment of yours gets downvoted.
That said, I think we’re done here. Enjoy the rest of your night; or day, wherever you are. :)
The checks and balances here is the appeals process, which fails when the cost of appealing isn't worth it. It will always be the case where a judge can calibrate a decision to be under the cost of appealing. Which is why it is important to have judges be moral and wise...who don't let their egos get in the way and restrain themselves, instead of forcing you to pay any cost to check them.
In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all.
But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.
I am not a fan of voting for judges. Judges should be determined by technical merits and skills more like hiring a developer. This I think would be better handled by having a diverse group of judges routinely review all decisions by a judge and issuing corrective actions against the judge. This review should be done periodically and not require an appeal.
I disagree. Attorneys are a fairly tight group in general that rely on peer opinion to get jobs.
Nobody is going speak about about Judge A because the political machinery and peer pressure are very powerful. When Judge B rats out Judge A, all of the sudden those appellate court opportunities or various other lucrative appointments suddenly are out of reach.
Judicial elections are a good way to get bad judges out and mediocre or better judges get to mostly do their thing. The places where the broader political environment is corrupt are no more corrupt than if judges were appointed. There’s the benefit with an election that the local party leaders can just opt to not support a bad judge versus making a decision to oppose him.
If any change were to be made, I think making the clerks protected civil service employees would probably blunt the judges power, particularly if cousin Rufus get appointed to be county judge because he’s drinking too much at the law firm.
There's a definite information gap here waiting for someone to step in and fill it. Practically speaking these days, it's currently filled by special interest groups like the state bar and various voting leagues; they will do the heavy lifting of evaluating the candidates and issue recommendations.
It's more that the bar is extremely high, but yes, prior restraint on speech is not impossible. There has to be a direct through-line from the speech itself to probable irreparable harm to the beneficiary of the restraint.
"Dear mobsters, this is the address where the FBI has sequestered a witness" is around the place the bar is.
"That report might be defamatory to a corporation because we can argue it is untrue" is nowhere near the bar (truth is an affirmative defense, and the possible harm is reconcilable in law via monetary compensation and damages).
the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this
I wouldn't be surprised.
My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired.
I've only been involved in a court case once. I was picked as a juror in a case where two divorce lawyers were suing each other over how to split the fee from a high-profile divorce.
I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies.
"I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies. "
It seems the incentive for lawers as a group is, make everything more complicated for everyone else, so everyone else is more dependant on lawers to do anything at all.
No, they aren't. I was disputing GP's generalized claim that preventing publishing is "about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law", not this specific case.
It lasted all about two weeks and the judge basically embarrassed himself by granting it in the first place. He reversed himself in anticipation of being bench slapped by the appellate court. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge... (note that in New York, the lower courts are the "Supreme Court", very confusing).
But you're right, there's always a judge stupid enough out there to do something outrageously illegal.
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
A lot of contracts people sign (NDAs and federal security clearance paperwork being the two examples that spring to mind) include clauses allowing a judge to issue a prior restraint injunction if you try to violate them.
Nobody ever goes to jail for violating an NDA. What you can have happen is be found to be in breach of contract and obligated to follow the consequences of that breach (including possibly restitution for damaging the aggrieved party).
The bar in civil law is lower because the penalties are generally money, and correction is simple if an error is later found (move that money back). Criminal law involves deprivation of liberty and other penalties that can't be reversed (can't give a person back the years in prison).
Many NDAs include language preventing just what you said, and allowing one party to seek an injunction from a judge preventing disclosure and a breach. Violating a judges injunction will usually result in jail time, not just a fine.
You're discussing a different law. You can, and many people do (with or without realizing it), sign contracts that allow a judge to issue an injunction if the company even suspects you will violate the NDA. You then can go to jail if you violate the injunction.
You could write a similar contract allowing an injunction to prevent anything else.
Reuters is a UK company and freedom of press is quite limited there. But a US federal judge of course would be the wrong party to turn to for leveraging this.
