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

J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 239 posts

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#121

Post by briandear »

grapescheesee wrote: post #86
tasha0663 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 asbest…

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?

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#122

Post by hedora »

dekhn wrote: post #16
moltar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer

I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.

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.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#123

Post by Dylan16807 »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #101
londons_explore wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#124

Post by mpyne »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #116
mpyne wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"

> 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'.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#125

Post by fulafel »

smnrchrds wrote: post #113
bitcharmer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...

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_...

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#126

Post by hedora »

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.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#127

Post by pessimizer »

dv_dt wrote: post #84
shadowgovt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.

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.

And don't forget the part where you have to get the majority of your neighbors to do the same.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#128

Post by daenz »

jdasdf wrote: post #88
daenz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why it is so important to have wise judges that are held to a very high moral standard.

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.

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.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#129

Post by GeoAtreides »

reaperducer wrote: post #27
legalcorrection wrote: post #19

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.

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 on…

Ah yes, the other J&J: Jarndyce and Jarndyce.

Re: J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

#130

Post by xdennis »

fulafel wrote: post #108
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.

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.

Post reply on HN