[HN Gopher] J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication ...
___________________________________________________________________
J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters
story
Author : danboarder
Score : 376 points
Date : 2022-02-06 14:11 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| j0ba wrote:
| Absolutely deplorable they would do this. But I am still
| extremely confident the vaccines are 100% and effective.
| Arjuna wrote:
| 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."
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
| tylersmith wrote:
| 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.
| mijoharas wrote:
| 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.
| ccleve wrote:
| Sometimes moving money in this manner can be construed as a
| fraudulent transfer of funds.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraudulent_conveyance
| haneefmubarak wrote:
| 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.
| alistairSH wrote:
| 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.
| tedivm wrote:
| 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.
| chinathrow wrote:
| I wonder where the pitchforks are, by now.
|
| https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-
| pitchfor...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Things aren't quite bad enough yet. If the current
| trajectory persists, maybe in 15-20 years?
| wiml wrote:
| It seems kind of optimistic or naive to call this _late-
| stage_ capitalism. It can get a lot worse if you really
| unfetter the capitalist machinery.
| baybal2 wrote:
| How talc causes cancer?
| [deleted]
| moltar wrote:
| talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma
| and ovarian cancer
| dekhn wrote:
| I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt
| that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in
| the plaintiffs.
| Supermancho wrote:
| European studies have already made studies around this[1].
| J&J is simply trying to fight the same battle, again, in
| the US.
|
| [1]https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05
| 000/...).
| UncleMeat wrote:
| It's a civil suit. If Johnson and Johnson was so confident
| that there was no harm caused by their products, why go
| through all this trouble?
| dekhn wrote:
| because civil suits that find them guilty could make them
| go out of business even if they did nothing wrong.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > because civil suits that find them guilty could make
| them go out of business
|
| That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market
| cap, the company would survive.
| quesera wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Or were you being hyperbolic?
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| That's not the criteria required for a civil suit. That's
| the criteria for a criminal case, which is prosecuted by
| the DA.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Now can you provide the baseline rate and comparison for
| talc?
| afthonos wrote:
| 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.
| dekhn wrote:
| 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).
|
| here's the CA case.
| https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF
| """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was
| present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a
| matter of sharp dispute.
|
| 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
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a
| carcinogen.
| ILMostro7 wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a
| place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common
| contaminant or intentional additive.
|
| There have been disputed allegations that contamination
| could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
| dekhn wrote:
| 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).
| slobotron wrote:
| Presumably when inhaled, since the lawsuit talks about talc
| containing asbestos.
| aaronchall wrote:
| 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.
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| tedivm wrote:
| It's still used by parents in diapers, despite that being a
| huge cancer risk.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| 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....
| mateo1 wrote:
| 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.
| tedivm wrote:
| 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.
| hmottestad wrote:
| "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."
|
| https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| pas wrote:
| > uncontaminated talc also causes cancer.
|
| Can you please point to the claim, data, evidence for this? :o
| dade_ wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I'm not sure what this proves or implies. It has been a hot
| topic of legal dispute for a long time.
| [deleted]
| azinman2 wrote:
| So if a company like J&J has asbestos in their talc powder, what
| does one use instead?
| hedora wrote:
| 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.
| eMSF wrote:
| > Pure talc is also a carcinogen
|
| [citation needed]
| bell-cot wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Safety
|
| (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%.
| briandear wrote:
| Former Reuters COO is on the board of Pfizer. J&J is a vaccine
| competitor of Pfizer. To a reasonable person, this might be
| something of interest.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| 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.
| sethammons wrote:
| Is there an article actually linked? All I see is the footer for
| more from routers...
| capableweb wrote:
| Yes, in the opening sentence:
|
| > Johnson & Johnson tried to get a U.S. judge to block Reuters
| from publishing a story
|
| Story: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-
| pharmaceuticals/...
|
| Summary:
|
| > 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.