They’re probably talking about the UK’s weirdly strong defamation laws. From what I understand, burden of proof for libel in English law is on the defendant, not the plaintiff. Once the claim of defamation is made, it’s on the defense to justify what they said.
This makes the UK court system a popular venue for rich people to try and suppress negative press.
The UK doesn't in general protect "free speech". While most things you can say, there are a bunch of things that will land you in prison, even if they are true.
I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?
I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.
I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side.
A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example.
Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future
Even if we assume those are the best metrics, if something has to be shown to be in the public interest, rather than just not against the public interest, that's quite a high bar.
Publishing the contents of my diary is not against the public interest. I'd still be quite upset if you did that, especially if picked events to make me look bad. (Yet, you wouldn't need to be lying. I've done things I'm not proud of, that I try to hide.) If ever it becomes in the public interest to publish my secrets (e.g. if I'm claiming no affiliation with an organisation I used to work with, while awarding them grants) then go ahead. But until then, my private life is my private life.
Well that's why I said "if we assume those are the best metrics". Privacy would be an additional one.
I wasn't trying to make a full and ideal rule set, just pointing out that the one you said is extremely narrow and even really bad free speech rules could pass it. Like one that prevents me from talking about someone in a park playing with a kite.
Ah, "in the public interest". There's no such provision in thew USA, and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions (a member of the government) to determine what is in the public interest.
It is absolutely forbidden to report on family court proceedings; there is no public interest defence.
There really arent any. Hate speech isn't "true" regardless of your basement phrenologists Roganism's that this race or that ethnicity is "inferior" to a white person due to skull or brain size. Or doctored studies that purposely dont take poverty and other things into account.
The other category is libel/slander which is properly protected in the UK where a real burden of proof is put on the person making the claim, meanwhile in the USA, "news" shows lie with impunity, and almost always for the benefit of the oligarchy.
Its a better system than the USA's and by far. Right-wing types, who also dominate this forum, dislike it because it limits the lies and racism and islomaphobia they so deeply identify with, and is reinforced to them by the dishonest right-wing media they consume which has almost no limits on dishonest or hateful speech in the USA. So its an ugly cycle of extremists radicalizing new extremists for political gain (read: faithful GOP voters) by the billionaire owners of these media outlets who gain from these narratives both politically and economically.
Maybe I generalized too wide from my impressions. It seems that on the freedom of press index the US scores lower (#44) than the UK (#33). But still the absence of constitutional protections and the high profile "libel tourism" cases (including Russian oligarchs suing UK book publishers) would make me give this kind of suit better odds in the UK than in the US.
Can you explain why you believe there is any form of free expression in the UK?
I'm genuinely asking because looking on from the outside it is clear to me that nowhere in Europe is there anything even approaching freedom of expression and conscience.
Nevertheless, injunctions have issued. Given Assange & Wikileaks, it is silly to pretend that it cannot happen. The Espionage Act exists, as do laws prohibiting commercial espionage as well.
This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook:
“On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.”
At least with Hollywood accounting, the subsidiary is usually created up front. This reads like J&J created the subsidiary after the fact, which IMO, shouldn’t be allowed.
It's also not uncommon to purchase an existing company, move debt over to it, and then kill it off. Late stage capitalism is an interesting phenomenon.
It's a much more interesting trick imo, where Texas allows "divisive mergers" that enable them to split liabilities off into a separate entity. It's not clear to me what the intended benefit of allowing this procedure is, other than this kind of action.
Yeah, I'm trying to understand how this is allowed? It seems like it's in incredibly bad faith. Can anyone explain how this can happen?
Taking this to it's extreme, can't you just buy some property so that you owe 1 million dollars, put that debt into it's own company and then say "sorry, that company is bankrupt, I can't pay".
Is that not what's happening here? I feel like I must be missing something.
IANAL, but IIRC from some reading on this a while back (I could totally be wrong) you have to group the assets that the debt is connected to in the new entity specifically to prevent this. You also can't liquidate the asset connected to the debt and then spin off the new entity while keeping the money from the liquidation.
