Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

highline.huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 145 posts

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

#91

Post by a3n »

LordKano wrote: post #10
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…

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…

It's a tough question, and I acknowledge your position.

However, the very nature of state as we know it is to have the power of compulsion over many things. It's a spectrum.

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

#92

Post by jessaustin »

LordKano wrote: post #69
tedunangst wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable? Well, they can apparently compel everyone to give up eating horsemeat. If banning beef was politically viable, perhaps they could do that too.

Is the consumption of horse meat forbidden by law or are they using the regulatory power of the USDA to prevent the commercial slaughter of horses?

You're attempting to draw too fine a line here. It's not legal to sell meat for human consumption without USDA regulation.

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

#94

Post by tracker1 »

leni536 wrote: post #82
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…

I'd argue that the whole purpose of a state is to shift game theoretic weights of decisions of individuals in a way that benefits the overall population. So we don't fall into certain instances of the "tragedy of the commons" [1]. Vaccination is a good example. As an individual there is a really small risk in not vaccination if everybody else do otherwise (the disease can't spread). If there is no regulation then the…

I can't/shouldn't take the flu vaccine... it will drastically the risk (around 5% without flu shot) that I'll have Guillain-Barre again. I'm almost done paying the hospital bills from 5 years ago, when it happened... insanely expensive treatment, even if you have insurance that caps at half a million.

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

#95

Post by leoc »

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.

> I've heard both sides of the vaccine argument and they both have points.

Would you expand on this?

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

#96

Post by ZeroGravitas »

roc wrote: post #41
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…

There's also the non-profit-driven evil you need to worry about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

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

#97

Post by tracker1 »

aggie wrote: post #45
Someone1234 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 soc…

You have no right to be protected from getting sick... One's personal liberties should generally extend just shy of infringing on an other's rights.. That should be the default.

That said I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I'm medically unable to take most of them now as they would dramatically increase the chance of a deadly side effect. Once in my life was enough (and the 6-figure hospital bill after insurance cap), and a 5% chance of reoccurrence is bad enough without tempting fate to make that risk much higher.

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

#98

Post by Theodores »

Same company, different drug, same story:

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Medicine-Blowing-Deadliest-Presc...

This book is totally gripping and it also sheds light on the EPO scandal of the cycling world. I do not recommend books lightly but this book is a must read and also a literary 'secret' that is going to be made into a film. Add it to your Christmas list.

I read it a while ago with my Dad reading it too. It was the best thing we read that year - happy times, a book club of our own. Needless to say I have sent this article on to him for his enjoyment.

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

#99

Post by dragonwriter »

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 inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT.

Even most "mandatory" vaccination regimes don't generally do this.

They require people to vaccinate themselves (or, most often, their children) if they are medically able to be vaccinated as a precondition of use of certain public accommodations, as a means of protecting the health of other users of the same accommodation, including especially, but not exclusively, those medically unable to be vaccinated.

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

#100

Post by hibikir »

arethuza wrote: post #44
Someone1234 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That mechanism wouldn't work very well though, because it's a situation with low risk, where it's hard to prove who caused the harm, and even when you do, the damages are so high, the injury won't be restored: For instance, if an influenza outbreak, that we assumed was caused by a set of 5 people in a school contracting the disease, and that killed 10 people, would not lead to multi million dollar payouts to the families of those that died, because chances are, there are no millions of dollars to give. So the compensation will not be any good.

Therefore, all you have left is deterrent, but really, do you think an anti vaxxer would care about going bankrupt, vs their perceived chance of their kid getting autism? I'd be very surprised if it provided any deterrent at all.

Post reply on HN