| nunez wrote:
| This is absolutely infuriating, and I'm glad Reuters was able
| to publish this.
| samwillis wrote:
| It's strange, it's crashing Safari on iOS:
|
| Mirror here: https://archive.ph/vfOkX
| scottshea wrote:
| Chrome on Android as well
| Miner49er wrote:
| Firefox on Android as well.
| ripdog wrote:
| How on earth is this page killing all 3 mobile rendering
| engines?! I literally can't view the page on my phone.
| autoexec wrote:
| 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
| jeroenhd wrote:
| 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?
| jet_32951 wrote:
| 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.
| denysvitali wrote:
| Same here. Wtf. Are they mining bitcoins when you open the
| page?
| wglb wrote:
| There is a link in the first paragraph to the story:
| https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
| molyss wrote:
| https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
| hanselot wrote:
| grapescheesee wrote:
| 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.
| tasha0663 wrote:
| > Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the
| cancer link with talc powder.
|
| As well they should be. Feeding vaccine FUD over an unrelated
| incident is dangerous at a time when trust in our institutions
| is so vital.
| grapescheesee wrote:
| 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.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| 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.
| briandear wrote:
| 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?
| ccn0p wrote:
| 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.
| jet_32951 wrote:
| It was J&J whose reaction to the poisoning of Tylenol is
| taught as a PR masterstroke in B-school. Apparently they
| didn't integrate the lesson.
| octopoc wrote:
| 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.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| 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.
| addajones wrote:
| I agree with you on this. People can also choose not to
| be spoon-fed fearporn from the media though...
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| 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.
| errcorrectcode wrote:
| 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.
|
| Btw, sequencing of both mRNA vaccines:
|
| https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV...
| ciphol wrote:
| 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:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths-by-vaccination
| briandear wrote:
| Some of us don't trust Pfizer either. Considering their track
| record of research fraud. (This is documented, it isn't some
| conspiracy theory.)
| tasha0663 wrote:
| shitpost wrote:
| Covzire wrote:
| [deleted]
| bsedlm wrote:
| 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)
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| 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.
| ismail wrote:
| 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.
| Geeek wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1]https://www.axios.com/johnson-johnson-texas-baby-powder-
| gamb...
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
| mpyne wrote:
| > 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.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| 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"
| mpyne wrote:
| > 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'.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| 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.
|
| So lets just say it's debatable.
| jeromegv wrote:
| 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.
| rajin444 wrote:
| > 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.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-
| shoul...
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| 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.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > VAERS reports?
|
| ... 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.
|
| https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=
| 221...
|
| 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.
|
| (... Regarding Japan, I'd double check primary sources.
| https://www.newswise.com/articles/misleading-reuters-
| article...)
| tyrfing wrote:
| Only a certain percent of people enjoy themselves on
| rollercoasters. Therefore, charging everyone for entry is a
| scam.
|
| > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm.
|
| There are 38,200 pending lawsuits against J&J solely for talc
| powder claims. A single one of them was $2.5 billion.
| xdennis wrote:
| You can't compare roller coasters to pharmaceuticals because
| enjoyment is subjective, but medicine isn't.
| nunez wrote:
| A single one of them _that included 22 women in the suit_
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| 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.
| adamrezich wrote:
| can 2022 be the year we go back to being distrustful of
| multinational for-profit pharmaceutical corporations please
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| mpyne wrote:
| Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their
| Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.
| finnx wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1]: https://hcqmeta.com/ [2]: https://ivmmeta.com/ [3]:
| https://c19early.com/ [4]: https://c19early.com/cbdmeta.html
| azinman2 wrote:
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-
| more-t...
| mpyne wrote:
| 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Lots of things aren't patented that are exclusively
| produced by multinational pharmaceutical companies.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Very little profit, that's for sure.
| errcorrectcode wrote:
| Wow. A prior restraint injunction would be kinda unconstitutional
| for going against the 1st a.