So I think the way that these rules play out WRT J&J would be that they have to include all assets pertaining to their baby powder / talc business into the new entity, along with the amount of cash that is ordinarily used to operate the business into the spin out. That way the spin out contains what realistically constituted the talc business (net of profits that have been taken or reallocate in the past), so it can be held liable for any debts associated with the same business.
EDIT: looks like in their case they're basically splitting into two companies - one that does pharmaceuticals (drugs, vaccines, etc) and the spinoff that does consumer products (Listerine, shampoo, the baby powder / talc in question, etc) with each part receiving relevant operating assets and associated liabilities, but the pharma side (which will retain the name) keeping the excess cash on hand and other non-operating assets.
"It does seem … wrong? Like, obviously, if you run a big company that has big liabilities, you’d like to be able to just get rid of the liabilities. And obviously companies have tried, and there are simple approaches (spin off the assets and leave the liabilities, etc.), and those simple approaches don’t work because generally it is bad for a company to be able to just get rid of its liabilities. It would be weird if there was a cheat where doing it as a Texas two-step merger did work."
The baby powder story is a great opportunity to remember that there are actual journalists doing valuable work, and society needs them.
Meanwhile, the oft-repeated sentiment is that we should get rid of journalists and news agencies because every single one of them is supposedly a sell-out. That’d surely resolve a number of issues for companies like J&J.
I really wish there were ways to fund more investigative efforts of journalism. I support my local newspaper but would be nice to have some sort of system of campaigns to support reasoned inquiry into those that have power beyond platitudes such as "ads bad".
Ads are bad in the sense that they introduce bias (imagine your biggest advertiser pulls out because you publish a story about X, and staff needs to put bread on their families’ tables). That said, yeah, no ads does not automatically mean fair reporting.
Organizations and individuals doing journalist work are in a weird position where they have to have a degree of selflessness/idealism in order to do a good job, and subscribers need to trust that they have it.
Not for any vaccines. In case of covid ones the waiver was to get the vaccine fast. But it didn't mean anything goes, no oversight.
It makes sense in a pandemic to have a fast rollout with continuous monitoring instead of the usual wait for the courts, usually wait for enough cases to have a class action, wait for the certification of that, etc.
Not to mention the anti vax nutjobs screaming about experimential vaccines being experimential. (Which is meaningless, because even if it is it might be a lot more safe than something that's old, boring but did not get this much scrutiny.)
Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.
This phrase is often used to malign those with a different understanding or opinion. Most people who question the efficacy and safety profile of the experimental Covid vaccines are neither anti vaccine nor nutjobs.
> Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.
The talc powder lawsuits are because it is suspected or causing cancer. Yes, they made something with long term side effects. Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.
Labeling people who disagree with insults in order to ridicule them is a a logical fallacy, a sign of intolerance and of poor discussion culture in my opinion.
Typically because of anger and lack of rational arguments, I assume.
> Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.
Totally understandable. Accountability is very important. Concern is .. meh. If people have concern ask the FDA & CDC & Pfizer/Moderna. Get informed. If the answer from the FDA et al. is not satisfying, ask again, reach for the usual tools, FOIA, etc. Get the data for the clinical trials, check them. Get the data from VAERS, and so on. (Just with Ivermectin there's plenty of things to look at, get to the bottom, maybe even form an explanation of the data: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... ... and in the end it's possible to be still not 100% convinced.)
But "oh it's rushed, I'm concerned" or "it's experimental" is about as valid as "oh my head hurts, it's because of those damn Wifi towers / windmills / transmission lines!". Countrywide health/energy/communications policy should not be made because propaganda induced mass hysteria.
See also rock music and DnD and souls of kids.
Maybe the right question to ask is "why it takes so long otherwise?".
I remember reading this Axios[1] article and fuming at the fact that this is a legal and socially acceptable outcome to this saga. Glad this is getting a deeper look from news organizations.
