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

201–210 of 239 posts

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

#201

Post by shadowgovt »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #149
shadowgovt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

There were early studies, yes. Subsequent studies suggested no. "Having promise" isn't enough for something with side-effects like Ivermectin, which is why the FDA didn't clear it for this use.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

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

#202

Post by shadowgovt »

HWR_14 wrote: post #174
shadowgovt wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil law is a bit different. Nobody ever goes to jail for violating an NDA. What you can have happen is be found to be in breach of contract and obligated to follow the consequences of that breach (including possibly restitution for damaging the aggrieved party). The bar in civil law is lower because the penalties are generally money, and correction is simple if an error is later found (move that money back). Crimin…

Many NDAs include language preventing just what you said, and allowing one party to seek an injunction from a judge preventing disclosure and a breach. Violating a judges injunction will usually result in jail time, not just a fine.

The injunction is for violating the criminal penalty of trade secret theft. That injunction can be applied whether or not you signed an NDA.

(It's a bit nonsense that we as a country let corps get laws passed to make "trade secret theft" criminal, but it is what it is).

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

#203

Post by shadowgovt »

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.

There's a definite information gap here waiting for someone to step in and fill it. Practically speaking these days, it's currently filled by special interest groups like the state bar and various voting leagues; they will do the heavy lifting of evaluating the candidates and issue recommendations.

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

#204

Post by smorgusofborg »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #191
pyuser583 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, one violates freedom of the press, and the other violates freedom of speech. Both are protected by the first amendment.

No, they both violate freedom of the press.

No, only one violates the generally accepted freedoms of the press:

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

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

#205

Post by ls15 »

thenaterator wrote: post #185
pas wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> anti vax nutjobs 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…

Labeling people who disagree with insults in order to ridicule them is a a logical fallacy, a sign of intolerance and of poor discussion culture in my opinion.

Typically because of anger and lack of rational arguments, I assume.

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

#206

Post by ndneighbor »

strogonoff wrote: post #136

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.

I really wish there were ways to fund more investigative efforts of journalism. I support my local newspaper but would be nice to have some sort of system of campaigns to support reasoned inquiry into those that have power beyond platitudes such as "ads bad".

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

#207

Post by dukeofdoom »

shadowgovt wrote: post #201
dukeofdoom wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

There were early studies, yes. Subsequent studies suggested no. "Having promise" isn't enough for something with side-effects like Ivermectin, which is why the FDA didn't clear it for this use. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

That's interesting that you mention side effects, because I've heard it represented as being one of the safest medicines ever made. Can you back that up with some proof...Vaers reports?

CDC is US based. I have read before that it was approved for use in Japan for treatment. So there must be some disagreement between health agencies on it's effectiveness.

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

#208

Post by ajsnigrutin »

pueblito wrote: post #198
datavirtue wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you publish anyway to prove you are a "real American." (TM)

Rights are like trademarks, if you don’t defend them aggressively then you’ll lose them

Sadly, there are many movements against free speech, specially in the usa, because some people might say something, that someone doesn't want to hear.

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

#209

Post by shadowgovt »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #207
shadowgovt wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were early studies, yes. Subsequent studies suggested no. "Having promise" isn't enough for something with side-effects like Ivermectin, which is why the FDA didn't clear it for this use. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...

That's interesting that you mention side effects, because I've heard it represented as being one of the safest medicines ever made. Can you back that up with some proof...Vaers reports? CDC is US based. I have read before that it was approved for use in Japan for treatment. So there must be some disagreement between health agencies on it's effectiveness.

> VAERS reports?

... Aren't proof. VAERS is data collection, not analysis. It's a giant anecdote database. There is no vetting on the input data, which is self-reported.

There is a VAERS entry describing someone being turned into the Incredible Hulk after taking MMR vaccine.

https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=221...

Fortunately, there are tests and analytics on the side-effects of Ivermectin that don't rely on VAERS. You can find most of them listed in the FDA front-matter for the drug, because it was approved for other uses besides COVID. The approval process includes grasping side-effects.

The US decided, ages ago, that "snake-oil" (unproven drugs with side-effects) were something the government would step in and stop because people suffering and dying are desperate and easily-cheated. Other nations have different histories.

(... Regarding Japan, I'd double check primary sources. https://www.newswise.com/articles/misleading-reuters-article...)

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

#210

Post by catlifeonmars »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #170
borski wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this isn’t a formal debate, and generally we trust in others’ firsthand experiences, especially when they link to a related article, even if it isn’t precisely the story that happened to them. The GP is, in this case, an original source and as per the HN guidelines [1] we assume good faith. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The sentence you conveniently left out leaves out the context of "assume good faith": > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. That does not, in any way, say "assume anecdotes are trustworthy." Nowhere in the rules does it say or even imply this. It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith;…

> It is also laughable to suggest the HN community assumes good faith

Do you have examples of similar forums that are better examples? This isn’t a rhetorical question; I haven’t been able to find a better forum where the commentary is (mostly) full of honest, thorough, and respectful discourse. If HN is “laughable”, I’m certainly interested in recalibrating.

Post reply on HN