|
| National security is the primary injunctive exception, which can
| be avoided by handing documents to something like WikiLeaks.
|
| I guess JNJ's lawyers were desperate and so took a gamble on
| maneuvering without considering the optics.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| 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.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can't
| get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something.
|
| You can if you are the government:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States
| mdoms wrote:
| Is J&J the government?
| addajones wrote:
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| 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.
| Dwelve wrote:
| Why not both?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > 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.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Civil law is a bit different.
|
| 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).
| HWR_14 wrote:
| 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.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The injunction is for violating the criminal penalty of
| trade secret theft. That injunction can be applied
| whether or not you signed an NDA.
|
| (It's a bit nonsense that we as a country let corps get
| laws passed to make "trade secret theft" criminal, but it
| is what it is).
| Retric wrote:
| Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication:
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h...
|
| Though it didn't last long.
| legalcorrection wrote:
| 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/202007
| 13/17110644892/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.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _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.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| Ah yes, the other J&J: Jarndyce and Jarndyce.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "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.
| aaronchall wrote:
| Although I know I'm wrong 99% of the time I sometimes get
| that feeling about my fellow programmers when I look at
| code...
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Yeah, there is probably truth in that, too.
|
| I did hear people complain about some new UI/UX, on how
| it makes it too easy for nontechnical people to use it.
| [deleted]
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| "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.
|
| It's really, really common.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| 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.
|
| One such example:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
| conspiracy/wp/201...
| thoraway88 wrote:
| xeromal wrote:
| You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then
| refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair.
|
| Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept
| people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that.
| Leaving this comment for posterity.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| When someone says "I'm legally prohibited from saying
| certain things," you can't reasonably expect then to
| detail those things.
|
| This is why censorship is so dangerous ... especially in
| a society that presumes freedom of speech.
|
| There was a fascinating article (can't find it) about the
| recipient of a NSL complaining to their congressman about
| being censored.
|
| Their congressman told them such censorship was
| impossible under the current law so they shouldn't worry
| about it.
|
| They wanted to say "yes it's possible, it's happened to
| me."
|
| But that would have been illegal. So it was impossible to
| convince their congressman to look into it, and therefore
| impossible to get the law changed.
| salawat wrote:
| 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.
| borski wrote:
| Sure they can, if: a) it might get them in legal hot
| water, or b) it is personal and they don't want to get
| into it.
|
| You're not owed anything by anyone here, and they did
| bring up an example about family court and link to an
| article about it. :)
| [deleted]
| xeromal wrote:
| Seems like a lame way to bring up an example to me.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| Imagine how it feels from the perspective of the person
| constrained by an illegal court order.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I disagree, but fair enough. Doesn't mean any of us are
| entitled to elaboration, though.
| chris_wot wrote:
| They absolutely do not have to explain themselves
| further. They owe you (and us) nothing.
| xeromal wrote:
| I just mean from a debat/argument standpoint. How can
| someone say "No, that's incorrect, but I refuse to
| elaborate". Why even talk? lol
| borski wrote:
| 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.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| xeromal wrote:
| Thanks for linking the rules. I'll accept that.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| 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.
| borski wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| I'm not debating with anyone. I'm just sharing a personal
| experience.
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| They gave an example with an article. That much is enough
| to say "this is a thing that happens" without divulging
| sensitive information.
| bladegash wrote:
| 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.
| datavirtue wrote:
| That's when a lot of people start having conversations
| with Uncle Molotov.
| ozfive wrote:
| C'mon now ... This is inappropriate at the very least.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| 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.
| bladegash wrote:
| 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!
