141–150 of 239 posts
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a carcinogen.
Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.
There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
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.
Unrelated? Trust is earned . Companies are big, but senior leadership teams and boards are pretty small and wield an enormous amount of influence and power and since we can't predict future actions we can only look backwards. Not allowing people to speak out could end up being more dangerous in the long run.
The baby powder story is a great opportunity to remember that there are actual journalists doing valuable work, and society needs them. Meanwhile, the oft-repeated sentiment is that we should get rid of journalists and news agencies because every single one of them is supposedly a sell-out. That’d surely resolve a number of issues for companies like J&J.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Personally I'll grant that wearing gloves helps prevent frostbite. But I wouldn't make people in Hawaii wear them.
I think you have to look at the groups most at risk and it turns out its really old people with multiple morbidity either already in hospital near death or coming in from nursing homes.
I just don't see how showing some statical benefit to that group translates to general healthy much younger population.
And even than, I think you could show a statistical benefit to giving two doses of a laxative in fighting covid in 80+ year olds, if all you counted was the health outcomes in the stronger surviving subpopulation that survived the laxative two weeks later.
I've taken enough statistics at university to know I can safely ignore anything that isn't a double blind study.
So lets just say it's debatable.
The baby powder story is a great opportunity to remember that there are actual journalists doing valuable work, and society needs them. Meanwhile, the oft-repeated sentiment is that we should get rid of journalists and news agencies because every single one of them is supposedly a sell-out. That’d surely resolve a number of issues for companies like J&J.
But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.
Pharma 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…
Only a certain percent of people enjoy themselves on rollercoasters. Therefore, charging everyone for entry is a scam. > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. There are 38,200 pending lawsuits against J&J solely for talc powder claims. A single one of them was $2.5 billion.
Pharma 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…
There's a reason the US has an FDA. What we're seeing here is with standards in place... Imagine the landscape with no standards or regulation. ... Or, hell, we don't even have to imagine, because we've been watching people actively try and dodge the regulations to treat a virus with livestock de-wormer because some influential people suggested it would work.
Earlier 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…
Family court telling a father not to tweet mean things and any court telling a journalist, with a track record of publishing, not to publish, are clear and separate things.
Both are protected by the first amendment.