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

231–239 of 239 posts

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

#231

Post by strogonoff »

ndneighbor wrote: post #206
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".

Ads are bad in the sense that they introduce bias (imagine your biggest advertiser pulls out because you publish a story about X, and staff needs to put bread on their families’ tables). That said, yeah, no ads does not automatically mean fair reporting.

Organizations and individuals doing journalist work are in a weird position where they have to have a degree of selflessness/idealism in order to do a good job, and subscribers need to trust that they have it.

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

#232

Post by dekhn »

Supermancho wrote: post #159
dekhn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

European studies have already made studies around this[1]. J&J is simply trying to fight the same battle, again, in the US. [1] https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/... ).

a single metaanalysis that finds a "weak but significant" result isn't sufficient evidence.

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

#233

Post by quesera »

Supermancho wrote: post #227
quesera wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive. Really? Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings. If JNJ was fined their market cap of $451B, it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, assuming no declines due to reputational damage from the judgement. (2021 earnings $23B, BTW up almost 40% from 2020!). So call it 20…

> > That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive. > Really? Yes. Even in this unlikely scenario, the company would easily continue on. The idea that this case could put them out of business is ridiculous and I stand by it. > it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, You're thinking about it the wrong way...like most people who think that you can stick it to megacorpor…

Not sure where your hostility comes from. I'm not trying to stick anything to anyone, I just don't agree with your financial analysis.

The DOJ does not do 100 year payment plans. No idea where you got that idea. You think Deutsche Bank (or its moral equivalent) is going to line up for that loan? I don't see it.

In the "fined-full-market-cap" scenario (which I consider highly unlikely, and have zero opinion on desirability), I'd expect JNJ to declare bankruptcy (which would not discharge the fine) and be sold for parts.

Maybe I'm not thinking creatively enough, but I intend no weaseling, and there's no need to be a jerk about it.

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

#234

Post by Supermancho »

dekhn wrote: post #232
Supermancho wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European studies have already made studies around this[1]. J&J is simply trying to fight the same battle, again, in the US. [1] https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/... ).

a single metaanalysis that finds a "weak but significant" result isn't sufficient evidence.

I'm not providing discovery. I have demonstrated that it's trivial to dig up evidence. Regardless, it's considered common knowledge in other parts of the world and the US is one of the remaining battlegrounds. J&J quickly discontinued the talc-based baby powder (in the US) when the claims started to pile up.

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

#235

Post by pas »

ipaddr wrote: post #224
pas wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> uncontaminated talc also causes cancer. Can you please point to the claim, data, evidence for this? :o

American cancer society: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-ca...

> The evidence about asbestos-free talc is less clear.

Mind you, I think any aerosol, particulate matter, etc.. is a big no-no for lungs, simply because it promotes inflammation, and our lungs are very sensitive.

Hence all the lung problems in mines, flour factories, etc. Talc doesn't seem special in this regard. The problem is that it's a powder before it gets processed into whatever we use it for.

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

#236

Post by pas »

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…

> Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.

Totally understandable. Accountability is very important. Concern is .. meh. If people have concern ask the FDA & CDC & Pfizer/Moderna. Get informed. If the answer from the FDA et al. is not satisfying, ask again, reach for the usual tools, FOIA, etc. Get the data for the clinical trials, check them. Get the data from VAERS, and so on. (Just with Ivermectin there's plenty of things to look at, get to the bottom, maybe even form an explanation of the data: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t... ... and in the end it's possible to be still not 100% convinced.)

But "oh it's rushed, I'm concerned" or "it's experimental" is about as valid as "oh my head hurts, it's because of those damn Wifi towers / windmills / transmission lines!". Countrywide health/energy/communications policy should not be made because propaganda induced mass hysteria.

See also rock music and DnD and souls of kids.

Maybe the right question to ask is "why it takes so long otherwise?".

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

#237

Post by ILMostro7 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #143
ILMostro7 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common contaminant or intentional additive. There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.

Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.

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

#238

Post by daniel_reetz »

ILMostro7 wrote: post #237
s1artibartfast wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common contaminant or intentional additive. There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.

Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.

I was downvoted incorrectly. I sourced my info from a team working on talc litigation. 686 of 1032 tests produced in litigation revealed the presence of asbestos in talcs used in cosmetics from 1948 to 2017. That's "often".

Asbestos is a carcinogen, and it often contaminates talcs. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/

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

#239

Post by sandman008 »

mijoharas wrote: post #132
tylersmith wrote: post #64

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.

Matt Levine has already discussed Texas Divisive Mergers w.r.t. J&J case:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-07-20/money-...

"It does seem … wrong? Like, obviously, if you run a big company that has big liabilities, you’d like to be able to just get rid of the liabilities. And obviously companies have tried, and there are simple approaches (spin off the assets and leave the liabilities, etc.), and those simple approaches don’t work because generally it is bad for a company to be able to just get rid of its liabilities. It would be weird if there was a cheat where doing it as a Texas two-step merger did work."

Post reply on HN