Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker • Hacker News Board

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#41

Post by roc » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:44 PM UTC

jonstokes wrote: post #9

The tragedy here goes far beyond the direct damage to the patents who were prescribed this vile stuff off-label. There's also the collateral damage to the medical establishment that supports this -- can anyone argue that the anti-vaxxers don't have a point when they're on about exactly this sort of profit-driven evil from Big Pharma? I myself am an anti-anti-vaxxer (a pro-vaxxer?) who actually supports state-mandated…

> can anyone argue that the anti-vaxxers don't have a point when they're on about exactly this sort of profit-driven evil from Big Pharma

Yes; they do not have a point as regards vaccines.

Because vaccines are so essential to public health, they're very closely regulated and monitored by the FDA. Samples from each and every lot of each and every vaccine are passed to CBER and tested (for efficacy, sterility, etc) at several stages of production, and licenses for distribution are granted per lot, based on passing those tests.

The FDA knows exactly what they want from these drugs, what the active agents are and how they work, and how to test for them. They don't accept cleverness or variations. There's essentially no profit in this process and no room for profit.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#42

Post by afarrell » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:44 PM UTC

wehadfun wrote: post #40

jonstokes wrote: post #9

The tragedy here goes far beyond the direct damage to the patents who were prescribed this vile stuff off-label. There's also the collateral damage to the medical establishment that supports this -- can anyone argue that the anti-vaxxers don't have a point when they're on about exactly this sort of profit-driven evil from Big Pharma? I myself am an anti-anti-vaxxer (a pro-vaxxer?) who actually supports state-mandated…

I would guess that most of the anti and pro-vaxers are not scientifically trained, were not involved in the development or testing of these vaccines, probably have not read any of the original reports, don't know what influences could have effected those reports and are basically regurgitating info they saw on TV or the internet. I've heard both sides of the vaccine argument and they both have points.

This is true of > 95% of any non-obscure public policy debate, is it not?

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#43

Post by petra » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:46 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #18

thehoff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following through the links to Dollars for Docs: https://projects.propublica.org/d4d-archive/companies/johnso... How is this legal? I'm ignorant of the details but for instance, if you click on California and look at Speaking, top of the list doc got $86,550!

It's legal in the way that celebrity/professional endorsement is legal in any other field. It's not inherently wrong, and you would expect that an ostensibly effective product would be touted by respected professionals. And just to be clear, when speaking for the product, the doctors generally must stick to the company's slides and official talking points -- though the doctors have final say over what they present [1…

I think this partly comes because the american system is so fragmented.

I believe that in places with centralized healthcare systems, there are people who are responsible to understand the new drugs, both at the level of the healthcare provider and the health ministry - and they guide doctors on what to prescribe.

This makes sense because they don't have a conflict of interest(unless bribed).

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#44

Post by arethuza » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #33

ceejayoz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with "you can't force me to get vaccinated" if it includes an acceptance of civil liability should you be part of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease.

That's just petty. Even assuming liability, you cannot sue dead people back to life, or sue an epidemic away. So, no, that is silly and helps nobody. If you're going to do that just go full hog and fine people, at least it doesn't feel like petty revenge. Ultimately it is the fact that vaccines AREN'T required that forces the government to spend the time, resources, and effort promoting vaccines. Without that they ca…

> That's just petty.

I think it's pretty fair actually - I don't want anyone (particularly children) to be forcibly vaccinated. But people should realize that choosing not to be vaccinated may cause harm to others and in that case it seems fair to be able to obtain compensation via the courts.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#45

Post by aggie » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #22

aggie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

> If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice. Nope, they really don't. The default should not be for the state to force someone to inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT. The state should justify why they're doing it, and make…

> The default should not be for the state to force someone to...

I agree.

> The state should justify why they're doing it

And they do: herd immunity, which is supported by convincing scientific evidence.

I didn't say liberty should be violated by default. We are no longer in a default position -- the argument has already been made and it is apparent that vaccination is justified as a social good. As a member of a society, sometimes social good takes priority over individual liberty. My argument is that if people still want to reject it, they need to explain why their liberty should come before others' health. (This is a rhetorical request I don't expect someone will be able to convince me of, though some may hold this view.)

