5 ms·

This is terrifying as an entrepreneur. You build a product, someone starts using it in an off-label fashion, people get hurt, you issue guidance, and then you

This is terrifying as an entrepreneur. You build a product, someone starts using it in an off-label fashion, people get hurt, you issue guidance, and then you still get sued.

scandox 7y ago
That's an interesting take. From my admittedly loose reading I had thought that they did sell it as a baby milk thickener / were aware of its use as such. Also I suspect more entrepreneurs would be concerned about being implicated in multiple child deaths than getting sued but I suppose you never know until you're the one on the spot.
JacksonGariety 7y ago
Well, apparently if you outsource your production to Thermo Pac... yes.
Pxtl 7y ago
The problem with this take is that the business knew there was interest in this use. As mentioned in the article, it was included on the patent. Once that happens, they can't claim ignorance. At the very least they could've warned the healthcare industry that xantham gum had never been properly tested on infants.
scarface74 7y ago
There is a lot more nuance and a lot you missed. - if I as an entrepreneur, create a product in good faith, work with the experts, honestly go through all of the FDA approvals, get approved and follow all of the regulations, then if later on my product is at fault, I don’t think I should be sued [1]. Sometimes things happen even if no one was being negligent and everyone was acting in good faith. - on the other hand there seemed to have been abnormalities in how the product was produced by the company they outsourced to. Yes you can outsource manufacturing, but you can’t outsource responsibility. It was the company’s selling SimplyThick responsibility to ensure that all of its partners were doing things in compliance. So yes, SimplyThick should have been held liable. - Even when they found that their might be problems, they buried the lede and put the warning down 9th on the list. [1] I am on the other side of this argument. I have relatively mild cerebral palsy. I’ve lived an active life - run half marathons, was part time fitness instructor and today I have a decently well outfitted home gym - when I research information on CP, the first few links and all of the ads are for lawyers looking to get people to sue doctors. I find it appalling. My parents didn’t spend time in the 70s looking for people to sue - they were looking for doctors, therapists, etc.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  > My parents didn’t spend time in the 70s looking for people to sue - they were looking for doctors, therapists, etc. For some people (at least in the US), the suing was presumably to be able to afford the doctors and therapists.
dehrmann 7y ago
Is it even off-label?

This is terrifying as an entrepreneur. You build a product, someone starts using it in an off-label fashion, people get hurt, you issue guidance, and then you still get sued.

scandox 7y ago

That's an interesting take. From my admittedly loose reading I had thought that they did sell it as a baby milk thickener / were aware of its use as such. Also I suspect more entrepreneurs would be concerned about being implicated in multiple child deaths than getting sued but I suppose you never know until you're the one on the spot.

JacksonGariety 7y ago

Well, apparently if you outsource your production to Thermo Pac... yes.

Pxtl 7y ago

The problem with this take is that the business knew there was interest in this use. As mentioned in the article, it was included on the patent. Once that happens, they can't claim ignorance. At the very least they could've warned the healthcare industry that xantham gum had never been properly tested on infants.

scarface74 7y ago

There is a lot more nuance and a lot you missed. - if I as an entrepreneur, create a product in good faith, work with the experts, honestly go through all of the FDA approvals, get approved and follow all of the regulations, then if later on my product is at fault, I don’t think I should be sued [1]. Sometimes things happen even if no one was being negligent and everyone was acting in good faith. - on the other hand there seemed to have been abnormalities in how the product was produced by the company they outsourced to. Yes you can outsource manufacturing, but you can’t outsource responsibility. It was the company’s selling SimplyThick responsibility to ensure that all of its partners were doing things in compliance. So yes, SimplyThick should have been held liable. - Even when they found that their might be problems, they buried the lede and put the warning down 9th on the list. [1] I am on the other side of this argument. I have relatively mild cerebral palsy. I’ve lived an active life - run half marathons, was part time fitness instructor and today I have a decently well outfitted home gym - when I research information on CP, the first few links and all of the ads are for lawyers looking to get people to sue doctors. I find it appalling. My parents didn’t spend time in the 70s looking for people to sue - they were looking for doctors, therapists, etc.

rsynnott 7y ago
> My parents didn’t spend time in the 70s looking for people to sue - they were looking for doctors, therapists, etc. For some people (at least in the US), the suing was presumably to be able to afford the doctors and therapists.

dehrmann 7y ago

Is it even off-label?