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

Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

trulyadventure.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 70 posts

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#11

Post by bilbo0s »

dalben wrote: post #7
RedCardRef wrote: post #2

Recently watched the Netflix docu series on this, J&J claimed that cyanide was not present in the factory, so there is no way the pills could have been contaminated at the factory. Then later on one of the doctors asked J&J if a test for cyanide is done for each batch in QA at the factory. J&J said yes, each batch was tested for the presence of cyanide. The doctor then asked, "Why were they testing for it(cyanide)?",…

This is my brother's job, testing for contaminants. He says it can be very boring. For example, they always test for lead, and it's always negative. But it's a necessary precaution when you're making medicine.

This.

I think people don't really understand the requirements you need to meet to get and maintain FDA clearance. I think even under the current administration, you still could have an obligation to do that testing.

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#12

Post by colechristensen »

refuser wrote: post #3
RedCardRef wrote: post #2

Recently watched the Netflix docu series on this, J&J claimed that cyanide was not present in the factory, so there is no way the pills could have been contaminated at the factory. Then later on one of the doctors asked J&J if a test for cyanide is done for each batch in QA at the factory. J&J said yes, each batch was tested for the presence of cyanide. The doctor then asked, "Why were they testing for it(cyanide)?",…

What was the answer? I can understand why it might seem suspicious, but I’d also hope that (non-exotic?) substances capable of killing at doses small enough to fit in a Tylenol pill would be in their test matrix.

Cyanide is really simple and can easily be a side product of many organic chemistry reactions, testing for it is just obvious. The ion is just one carbon and one nitrogen which can combine with many different things to make many poisonous salts. Testing for it isn't suspicious and there was very strong evidence that it wasn't a factory mistake.

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#13

Post by ChrisRR »

RedCardRef wrote: post #2

Recently watched the Netflix docu series on this, J&J claimed that cyanide was not present in the factory, so there is no way the pills could have been contaminated at the factory. Then later on one of the doctors asked J&J if a test for cyanide is done for each batch in QA at the factory. J&J said yes, each batch was tested for the presence of cyanide. The doctor then asked, "Why were they testing for it(cyanide)?",…

I don't work in pharma but I work in medical electronics, and sometimes you just have to perform random unrelated testing because the standards say so, even if it technically doesn't apply to your product

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#15

Post by Corey_ »

RedCardRef wrote: post #2

Recently watched the Netflix docu series on this, J&J claimed that cyanide was not present in the factory, so there is no way the pills could have been contaminated at the factory. Then later on one of the doctors asked J&J if a test for cyanide is done for each batch in QA at the factory. J&J said yes, each batch was tested for the presence of cyanide. The doctor then asked, "Why were they testing for it(cyanide)?",…

What’s more worrying isn’t that they tested—it’s that the existence of the test feels like a smoking gun. That says more about our broken trust in institutions than anything else.

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#17

Post by chris-orgmenta »

> While in custody, she took a lie detector test, which revealed deception in two key responses[...]

It did not. It revealed that the police failed to trick a confession out of her using pseudo-science.

> James Lewis refused a polygraph.

Sensible move - Especially when journalists interpret LDTs as per above.

> They tried enlarging the pharmacy surveillance photo, but the bigger it got, the grainier it got.

What did Fahner and Zagel actually tell Michael here? Surely not that, verbatim.

Interesting piece otherwise. Our global supply chain is just so fragile and insecure. We may need to rethink everything. For a start, is it not ridiculous that we have unsealed/re-sealable products? I do not want Ibuprofen etc. to be moved to behind-counter, but perhaps a better 'discard if tampered with' seal should be implemented. Will we get to a point where we have to sell fruit in tear-open cardboard mailers? Sounds ridiculous, but depends on what happens in the next decade re: terrorism in general.

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#18

Post by SlightlyLeftPad »

bilbo0s wrote: post #11
dalben wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my brother's job, testing for contaminants. He says it can be very boring. For example, they always test for lead, and it's always negative. But it's a necessary precaution when you're making medicine.

This. I think people don't really understand the requirements you need to meet to get and maintain FDA clearance. I think even under the current administration, you still could have an obligation to do that testing.

That’s all true when the medicine is made here. More and more of every day medicine these days is made in countries with fewer safety regulations like India and China. FDA may inspect them from to time but they have no jurisdiction to actually do anything about violations.

Re: Poison Pill: Is the killer behind 1982 Tylenol poisonings still on the loose?

#19

Post by AdamN »

RedCardRef wrote: post #2

Recently watched the Netflix docu series on this, J&J claimed that cyanide was not present in the factory, so there is no way the pills could have been contaminated at the factory. Then later on one of the doctors asked J&J if a test for cyanide is done for each batch in QA at the factory. J&J said yes, each batch was tested for the presence of cyanide. The doctor then asked, "Why were they testing for it(cyanide)?",…

Why is that strange? Cyanide seems like an obvious thing to test for at scale. Safety engineering doesn't say 'that doesn't seem likely even though it's dangerous and easy to control for so I'll not handle the scenario'. It says, 'anything unsafe should be mitigated with the right cost-benefit analysis applied for the scenario'. Testing for cyanide makes sense regardless of whether it's in the factory.
Post reply on HN