[HN Gopher] Lumina's legal threats and my about-face
___________________________________________________________________
Lumina's legal threats and my about-face
Author : gdudeman
Score : 101 points
Date : 2024-05-20 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (trevorklee.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (trevorklee.substack.com)
| vertis wrote:
| [0]Barbra Streisand Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh, wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh
| Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh, wooo, wooo, wooo
|
| Another one of those things that as soon as you start throwing
| legal threats around it get much much more interesting.
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQdVA2hjsA
| therein wrote:
| Great write up. I hadn't seen the original post, and now I have.
| Mutacin and ethanol production does sound problematic. It is a
| product that I would have tried otherwise.
|
| It is also kinda hilarious that the guy is related to the most
| overrated escort in the Bay Area and is using her to further his
| product.
| ljsprague wrote:
| Who's that?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Aella [1].
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aella_(influencer)
| amarcheschi wrote:
| May I ask what makes aella overrated? I mean, I didn't
| understand whether it was in a sense of purely related to
| escort activity or for her writings, surveys (...), I'm asking
| because this isn't the first time I read about aella being not
| reputable. Searching on hn.algolia a user came - pun intended -
| up with a script to hide certain website on hn, and aella's
| substack was one of them. I glanced at her Twitter/substack in
| the past and I found content varying from crappy to at least
| interesting or quite interesting
| jawns wrote:
| Former journalist here. I spent lots of time in college learning
| about libel law, and then applying it in my professional life as
| an editor.
|
| One thing about libel that many people don't understand is that
| retraction and editing of the content isn't a defense. So where
| it says "note the libel-friendly phrasing" and "now edited to
| avoid any possible threats of libel" and "[editor's note: removed
| a possibly incorrect claim]" he could still be found guilty of
| libel if previously published assertions contained non "libel-
| friendly" phrasing. As long as a defamatory assertion was
| published _at some point_ , you can still be found guilty of
| libel.
|
| It probably goes without saying, but it is also not a defense to
| libel to say that you asserted something to be true merely
| because there was no evidence to the contrary. Absent a
| contractual or legal obligation, Lumina had no duty to engage
| with him and answer his questions. So if Lumina can provide
| evidence that Trevor asserted things that are demonstrably false,
| and they damaged Lumina's business, then Trevor can't argue as a
| defense that he merely had no way of knowing that they were
| false.
|
| Finally, Trevor seems to be saying in his update that he was
| merely asking questions -- but it's possible for a court to find
| that merely phrasing false, defamatory assertions in the form of
| a question is not an absolute protection against a libel claim.
| debacle wrote:
| Libel is tricky, especially with public companies. A libel suit
| opens you up to discovery, which is pretty much never good in
| the court of public opinion. There's also a (relatively) high
| bar, even when the author is an SME (Trevor seems like an SME).
|
| The only thing that rubs me the wrong way about Trevor's post
| is only giving 48 hours to respond. I've had serious nonfactual
| information published about me because I didn't respond to an
| email in a timely fashion, and then when I asked for
| corrections (kindly), was met with a hostile reporter.
|
| In my mind, if Lumina was in the right (and had good lawyers),
| they would have not responded to Trevor, mic-dropped his
| claims, and moved on with their lives. Trying to wrestle with
| something like this is not generally a good idea, and the CEO's
| approach seems unwise at best.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| To wit, I now know about this where before I had no idea, and
| it leaves enough of a stink that I wouldn't touch their
| product with a ten foot pole. Especially the whole idea that
| they wouldn't answer any questions over email, which is a red
| flag for me about them not wanting a record of a discussion
| about this. You do that when you think there might be
| controversy or you're not totally certain about your claims
| and don't want that uncertainty reflected in a back-and-
| forth.
| kbenson wrote:
| Although this part (as noted above):
|
| _* You assumed we 'd never gene sequenced the bacteria,
| even though I posted the sequence publicly.
|
| I assumed you did not regularly sequence the bacteria
| because you did not say that you did and you did not report
| anything about following manufacturing regulations. I'm
| glad that you did and do. Sequencing the bacteria regularly
| is critical to make sure what people are putting in their
| mouths is what they think is putting in their mouths. And
| by "post the sequence publicly", you mean on Manifold,
| rather than on your company's website, for whatever reason.
| Sorry I didn't check all of Manifold._
|
| really doesn't paint Trevor Klee favorably to me. I'm not
| sure how you go from "they didn't say anything about it" to
| "I can assert they aren't doing it". Even if you ask a
| question directly and don't get an answer, all you should
| feel comfortable asserting without evidence otherwise is
| "they did not address this when asked directly". In this
| case it's unclear whether they didn't address a question
| asked or the question wasn't really asked at all.
|
| > Especially the whole idea that they wouldn't answer any
| questions over email, which is a red flag for me about them
| not wanting a record of a discussion about this.
|
| Or it could just be that they wanted to make sure their
| statements were taken in context and they got a chance to
| explain if they thought the other person was
| misinterpreting the question. I'm not sure it's a *good(
| idea then, but I can at least imagine scenarios where they
| think it might be, especially if they've had prior
| experience with reporters misreporting because of that
| problem. Sometimes over-corrections happen and cause their
| own problems.
| GrantMoyer wrote:
| Doesn't defamation of a public figure require "actual malice"?
| If so, doesn't the CEO's admission in writing that "I believe
| your post was made in good faith" severely undermine any claims
| of defamation?