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#46

Post by Retra » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

LordKano wrote: post #28

Retra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…

Compelling to do good things and compelling to prevent bad things are a duality. They're equivalent in their effects, and you can easily transform one to the other. Punishing people for doing wrong is compelling them to receive a punishment deemed good. "Thou must go to jail."

"Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice."

That's a nice slogan, but it isn't actually realized anywhere. It's always your choice when there's a clear advantage -- that is, when the state doesn't "know best" about your body. And it absolutely reserves the right control your body for the greater good.

"Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?"

They can if there is good evidence to show a vegan diet is strictly superior to all others.

So for a more appropriate example, it can compel you to use a seatbelt in an automobile, because there are real social costs to not doing so. It doesn't matter if you want to take a risk, once you go to the hospital, you are utilizing a public resource. And the state has a responsibility to ensure those resources are available and used efficiently, which means preventing unnecessary emergencies. (Like what would occur if you contracted something like polio.)

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#47

Post by petra » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

calibum wrote: post #30

Until we start sending people to jail, such abuses will continue.

True. And we should also target doctors that give shitty treatment as a result of such shenanigans.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#48

Post by ygrechuk » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:51 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #38

LordKano wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior. I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Or why a simple…

> Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice. Except that it's not your body. If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else. You don't have the right to choose to infect other people. Vaccination needs to be mandatory, and if the state has to send agents to burst into people's homes, tie people down, and forcibly administer the vaccinations, then I'm all for it.

I generally agree with LordKano, and in the same positions of having been vaccinated myself and my kids. At the same time I really don't like state-mandated vaccines. For philosophical reasons first of all ("Your body, your choice"). But also for practical, as it presents a great possibility of abuse; as an example impagine corrupt officials mandating unnecessary vaccination of BigPharma's profit.

> If you don't get vaccinated, and you get sick, then you infect everyone else. You don't have the right to choose to infect other people.

I would NOT be against public schools mandating vaccines in order for children to attend school. Same for places of employment.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#49

Post by netcan » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:54 PM UTC

aggie wrote: post #16

LordKano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-vaxxers would have a point even if J&J wasn't involved in shady activity. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated. I just hold the position that the power of the state shouldn't be used to compel people to inject substances into their bodies, even if we think we have a good reason for doing it. I'm not looking to delve too deeply into the politics of it but there are good reas…

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

The problem I have with thee sorts of debates is that fundamentals are very hard to argue against in principle. But in effect, practical "compromises" can often serve both goals better than a single purists solution.

I happen to believe in both liberty and public health.

In practice, vaccinations against infectious diseases need to hit certain percentages, not 100% of the population. With free vaccination, post natal health care, school programs and public education campaigns we can hit those numbers, and we do so regularly.

There's no need for the gross violation of freedom some people fear, locking up parents or declaring them unfit, tying people to a chair and needling them. Doing this voluntarily puts more onus on the system to be smart and high functioning, invest in education and making people comfortable with the whole thing. It increases the pressure to reduce side effects, inconvenience, cost, fear and any other barrier to getting kids vaccinated. Generally, the whole thing works better.

The fundamentalist is not serving principles more faithfully than the centrist or pragmatist. She's often just being argumentative and trying to be right to the detriment of her principles.

Declaring all state involvement or authority to be (equally?) coercive and violent is silly, thinking in discreet categories when the world of human beings is fuzzy. Ignoring people's agency in the decision to vaccinate them or their children is an obvious violation is a basic morally deafness.

I see comments like these from smart people who think more deeply about such things than the average person. It's baffling. Almost makes me think that the whole enterprise of moral philosophy and political philosophy is counter-productive. People fall into traps of vainly searching for consistency and leave their moral sense behind, with common sense far behind.

TLDR: There is no reason to forgo obesity for vaccination or vaccination for freedom. People are motivated into these arguments by a desire to be right, not to help people be free or healthy.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#50

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 07, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

imperio59 wrote: post #11

werber wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like the majority are mental health drugs, that's really scary.

That's because these drugs are the mad scientist experiments of a bunch of psychiatrists who are crazier than the patients they pretend to be "helping". If you also look at how many mass shooters were on these drugs which were prescribed off label and caused their violence, you start to realize the real cost on society of these so called "cures".

[deleted]