4 ms·

The courts ignored the science. The law has little to do with truth or justice.

by voakbasda 4y ago

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
c.f. also the talcum powder lawsuits against J&J.
- scotty79 4y ago
  Majority of research claimed that J&J talkum powder is safe?
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Basically, the best studies show no link e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2758452?mod=article_inline https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27584... The American Cancer Association doesn't list talc at all when talking about risk factors for ovarian cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-research.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-resea... J&J is winning most of the cases in court, or having large verdicts overturned on appeal, but there are supposedly something like 38,000 cases out there and each one has an outside chance to end up being like the one they lost in Wisconsin state court which initially awarded over $4.69bn to 22 plaintiffs (reduced to $2.11bn on appeal).
    - scotty79 4y ago
      Do you think it really is a risk factor for ovarian cancer?
user3939382 4y ago
You have no evidence of that. More likely the plaintiff had their own scientific experts who were more persuasive, that's how all technical matters are adjudicated in courts.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Nonetheless, surely the point is well-made that just because 12 jurors or 1 judge decide that a presentation is more persuasive does not say anything about the truth value of the underlying science. Just look at the junk science of the FBI crime labs - and that stuff is being measured at the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    Another factor that makes Monsanto/Bayer look really bad here is that they lost despite having basically an unlimited legal budget with a huge team of lawyers versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost.
    - gruez 4y ago
      >having basically an unlimited legal budget with a huge team of lawyers no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers. >versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost. According to the court filings for the appeal, Johnson was represented by >The Miller Firm, LLC Michael J. Miller, Curtis G. Hoke, Jeffrey A. Travers; >Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.; R. Brent Wisner, Pedram Esfandiary; >Audet Partners LLP, Mark E. Burton Something tells me that he wasn't paying for all of this out of pocket.
      - fomine3 4y ago
        > no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers. If it affects future worldwide business, they can spend more to protect overall business.

The courts ignored the science. The law has little to do with truth or justice.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

c.f. also the talcum powder lawsuits against J&J.

scotty79 4y ago
Majority of research claimed that J&J talkum powder is safe?
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  Basically, the best studies show no link e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2758452?mod=article_inline https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27584... The American Cancer Association doesn't list talc at all when talking about risk factors for ovarian cancer: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-research.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/new-resea... J&J is winning most of the cases in court, or having large verdicts overturned on appeal, but there are supposedly something like 38,000 cases out there and each one has an outside chance to end up being like the one they lost in Wisconsin state court which initially awarded over $4.69bn to 22 plaintiffs (reduced to $2.11bn on appeal).
  - scotty79 4y ago
    Do you think it really is a risk factor for ovarian cancer?

user3939382 4y ago

You have no evidence of that. More likely the plaintiff had their own scientific experts who were more persuasive, that's how all technical matters are adjudicated in courts.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
Nonetheless, surely the point is well-made that just because 12 jurors or 1 judge decide that a presentation is more persuasive does not say anything about the truth value of the underlying science. Just look at the junk science of the FBI crime labs - and that stuff is being measured at the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.
- user3939382 4y ago
  Another factor that makes Monsanto/Bayer look really bad here is that they lost despite having basically an unlimited legal budget with a huge team of lawyers versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >having basically an unlimited legal budget with a huge team of lawyers no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers. >versus this school groundskeeper and their case was so bad they still lost. According to the court filings for the appeal, Johnson was represented by >The Miller Firm, LLC Michael J. Miller, Curtis G. Hoke, Jeffrey A. Travers; >Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.; R. Brent Wisner, Pedram Esfandiary; >Audet Partners LLP, Mark E. Burton Something tells me that he wasn't paying for all of this out of pocket.
    - fomine3 4y ago
      > no, their budget is capped at the amount that they're suing for. If you're getting sued for $1M there's no point in spending more than $1M on lawyers. If it affects future worldwide business, they can spend more to protect overall business.