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

281–290 of 336 posts

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

#281

Post by albedoa »

tiahura wrote: post #190
mmusson wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a juror on a very small case. A previous trial assigned guilt. Our trial was to determine damages. It was eye opening for me. We were not allowed to know things like medical bills and costs the victim incurred. We were forced to choose some number without having an basis for establishing the magnitude. I still don’t know if we were too high or too low.

Ambulance chaser here. The most common reasons I don’t offer evidence of bills in a trial are that Medicaid paid the bill for pennies on the dollar, or the hospital wrote off the bills. In many jurisdictions, if the Plaintiff chooses to introduce evidence of bills, they can only submit the amount still owed or actually paid to satisfy the bill, and the amount that was written off or contractually adjusted stays out.…

Wouldn't it then be prudent for the defendant to introduce that evidence? Do they ever do that to achieve the effect on perceived non-economic damages that you describe?

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

#282

Post by mplanchard »

pas wrote: post #144
DrScientist wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well, there are all these universities and professors who have tenure, there are all these journals, there are all these systems and people have been promised lifetime employment.” Odd that tenure is singled out as the core of the problem. I'd say the undermining of tenure is a large part of the problem. Research is hard - very hard - you are being asked to discover stuff nobody else has - to push the boundaries of…

Research might be hard, harder than whatever else the rest of the world is doing, but the tenure system is not giving us the best researchers. It rewards those that are at the right place at the right time, it's mostly luck of the current spectacle, and then it sets those "accomplished" people up for failure as they eventually see their luck running out. They are very motivated to use less and less ethical tools for…

Weird how the continuous weakening of the tenure system over the past 20 years or more hasn’t upped the research quality then

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

#283

Post by underlipton »

respondo2134 wrote: post #253
hkt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think you really understand what "Limited liability" means, nor who these supposed capitalists are. All those public pension plans & unionized retirement funds probably appreciate that they're not on the hook for unlimited liability from J&J.

Boomers who made bad investments instead of just saving for retirement. I sure would feel bad if those were raided to help alleviate the suffering of sick or bereaved people here, now. /s

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

#284

Post by ClumsyPilot »

scarface_74 wrote: post #274
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

But in this case, he’s actually making a living by working in a gun shop when he has other (less lucrative) options.

Not at all. Suppose you believe corporations are out of control, and it's on, what the best way to hurt them? Work for a charity and live in poverty? Become a hermit and live in a forest? no!

Find the corporation tou hate most and get a job there. Do damage from the inside, sleep with the boss, work your way up, drive it bancrupt. Cause it to loose all talent.

Work in two places at once, and do nothing in both jobs. Something like that

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

#285

Post by littlestymaar »

scott_w wrote: post #197
c0nducktr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Ask yourself “what good had jailing Charles Manson at the first lawsuit done for society?” then remember that J&J is responsible for thousands more death than Manson, and likely more than all psycho killers in the history of the US combined…

Rogue corporations are killing people at a scaled rivalled only by dictators…

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

#286

Post by greatfilter250 »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #245
codelord wrote: post #103

As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statist…

> I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research. I have friends and family working with medicine and health related research, and I don't think it is bad. In fact I'm a bit amazed at how good the Medicine academia is at science, and as comparison how bad computer-science (CSc) is at science. With very few exceptions, CSc papers don't have any actual science, they don't have a hypothesis and a meth…

[dead]

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

#287

Post by HDThoreaun »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #243
HDThoreaun wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the opposite of what happened. The court rejected their first two step attempt for not having a high enough payout and forced the subsidiary to have a 61.5 billion dollar payout maximum.

That's not what opposite means. What's you just described is the same exact thing with extra steps. Sure, it's a higher number than J&J asked for, but it's still a number!

It's the entire value of the business, there is no higher possible number.

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

#288

Post by SideQuark »

pessimizer wrote: post #212
codelord wrote: post #103

As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statist…

> It's easy to dismiss this because screw J&J. But I think we are all paying for these lawsuits through our insurances and taxes and higher drug prices. 1) You think these lawsuits have a bigger effect on insurance premiums than an increase in the incidence of ovarian cancer? 2) This is a choice we make as a society, and has little to do with lawsuits. J&J is not the victim of how we finance health care, it is the be…

1) Did you run the numbers?

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

#289

Post by ankit219 »

shkkmo wrote: post #279
ankit219 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It creates fairness among victims by removing their rights to seek higher damages via their own court cases How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way. (Damages via settlement or decided by jury). Even in t…

> Also, the judge agreed with J&J's idea No they didn't. > How is it fair if the first victim gets 10M in damages, but the 100,000th victim does not, given each lawsuit proceeds differently? It's obviously not a race, and getting less/more damages based on the order you filed a lawsuit is surely not the best way I didn't claim that was an optimal procedure. But as of yet there is no risk of J&J not being able to pay…

> No they didn't

I quoted you the judge's opinion where he states he recognizes "a need for early filing even before it's insolvent." To me, that is agreeing in principle and idea, just that here he called it too early/premature. You can choose to skip that again, or read the whole thing in context, it's available on the internet.

If we are discussing one suboptimal process against another, it's a matter of opinion, especially when we have no concrete proof that J&J has been trying to limit liabilities.

> sham bankruptcy to force litigants against it to to settle through a single judge

It gets everyone same damages, does it faster, and does it more equitably. Moreover, there likely would be reserve for future victims where they would not have to find a lawyer, litigate a suit, etc. to get damages. Sham would be true if they skimped on damages, they claimed on the filing it's fully backed by parent company so they likely won't.

I don't get the concept of nuking the entire company for one product. Why is dividend even an issue? You think the total cost of damages would be more than their yearly revenue? If not, whatever they do with rest of the money (after the worst case estimate should not be an issue.

I think the motivation was to settle claims and pay damages quickly rather than through a longer drawn out trial. Thats not a bad motive in itself.

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

#290

Post by thomastjeffery »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #287
thomastjeffery wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what opposite means. What's you just described is the same exact thing with extra steps. Sure, it's a higher number than J&J asked for, but it's still a number!

It's the entire value of the business, there is no higher possible number.

Of course there is! It's called "debt".

The entire purpose of bankruptcy is to resolve debt you can't afford to pay.

Post reply on HN