So if a company like J&J has asbestos in their talc powder, what does one use instead?
J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
111–120 of 239 posts
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s strange, it’s crashing Safari on iOS: Mirror here: https://archive.ph/vfOkX
How on earth is this page killing all 3 mobile rendering engines?! I literally can't view the page on my phone.
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?
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#114Former 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.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#115Pharma 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 (AR…
> 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.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#116Pharma 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 (AR…
> 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…
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"
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#117I 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…
Some of us don’t trust Pfizer either. Considering their track record of research fraud. (This is documented, it isn’t some conspiracy theory.)
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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…
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.
And then you publish anyway to prove you are a "real American." (TM)
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#119So if a company like J&J has asbestos in their talc powder, what does one use instead?
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.
Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
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 b…
No post body was provided.