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

131–140 of 239 posts

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

#131

Post by pessimizer »

finnx wrote: post #85
mpyne wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.

Both (IVM/HCQ) are not patented so there is no reason to depend or trust on multinational pharmaceutical companies. You can access interactive meta analysis of 310 studies for HCQ[1] and 78 studies for ivermectin[2] below, it gets updated when new studies published. They also keep track of other treatments (in total 480[3]). But unfortunately only some of those treatments get media coverage like cannabidiol[4] even w…

Lots of things aren't patented that are exclusively produced by multinational pharmaceutical companies.

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

#132

Post by mijoharas »

tylersmith wrote: post #64
Arjuna wrote: post #47

This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook: “On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.…

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.

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

#133

Post by mpyne »

azinman2 wrote: post #109
finnx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both (IVM/HCQ) are not patented so there is no reason to depend or trust on multinational pharmaceutical companies. You can access interactive meta analysis of 310 studies for HCQ[1] and 78 studies for ivermectin[2] below, it gets updated when new studies published. They also keep track of other treatments (in total 480[3]). But unfortunately only some of those treatments get media coverage like cannabidiol[4] even w…

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

This is a great post but I should note it crashed Chrome for me and made Firefox very sluggish. Just from the raw amount of content alone.

Definitely keep reading until you get to the "Worms" part of "The Analysis", which I think puts a pretty plausible explanation for why so many reputable studies show Ivermectin working against COVID as well as they did.

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

#134

Post by fires10 »

dv_dt wrote: post #84
shadowgovt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and, in jurisdictions that allow it, for the public to bother to research judges and vote them in our out of office.

In an area where I can vote for judges, I do google searches on all the candidates and rarely get good information. If you’re lucky you can get some very rudimentary assessment of if they have any legal background at all. But to really research a judge candidate I think would take access to a legal case database and a fairly sophisticated understanding of law, and far too much time.

I am not a fan of voting for judges. Judges should be determined by technical merits and skills more like hiring a developer. This I think would be better handled by having a diverse group of judges routinely review all decisions by a judge and issuing corrective actions against the judge. This review should be done periodically and not require an appeal.

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

#135

Post by mherdeg »

legalcorrection wrote: post #19

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

> Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

Isn't there certain Project Veritas info that the NYT is currently forbidden from publishing? did I misunderstand? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/business/media/nyt-projec...

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

#136

Post by strogonoff »

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.

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

#137

Post by s1artibartfast »

dade_ wrote: post #110

I think it was nearly a decade ago and I made an offhand comment to a friend about baby powder causing cancer. He didn’t believe me as the idea seemed absurd, but his aunt worked at J&J and he texted her, she responded with a canned legal response. He was shocked and couldn’t believe this could be kept under wraps.

I'm not sure what this proves or implies. It has been a hot topic of legal dispute for a long time.

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

#138

Post by s1artibartfast »

hedora wrote: post #122
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.

The same has been said about nuclear meltdowns and toxic waste leaks. Sure, the baseline rate for this rare cancer is 1 in 10,000,000, and it's 1 in 10 in this town of 1000 people, but it's possible the plaintiff would have gotten it anyway.

Now can you provide the baseline rate and comparison for talc?

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

#139

Post by pessimizer »

xdennis wrote: post #130
fulafel wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.

I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.

Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.

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

#140

Post by killjoywashere »

tedivm wrote: post #103
hedora wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to often containing asbestos, pure talc can cause cancer by getting stuck where it shouldn't and causing chronic irritation, etc. The most common issue is ovarian cancer, and talc used to be widely marketed for feminine hygiene.

It's still used by parents in diapers, despite that being a huge cancer risk.

As a father, and as a pathologist who has seen talc in ovarian cancers (under the microscope it is visible with polarizers), talc should be taken off the shelves. It's used on babies but also young women use it trying to cope with their fears of odor and moisture (whether or not there is an odor or moisture, let alone the conversation of whether those concerns themselves were manufactured). The ads are like tobacco ads: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona....
Post reply on HN