Let’s ignore the attempt to use the court to silence the press and look at the other part: why are businesses allowed to create subsidiaries that are just debt vehicles to be placed in bankruptcy?
If a company can do it, why can’t I do that for my personal debt?
To add clarity to this. OP _can_ do this right now if they wanted to. The difference is:
1. You have to have an LLC that actually does business. What you don't say is you're also running all your personal stuff through the LLC for business purposes. AFAIK this isn't illegal since the stuff is the company's and you're just "using" it. A good example is a mercedes benz "company car" that, should you fail to make payments (through the company), is now the company's problem and not yours. The other REALLY big nuance here is that the money can't come from you TO your company. It must be company money. Otherwise you pierce the veil.
2. You have to make the LLC before bad stuff happens.
The difference is here J&J is trying to make a subsidiary after the fact. I don't think they can legally do this. Hollywood accounting has the subsidiaries made purpose built as fall guys. This is some "remember how we provided all those vaccines" level bribery.
Are we surprised when people invent far fetched conspiracies (i.e COVID 5G)? This is a symptom of a much larger problem we have in society. Morally bankrupt leadership and ethically questionable companies. J&J is right up there.
> J&J's covert 'Project Plato' team crafted strategy to redirect cancer plaintiffs out of trial courts and into bankruptcy process
> J&J documents show how it planned 'Texas two-step' maneuver to limit payouts for talc claims
> J&J executive asked whether maneuver would affect company's credit rating, documents show
> U.S. judge to weigh whether bankruptcy was filed in bad faith
> Company lawyer warned the team (Project Plato): Tell no one, not even your spouse. “It is critical that any activities related to Project Plato, including the mere fact the project exists, be kept in strict confidence,” Chris Andrew, a J&J lawyer, wrote in an internal memo reviewed by Reuters.
Who needs an injunction from the courts to stop people from reading an article when news sites will do it to themselves with tons of completely unnecessary poorly written javascript
I have no problems opening this on my phone (Firefox, Chrome, Bromite), so it's probably not something inherent to the rendering engine itself.
It could be that my ad blocking or privacy settings are interfering with whatever is causing these crashes. Perhaps a piece of malvertising is being distributed through the website?
Link sent Chromium-based Vanadium to some sort of catch-all Reuters site instead of crashing as it did with Bromite. First time I recall having seen such a wack behavior.
It's interesting how effectively the J&J PR department keeps steering these lawsuits back to talc that is contaminated with asbestos, even though they're well aware that uncontaminated talc also causes cancer.
A while back, I read that J&J has access to special uncontaminated talc mines.
> The evidence about asbestos-free talc is less clear.
Mind you, I think any aerosol, particulate matter, etc.. is a big no-no for lungs, simply because it promotes inflammation, and our lungs are very sensitive.
Hence all the lung problems in mines, flour factories, etc. Talc doesn't seem special in this regard. The problem is that it's a powder before it gets processed into whatever we use it for.
I think it was nearly a decade ago and I made an offhand comment to a friend about baby powder causing cancer. He didn’t believe me as the idea seemed absurd, but his aunt worked at J&J and he texted her, she responded with a canned legal response. He was shocked and couldn’t believe this could be kept under wraps.
Both (IVM/HCQ) are not patented so there is no reason to depend or trust on multinational pharmaceutical companies.
You can access interactive meta analysis of 310 studies for HCQ[1] and 78 studies for ivermectin[2] below, it gets updated when new studies published. They also keep track of other treatments (in total 480[3]). But unfortunately only some of those treatments get media coverage like cannabidiol[4] even when they are neither the best performers nor best studied.
This is a great post but I should note it crashed Chrome for me and made Firefox very sluggish. Just from the raw amount of content alone.
Definitely keep reading until you get to the "Worms" part of "The Analysis", which I think puts a pretty plausible explanation for why so many reputable studies show Ivermectin working against COVID as well as they did.
The benefit of repurposing drugs is precisely that we have decades of safety profile data. That's why those are particularly interesting against emerging diseases, especially for low income countries.
