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

Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 336 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#191

Post by edgyquant »

wiz21c wrote: post #178
darth_avocado wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90. There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.

This is assuming the first 10 victims are going to act in a selfish way. That's basically assuming victims behave like companies (which must be selfish because their management has to protect them). That's despicable.

Humans optimize for their own self interest, this is basic economic theory. It’s not despicable it’s human nature.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#192

Post by scarface_74 »

eropple wrote: post #186
scarface_74 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they could always commit their time and a large portion of their resources to a non profit. I bet you dollars to donuts that they work in tech and not for a non profit.

"Well they could do things to harm themselves [because we treat non-profit employees like they implicitly have a wealthy spouse or should live in a shoebox]" is also not helping the argument very much. One does not need to be a Stylite to have an opinion on society; comparing the actions of individuals, without significant power or influence, with corporate-fiction persons that come equipped with lobbying arms and su…

It’s called having the courage of your convictions. Plenty of people live off of non profit salaries without having a wealthy spouse or even do public sector work.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#193

Post by scott_w »

caditinpiscinam wrote: post #66
scott_w wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all well and good until you discover that you were affected by something else they did but you can’t sue them any more because they went bust servicing the talc powder claims.

Are you saying the company shouldn't have to pay people it harmed in the past, so that it has money to pay people it might harm down the road?

That’s not what I said and you’d know that if you read my response or the Matt Levine article quoted by many people here.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#194

Post by scott_w »

UncleMeat wrote: post #160
scott_w wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all well and good until you discover that you were affected by something else they did but you can’t sue them any more because they went bust servicing the talc powder claims.

Okay. There is zero chance that the corporate lawyers are doing this to ensure that the next people killed by J&J can collect. “We can’t pay out for these deaths because then we will be out of money to pay out for the other deaths.” This is only a compelling argument if J&J agrees to dissolve their entire company and work with the courts to distribute 100% of their wealth to aggrieved parties. Let’s see how much they…

The corporate lawyers aren’t the ones allowing this, the lawmakers are.

Your follow up points don’t address my point at all.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#196

Post by scott_w »

sigilis wrote: post #91
scott_w wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all well and good until you discover that you were affected by something else they did but you can’t sue them any more because they went bust servicing the talc powder claims.

If I understand your statement correctly, the idea posited is that a company which has had a large ruling against it should be able to avoid paying out the total amount assessed against it because someone might also have been harmed that could theoretically bring suit? I don’t really think that some hypothetical future lawsuit is a valid basis to avoid the consequences arrived at for the current one. If one can simpl…

You didn’t understand my statement at all. You also didn’t understand the Matt Levine article because he doesn’t posit any of the things you claim either.

All I can suggest is to reread Levine’s article.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#197

Post by scott_w »

c0nducktr wrote: post #65
scott_w wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s all well and good until you discover that you were affected by something else they did but you can’t sue them any more because they went bust servicing the talc powder claims.

Just because there are more people who might need to sue the company isn't a reason to allow it to continue to operate. This is just 'too big to fail' but for different (and now theoretical) reasons. Maybe the solution is to nationalize J&J. "You can't bankrupt my company because someone might need to sue me later" is absurd reasoning.

And what good will bankrupting J&J at the first lawsuit do for society?

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#198

Post by wiz21c »

edgyquant wrote: post #191
wiz21c wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming the first 10 victims are going to act in a selfish way. That's basically assuming victims behave like companies (which must be selfish because their management has to protect them). That's despicable.

Humans optimize for their own self interest, this is basic economic theory. It’s not despicable it’s human nature.

please don't mix up human nature and economic theory. That's not the same.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#199

Post by Vaslo »

fn-mote wrote: post #165
blitzar wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a Journal of Medicore Results, or a Journal of Tried it and it Didn't Work. As with social media and society in general, only the most inflated of headlines gets attention causing the gold rush of hyped up results. Nothing can be published without the hype and hyperbole, which then sets the benchmark for the next round of hype.

> We need a Journal of Medicore Results, or a Journal of Tried it and it Didn't Work. Publication in this journal would be used as evidence against lawsuits. Cigarette companies paid for studies designed to produce no conclusive evidence. I don't see this as a route to progress. What if all you did wrong was follow the wrong process? The bacteria grows better at 10C than 30C. This journal would be full of results by…

Former chemist here. I disagree - you try many many reactions that fail. It would be good to just see what was tried so you can 1) see what was tried so you can change the conditions and try again or 2) avoid an approach altogether. I joke in many of the forums here about making The journal of Failed Chemistry. But I am very serious about saving time so 10 different PhD candidates don’t waste the same time I did.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#200

Post by ciabattabread »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

In some ways the talc controversy does seem similar to the silicone breast implant controversy in the 1990’s. An overview is at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206

This is the key part of that article that hammered home to the point to me:

> However, the benefit of implants to women's subjective well-being is less easily quantified. As Angell astutely points out, the FDA assumed that the benefits of breast implants were minimal—especially in women who desired implants for aesthetic reasons—and therefore demanded that implant manufacturers demonstrate virtually absolute safety.

Post reply on HN