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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).
| lettergram wrote:
| Was about to say something similar.
|
| FISA court orders, family court, settlement agreements,
| arbitration, civil lawsuits, criminal trials, etc
|
| There are so many different ways you can be "gagged" it's
| very common.
|
| There's a reason they tried to get the publication stopped -
| because it often works.
| datavirtue wrote:
| And then you publish anyway to prove you are a "real
| American." (TM)
| pueblito wrote:
| Rights are like trademarks, if you don't defend them
| aggressively then you'll lose them
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Sadly, there are many movements against free speech,
| specially in the usa, because some people might say
| something, that someone doesn't want to hear.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Yes, one violates freedom of the press, and the other
| violates freedom of speech.
|
| Both are protected by the first amendment.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| No, they both violate freedom of the press.
| smorgusofborg wrote:
| No, only one violates the generally accepted freedoms of
| the press:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
| FloNeu wrote:
| dv_dt wrote:
| That makes we wonder how many essentially invisible to the
| public cases this kind of restraint we have in the system.
|
| It seem like all it takes is a plausible legal theory that
| could be dragged out combined with enough financial clout to
| make the defendant give.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| This same judge said something along the lines of "there
| are no limits on my ability to issue orders until an
| appeals court overturns them."
|
| He was keenly aware that the issue wasn't significant
| enough to appeal and that his power was essentially
| unchecked.
|
| Lawyers are very aware of this dynamic.
| daenz wrote:
| This is why it is so important to have wise judges that
| are held to a very high moral standard.
| jdasdf wrote:
| No, this is why it's important to have checks and
| balances against unrestrained judicial power.
|
| These checks and balances must include legal as well as
| practical costs and difficulties in having those orders
| implemented.
|
| The system should assume malice on all parties, and work
| accordingly.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| whatshisface wrote:
| There could be a system that punished judges for
| overturned rulings and rewarded people who put in the
| effort to overturn them.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| But "who judges the judges?", to paraphrase the ancient
| wise question.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| ... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public
| to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of
| office.
| dv_dt wrote:
| 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.
| pessimizer wrote:
| And don't forget the part where you have to get the
| majority of your neighbors to do the same.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| 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.
| fires10 wrote:
| 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.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| 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.
| pseingatl wrote:
| 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.
| fulafel wrote:
| 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.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| > freedom of press is quite limited there
|
| Could you please be more specific? Because I've lived here
| for a long time and I'd call this statement utter BS.
| smnrchrds wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-
| injunctions_in_English_l...
| fulafel wrote:
| Interesting. It seems you better be pals with a member of
| parliament if you get one of these: https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/RJW_v_Guardian_News_and_Media_...
| thedevelopnik wrote:
| I think the OP was trying to reference the difference
| between libel laws in the US and UK regarding who has the
| burden of proof.
| jdasdf wrote:
| 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.
| londons_explore wrote:
| 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.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| 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?
| drzaiusapelord wrote:
| 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.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 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.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| 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_.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 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.
| fulafel wrote:
| Having to prove those things in court, under threat of
| penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.
| xdennis wrote:
| I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask.
|
| Press freedom is important because it can keep in check
| the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free
| as to be able to publish known lies.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should
| only be for multi-millionaires.
| xdennis wrote:
| 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.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| 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.
| fulafel wrote:
| 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.
| mherdeg wrote:
| > 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.
|
| Isn't there certain Project Veritas info that the NYT is
| currently forbidden from publishing? did I misunderstand?
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-projec...
| theknocker wrote:
| olliej wrote:
| 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?
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| Because you don't have enough money to lobby (bribe) the people
| who make these kinds of decisions.
| zeroa093 wrote:
| 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.
| strogonoff wrote:
| 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.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| But the government is happy to shield them from liability when
| it comes to vaccines.
| pas wrote:
| 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.
| thenaterator wrote:
| > anti vax nutjobs
|
| 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.
| ls15 wrote:
| 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.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Governments belong in the same bucket as companies, from the
| point of view of actual journalism.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I can't disagree with that, governments (cities, etc) are
| really just companies that the citizens work for once we
| are born.
| ndneighbor wrote:
| 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".
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/vfOkX
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-06 23:01 UTC)