Obviously that's an issue for big pharma since they're not competitive when it comes to pure manufacturing of cheap drugs.
Not talc. Pure talc is also a carcinogen. It causes ovarian cancer.
Pediatricians / dermatologists often recommend aquaphor these days. You can also get diaper rash cream, which is similar, but is opaque white and contains zinc.
(Studies cited there don't quite prove that asbestos-free talc is carcinogenic...but the evidence is damning enough that no well-informed consumer would actually use talc. Even if they somehow had access to guaranteed-0.00000% asbestos talc.)
Also rather concerning - talc is GRAS by the FDA when used as an anti-caking agent in table salt at concentrations below 2%.
what's interesting is that they think to get a judge to do this, as in they consider it a viable strategy that may work. (which means it has worked before)
I mean someone must try a strategy the first time only hoping it will work, but it does seem suspicious as I wouldn't think of J&J as particularly innovative or daring.
Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm.
The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause.
The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1%. And that was before Omicron.
Vaccines have a liability shield. Your only restitution is filing a claim with the NVICP, which is like applying for social security. They'll deny you as long as they can and then give you the bare minimum once approved, but no where near the amount that was taken from you and often not enough to even survive.
> The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1%
I'd imagine this value is much higher if you're old, fat, and/or have relevant comorbidities. This also means the value is much lower for nearly everyone else.
Which is what makes the mandates so head scratching. There's some handwaving about reducing transmission but the real world evidence for that is pretty shaky.
> No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people
Gambling? Options trading? Do you get refunds from your weed dealer when it doesn't hit quite right?
> And you can't even sue if it causes you harm.
You can, it's just that you get damages paid by the Federal government, not the manufacturer. You also can't sue if the military fails to defend a U.S. city from attack, for what it's worth.
All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement.
It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. We don't want politicians to turn pill pushers with kickback schemes for things that barely work.
How does the saying go ... "Don't invite the devil in"
> All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement.
That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is the only area where you can't directly sue Pharma companies (i.e. when the government makes a vaccine series part of the childhood vaccination series or part of a pandemic response regimen). But at that point the party directing you to take the vaccine isn't the Pharma company or companies, it's the Federal government, so they are properly the ones that should be counter-party to a suit in any event.
> It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions.
You say that as if it proves your case, and yet we can see from data that is obvious even to the untrained eye that the product you're complaining about 'actually works'.
That depends on the definition of 'actually works' and vaccine. Both which need redefining in the new scheme.
Personally I'll grant that wearing gloves helps prevent frostbite. But I wouldn't make people in Hawaii wear them.
I think you have to look at the groups most at risk and it turns out its really old people with multiple morbidity either already in hospital near death or coming in from nursing homes.
I just don't see how showing some statical benefit to that group translates to general healthy much younger population.
And even than, I think you could show a statistical benefit to giving two doses of a laxative in fighting covid in 80+ year olds, if all you counted was the health outcomes in the stronger surviving subpopulation that survived the laxative two weeks later.
I've taken enough statistics at university to know I can safely ignore anything that isn't a double blind study.
Hospital rate of unvax vs vaccinated population is easily verifiable, as previous poster said, the vaccine works, everywhere. The data is there. And it’s not just for 80+. It’s been seen in many jurisdictions across the world. The fact that you willingly ignore this data shows that you are trying to blind yourself on purpose.
There's a reason the US has an FDA. What we're seeing here is with standards in place... Imagine the landscape with no standards or regulation.
... Or, hell, we don't even have to imagine, because we've been watching people actively try and dodge the regulations to treat a virus with livestock de-wormer because some influential people suggested it would work.
There were early studies, yes. Subsequent studies suggested no. "Having promise" isn't enough for something with side-effects like Ivermectin, which is why the FDA didn't clear it for this use.
That's interesting that you mention side effects, because I've heard it represented as being one of the safest medicines ever made.
Can you back that up with some proof...Vaers reports?
CDC is US based. I have read before that it was approved for use in Japan for treatment. So there must be some disagreement between health agencies on it's effectiveness.
