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

Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#101

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #97
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #3

After just finishing "Bad Blood", the book by John Carreyrou on the Theranos fraud, this particular passage in the article had me incensed: > This week a lawyer for Advanced Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery, which is backed by private equity and is the largest dermatology practice in the United States, called the general counsel at the University of Florida, where two of the authors are employed, demanding specific c…

There is nothing “thuggish” about demanding corrections of factual errors, and it’s not “gross and morally bankrupt” to engage to talk about those changes instead of waiting for the damage to be done after inaccurate facts are published. The law protects you from that. I suspect that you’re presupposing, without a basis, that the cited errors are not errors but rather unflattering characterizations.

In any scientists-vs-lawyers battle I would be more than happy to let the scientists publish before the lawyers get to have their say. It is possible that this is a complaint on merits but given the past performance of the legal profession in situations like these the chances are much better than even that they are protecting some commercial interest rather than that they are suddenly interested in accurate and factual reporting by scientists.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#102

Post by akiselev »

mikeash wrote: post #90
thomasfedb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they actually write that on carbonated drinks in USA? That's brilliant.

There’s a bag of almonds in my pantry that literally says “Contains almonds” on it in the fine print.

That's due to allergen labelling regulations. Since a lot of stuff can contain artificial almond extract or other substitutes when labeled as almond-based or flavored, the regulations don't carve out any exceptions, even when the allergen literally is the product.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#103

Post by Arubis »

calgoo wrote: post #45

So I wonder if there is an opportunity to create a service that let's you look up the center you are visiting, and seeing who the investors/ owners are. Then you can filter away any that has gotten bad stars/reviews based on bad practices. Fight vc money with vc money basically.

I would use this initially, until it got enough traction that paid/incentivized reviews destroyed it. I can think of at least one clinic I’d have avoided.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#104

Post by rayiner »

jacquesm wrote: post #101
rayiner wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing “thuggish” about demanding corrections of factual errors, and it’s not “gross and morally bankrupt” to engage to talk about those changes instead of waiting for the damage to be done after inaccurate facts are published. The law protects you from that. I suspect that you’re presupposing, without a basis, that the cited errors are not errors but rather unflattering characterizations.

In any scientists-vs-lawyers battle I would be more than happy to let the scientists publish before the lawyers get to have their say. It is possible that this is a complaint on merits but given the past performance of the legal profession in situations like these the chances are much better than even that they are protecting some commercial interest rather than that they are suddenly interested in accurate and factu…

The lawyers work for the clients, which in this case are other doctors.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#105

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #104
jacquesm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any scientists-vs-lawyers battle I would be more than happy to let the scientists publish before the lawyers get to have their say. It is possible that this is a complaint on merits but given the past performance of the legal profession in situations like these the chances are much better than even that they are protecting some commercial interest rather than that they are suddenly interested in accurate and factu…

The lawyers work for the clients, which in this case are other doctors.

That is not an accurate description of the situation as far as I can see it. The one group of doctors is a bunch of researchers, the other group is a large corporate entity that makes gobs of money from certain products.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#106

Post by zmk_ »

testvox wrote: post #76
Kiro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many other countries you can not fire someone by default (it's illegal) so calling it a powerful tool sounds wrong.

In what country can you not fire your own employees?

In Sweden you cannot fire people on permanent contracts (that you need to give after 2 years) if you still require their work, i.e., you cannot fire someone without cause and then hire someone else to their exact job. In the Netherlands it is also extremely difficult to get rid of an employee with a permanent contract that you need to eventually give to them. In all cases I personally know of, permanent contract employees were basically paid by the company to agree to leave.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#107

Post by Sharlin »

testvox wrote: post #76
Kiro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many other countries you can not fire someone by default (it's illegal) so calling it a powerful tool sounds wrong.

In what country can you not fire your own employees?

In many (most?) European countries you cannot legally fire an employee at will. There needs to be a process, and the employer has to be able to show that the employee cannot or will not perform even adequately (or actively harms the employer eg. by stealing), cannot be trained or reassigned to a more suitable position.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#108

Post by pjmlp »

testvox wrote: post #76
Kiro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many other countries you can not fire someone by default (it's illegal) so calling it a powerful tool sounds wrong.

In what country can you not fire your own employees?

Countries where unions and work laws actually work, like many European ones.

Sure firing is still possible, but be ready to prove in court it was done properly.

Quick firing like in US, only if it was something really bad and even then, a notice period might be required.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#109

Post by JoeAltmaier »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #100
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet she had handled it before, as had millions of other people. No, this was a case of 'who can I sue to get paid for my injury', which is an epidemic these days. That's also well known, and its disengenous (and massively naieve) to assume that winning a legal battle means you are in the right

I believe if you are recieved dangerously hot beverages(that could melt your skin) where there is no context to expect the beverage could harm you, and are injured from it, then it shouldn’t be your fault. If I ask for a glass of water from a restaurant, should I handle the glass of water as if it could give me frostbite? What if they handed me super cooled water that damaged my hand as I accidentally touched the sur…

Again, not the case in this particular instance. And further, the cup was very hot, and the lid secure. Those straw men are irrelevant - it wasn't by touching the cup that the litigant was injured. It was willfully removing the top.

Re: Some private equity firms are furious over a paper in a dermatology journal

#110

Post by pjmlp »

adrian_mrd wrote: post #52
losteric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. These EULAs are the equivalent of warning labels on soda bottles that loosely read "Warning: Contents under pressure, don't point at your eyes"... who is that written for? We laugh and call it unnecessary, but that warning exists because there is precedent that must now be defended against. When those ludicrous ca…

> I think this legal arms race is a consequence of America's overly-litigious and profitable legal system. I would concur with this. From the software firm's perspective, there is less risk in being overly cautious (i.e. EULAs) than to have less restrictive and open rights. Maybe there is a need for a standard common-law contract that provides a set of 8-10 basics and then any companies have to specifically spell out…

In most European countries EULAs are only valid if you are given the opportunity to read it before buying the product.

It is not legally binding to sign for something after having paid for it.

Now if the box states somewhere a kind of EULA introduction, with indication where to read the full version, then it is another matter.

Post reply on HN