181–190 of 239 posts
So 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.
[citation needed]
If a company can do it, why can’t I do that for my personal debt?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair. Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.
Sure they can, if: a) it might get them in legal hot water, or b) it is personal and they don’t want to get into it. You’re not owed anything by anyone here, and they did bring up an example about family court and link to an article about it. :)
Earlier 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...
You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair. Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.
This is why censorship is so dangerous … especially in a society that presumes freedom of speech.
There was a fascinating article (can’t find it) about the recipient of a NSL complaining to their congressman about being censored.
Their congressman told them such censorship was impossible under the current law so they shouldn’t worry about it.
They wanted to say “yes it’s possible, it’s happened to me.”
But that would have been illegal. So it was impossible to convince their congressman to look into it, and therefore impossible to get the law changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.
Not for any vaccines. In case of covid ones the waiver was to get the vaccine fast. But it didn't mean anything goes, no oversight. It makes sense in a pandemic to have a fast rollout with continuous monitoring instead of the usual wait for the courts, usually wait for enough cases to have a class action, wait for the certification of that, etc. Not to mention the anti vax nutjobs screaming about experimential vaccin…
This phrase is often used to malign those with a different understanding or opinion. Most people who question the efficacy and safety profile of the experimental Covid vaccines are neither anti vaccine nor nutjobs.
> Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.
The talc powder lawsuits are because it is suspected or causing cancer. Yes, they made something with long term side effects. Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Pure talc is also a carcinogen [citation needed]
(Studies cited there don't quite prove that asbestos-free talc is carcinogenic...but the evidence is damning enough that no well-informed consumer would actually use talc. Even if they somehow had access to guaranteed-0.00000% asbestos talc.)
Also rather concerning - talc is GRAS by the FDA when used as an anti-caking agent in table salt at concentrations below 2%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
That depends on the definition of 'actually works' and vaccine. Both which need redefining in the new scheme. 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 do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a much more interesting trick imo, where Texas allows "divisive mergers" that enable them to split liabilities off into a separate entity. It's not clear to me what the intended benefit of allowing this procedure is, other than this kind of action.
Yeah, I'm trying to understand how this is allowed? It seems like it's in incredibly bad faith. Can anyone explain how this can happen? Taking this to it's extreme, can't you just buy some property so that you owe 1 million dollars, put that debt into it's own company and then say "sorry, that company is bankrupt, I can't pay". Is that not what's happening here? I feel like I must be missing something.
So I think the way that these rules play out WRT J&J would be that they have to include all assets pertaining to their baby powder / talc business into the new entity, along with the amount of cash that is ordinarily used to operate the business into the spin out. That way the spin out contains what realistically constituted the talc business (net of profits that have been taken or reallocate in the past), so it can be held liable for any debts associated with the same business.
EDIT: looks like in their case they're basically splitting into two companies - one that does pharmaceuticals (drugs, vaccines, etc) and the spinoff that does consumer products (Listerine, shampoo, the baby powder / talc in question, etc) with each part receiving relevant operating assets and associated liabilities, but the pharma side (which will retain the name) keeping the excess cash on hand and other non-operating assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't bring up an anecdote as a counterpoint then refuse to explain the anecdote. It's a bit unfair. Edit: someone posted the rules that says we should accept people's comments in good faith. I'll try to do that. Leaving this comment for posterity.
When someone says “I’m legally prohibited from saying certain things,” you can’t reasonably expect then to detail those things. This is why censorship is so dangerous … especially in a society that presumes freedom of speech. There was a fascinating article (can’t find it) about the recipient of a NSL complaining to their congressman about being censored. Their congressman told them such censorship was impossible und…
If you want to see the Judiciary rein it in, get a Congressperson involved. The Executive is fudged for, the Legislative can rewrite the entire corpus with due process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also not uncommon to purchase an existing company, move debt over to it, and then kill it off. Late stage capitalism is an interesting phenomenon.
I wonder where the pitchforks are, by now. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...