... Aren't proof. VAERS is data collection, not analysis. It's a giant anecdote database. There is no vetting on the input data, which is self-reported.
There is a VAERS entry describing someone being turned into the Incredible Hulk after taking MMR vaccine.
Fortunately, there are tests and analytics on the side-effects of Ivermectin that don't rely on VAERS. You can find most of them listed in the FDA front-matter for the drug, because it was approved for other uses besides COVID. The approval process includes grasping side-effects.
The US decided, ages ago, that "snake-oil" (unproven drugs with side-effects) were something the government would step in and stop because people suffering and dying are desperate and easily-cheated. Other nations have different histories.
I am truly shocked to learn that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder might cause cancer.
This is from a company whose vaccines every single politician and journalist in the western world has assured us that they are 100% effective and safe. Can't the people who developed those vaccines in 6 months talk to the baby powder people to make sure they reach the same level of safety and effectiveness?
In addition to often containing asbestos, pure talc can cause cancer by getting stuck where it shouldn't and causing chronic irritation, etc. The most common issue is ovarian cancer, and talc used to be widely marketed for feminine hygiene.
As a father, and as a pathologist who has seen talc in ovarian cancers (under the microscope it is visible with polarizers), talc should be taken off the shelves. It's used on babies but also young women use it trying to cope with their fears of odor and moisture (whether or not there is an odor or moisture, let alone the conversation of whether those concerns themselves were manufactured). The ads are like tobacco ads: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona....
"Asbestos is also a naturally occurring silicate mineral, but with a different crystal structure. Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth."
Since none of this is about criminal proceedings in the US, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a meaningless (quite literally; what do you mean?) standard.
I know what the various standards are for cases but that's not the point. In this case, "preponderance of evidence".
Let's turn what you said around.
In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard.
So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this).
As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s
and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of
asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive
tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally
insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of
causation
I'm not providing discovery. I have demonstrated that it's trivial to dig up evidence. Regardless, it's considered common knowledge in other parts of the world and the US is one of the remaining battlegrounds. J&J quickly discontinued the talc-based baby powder (in the US) when the claims started to pile up.
The same has been said about nuclear meltdowns and toxic waste leaks.
Sure, the baseline rate for this rare cancer is 1 in 10,000,000, and it's 1 in 10 in this town of 1000 people, but it's possible the plaintiff would have gotten it anyway.
> That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive.
Really?
Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings.
If JNJ was fined their market cap of $451B, it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, assuming no declines due to reputational damage from the judgement. (2021 earnings $23B, BTW up almost 40% from 2020!).
So call it 20 years, with 100% of earnings dedicated to payment of the fine.
They could sell off assets (recent valuation $179B), but a) that would diminish their earning potential over the period, and b) even if they sold literally every owned asset (reducing the company to nothing), it would only reduce the fine restitution period from 20 years to 12 years. And since they'd be reduced to zero revenue and earnings, it would take infinitely many years to pay off the remainder. Of course the company will have ceased to exist at that point, satisfying GP's prediction of non-survival.
> > That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive.
> Really?
Yes. Even in this unlikely scenario, the company would easily continue on. The idea that this case could put them out of business is ridiculous and I stand by it.
> it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay,
You're thinking about it the wrong way...like most people who think that you can stick it to megacorporations. Think about how it pays out over the next 100 years? Because that's much more likely and efficient. While you might think it depends on the terms, it's going to be financed so there's not much to be done to liquidate them. Then think about how many decades before it can lobby (cough legislate) some additional financial tools?
> Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings.
Irrelevant, at best. Large companies that should fold according to this kind of rough thinking don't fold on a consistent basis. Consider that you're oversimplified weasel calculation doesn't mean what you think it does.
Not sure where your hostility comes from. I'm not trying to stick anything to anyone, I just don't agree with your financial analysis.
The DOJ does not do 100 year payment plans. No idea where you got that idea. You think Deutsche Bank (or its moral equivalent) is going to line up for that loan? I don't see it.