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| Agreed. As a lawyer who occasionally works in this area, my
| primary reaction to the post was: he should have gotten advice
| from a lawyer and not just "fellow bloggers." The "wink wink"
| going on in this post would really not work to his advantage if
| he is sued for defamation and any of his statements turn out to
| be false.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Apparently the former CEO of Reddit, Yishan Wong, is trying it
| and is an investor? He posted a series of long tweets/Xs
| whatever:
|
| https://x.com/yishan/status/1780131189753569310
| debacle wrote:
| The current CEO as well, IIRC.
| Animats wrote:
| Look into "anti-SLAPP laws". California has strong enough ones to
| make people back down from threats like that.
| ai_what wrote:
| I don't have any skin in this game but this is confusing to me
| because in the article that he put back up it (still) says:
|
| > Lumina likely aren't following the Best Practices Guidelines
| for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each
| strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your
| packaging.
|
| But in the new article it says:
|
| > Lumina's manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP
| protocols, if not the probiotic trade association's voluntary
| best practices.
|
| Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong?
|
| I understand that it's weird that it didn't get revealed until he
| was pressed on it but then so is stating that he likely wasn't
| following the best practices, right?
|
| Furthermore, the first article doesn't mention that it's
| voluntary to follow the best practices guidelines but the second
| one does. To me that sounds kind of like "okay fine you were
| right, but it's voluntary anyway, so whatever". Why not mention
| that in the original claim?
|
| In fairness, the original article also has some great points,
| like the concerns about this particular BCS3L-1 strain that
| Lumina uses. I wish he had focused more on that.
|
| I feel like both of them could have gone about this in a better
| way.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| > Because that does sound to me like the original claim was
| wrong?
|
| I don't think so. At least in my reading, it appears both of
| these things can be true at the same time if you ready
| carefully:
|
| > Lumina likely aren't following the Best Practices Guidelines
| for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each
| strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your
| packaging.
|
| > Lumina's manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP
| protocols, if not the probiotic trade association's voluntary
| best practices.
|
| These are saying the same thing - it looks like the probiotic
| best practices aren't being followed, but they appear to not be
| legally mandated.
| resolutebat wrote:
| Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics != Good Manufacturing
| Practices (GMP)
| someotherperson wrote:
| The writing by Trevor didn't make me shy away from Lumina's
| product, I was still quite excited. It would have been good to
| see scientific debate which could hopefully improve or clarify
| processes and safety.
|
| Lumina's court threats, however, would definitely make me shy
| away. I imagine for myself (and many others) that this would be
| the case.
| kbenson wrote:
| That's probably true, but I think that's actually kind of sad.
| We've seen enough legal threatening to prevent the truth from
| getting out that I think our reactions are to assume that's the
| case. If indeed this is Lumina being upset that a journalist
| went to far and made _false_ claims about them as they
| indicate, and the truth is better than indicated, would we not
| expect a legal proceeding if the journalist would not retract
| false claims?
|
| I don't know who is ultimately in the right here (but at least
| one of Trevor's defenses of his assertions seems flimsy at best
| to me, namely the "you didn't say otherwise so I assumed this
| was true" one), and it would have been better if they could
| come to an agreement without the legal system about how best to
| handle this (Lumina does seem to be going harder at this than
| possibly needed), but I think we should assess the situation on
| the merits, not that there is a legal case at all.
| mindslight wrote:
| [delayed]
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Reasons not to take Lumina 's anticavity probiotic_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40369084 - May 2024 (149
| comments)
| lxe wrote:
| Now I'm curious to read the edited sections.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Antibiotic-resistant bugs is a tragedy of the commons. We may
| need a blanket requirement for FDA approval for products,
| including probiotics, which create antibiotics.
| hooverd wrote:
| Got a prescription for that kefir?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _kefir_
|
| What antibiotic do the probiotics in kefir produce?
| (Antimicrobial != antibiotic.)
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Regardless of all the "he said, she said", libel or not libel,
| email response times, GMP, threats and whatever drama:
|
| Is there anyone who is seriously contesting the "it is intended
| to cure/prevent a disease, therefore it is a drug, therefore it
| needs FDA approval to be sold legally" line of reasoning?
|
| More humoristically: https://xkcd.com/2475/ and
| https://xkcd.com/2530/
|
| Less humoristically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
| Sevii wrote:
| Seems like a stretch to argue a biological organism qualifies
| as a drug.
| causality0 wrote:
| _spending years in and out of a California courtroom_
|
| Yeah, that's totally not something a company that's completely
| full of shit from the top down and bottom up would threaten. Now
| we can be sure this product functions as advertised.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > Dude, if the product wasn't safe, I wouldn't be using it
| myself, giving it to my girlfriend, and giving it to my friends.
|
| I hope Mr. Silverbrook understands how hollow that reasoning is
| in the post-OceanGate era.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-20 23:01 UTC)