In the "fined-full-market-cap" scenario (which I consider highly unlikely, and have zero opinion on desirability), I'd expect JNJ to declare bankruptcy (which would not discharge the fine) and be sold for parts.
Maybe I'm not thinking creatively enough, but I intend no weaseling, and there's no need to be a jerk about it.
If you inhale it or put it in your vagina. Talcum might contain asbestos fibers, caution must be taken for it to be practically asbestos-free and women should be warned, but starch is not a damn replacement for it.
To be clear, even without asbestos talcum powder can cause cancer in women. It also doesn't have to be put directly in a vagina- using it in diapers for children is enough to cause some to potentially migrate in. A study in New England linked the increased cancer risk to inflammation caused by the talcum powder itself.
Asbestos is an extremely stable mineral fiber and sharp like glass. If you get it on your skin it may penetrate but it will eventually probably slough off. If it gets in your lungs, it has nowhere to go and can continue damaging tissue for the rest of your life. Similarly, if it gets inside your body through other routes, it has nowhere to go. The lawsuit is about the product being marketed for feminine hygiene.
Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.
Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.
No. Raw mined talc is processed to remove asbestos when used to baby powder. It is exceptionally unlikely that a large company would be explicitly aware of that and not modify their process (although not completely unprecedented).
Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.
I was downvoted incorrectly. I sourced my info from a team working on talc litigation. 686 of 1032 tests produced in litigation revealed the presence of asbestos in talcs used in cosmetics from 1948 to 2017. That's "often".
That seems like an extreme stretch unless you have have some reason to think that Reuters wouldn't have normally reported something like this and the COO intervened or something like that.
I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder.
Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think the manner they public conduct themselves speaks volumes about how and where they generate wealth.
In the US EUAs at the beginning, for me, it was 95% the technology and 5% the manufacturer convinced me mRNA vaccines were superior because of their precisely-targeted nature. It was a gamble between Pfizer and Moderna. Went with Moderna for the first 2 (before the data on "mix-and-match") and Pfizer booster.
Luckily, you don't have to trust the pharmaceutical companies any more. You just have to look at the outcomes of literally billions of people who have been vaccinated, and see how much better those outcomes are on average compared to unvaccinated people:
Unrelated? Trust is earned. Companies are big, but senior leadership teams and boards are pretty small and wield an enormous amount of influence and power and since we can't predict future actions we can only look backwards. Not allowing people to speak out could end up being more dangerous in the long run.
J&J has a history of giving common people cancer for profit, and you think it's somehow the common people's fault for not trusting J&J? That is some pretty sick victim blaming there.
Can you really blame the people that are spoon fed fearporn from the media everyday and in a constant state of stockholm syndrome, while also being led to believe we live in a two-party state (right vs left), from picking a side? They are victims too but just don't know it yet.
That would require thinking for themselves. That requires say too much effort for most people, especially when they work at 9-5 doing useless work and want to shut off part of their brain to survive in this thing we call society.
It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance.
I agree, trust in our institutions is a vital necessity, and it is very easy to lose and hard to gain. This can't be seen as unrelated since it shows the dictates of the company and the the level of coverup and legal maneuvering they use.
The only reason anyone was paid from the lawsuit with talc and asbestos contamination within the US, was because it does not fall under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. A legal vaccine indemnification program paid for by US citizens.
It would be hard for anyone to honestly trust in something they have no legal recourse in dealing with.
> It is interesting how the prior comment you made was flagged and is dead. It does not share this direct stance.
Indeed! Currently in the red on fake internet points, but not flagged to the twilight zone. Also more replies and engagement. My interpretation of this outcome is still pending :D
Which is why the government getting rid of the liability shield for vaccine manufacturers would have been the smartest and most reasonable action they could have taken to increase percentage of vaccinated population if it was really about public health.
If you are vaccine-injured, what is the remedy? You can’t sue. What is the incentive for pharma to ensure a safe product if taxpayers are the ones holding the liability?
