4 ms·

>Now hold execs financially and criminally responsible ... for what? These talc suits are (from my point of view) largely baseless and excellent proof of the p

>Now hold execs financially and criminally responsible ... for what? These talc suits are (from my point of view) largely baseless and excellent proof of the proposition that all you need to win a jury decision is a group of sufficiently piteous plaintiffs.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
Are you ignorant of the facts of this case? Perhaps you’re pro asbestos? Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  A whole bunch of these cases assert that even pure talc (uncontaminated with asbestos) causes ovarian cancer, for which there is basically no evidence at all. Nor is there much evidence that talc actually ever contained much asbestos; especially bearing in mind that asbestos is naturally occurring at levels consistent with us inhaling several thousand fibers per day. >Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? Hmm, yes, I'm definitely the one showing the signs of bias here.
  - res0nat0r 4y ago
    I'd highly suggest reading this then: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnson-and-a-new-war-on-consumer-protection https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnso... They knew of the increased risks and asbestos levels, and even when they finally agreed to stop selling talc in the usa, they continued to just sell it overseas until their supply ran out. This wasn't just a random mixup.
  - John23832 4y ago
    “A whole bunch of these cases” is hand waving that signals you didn’t read about the case at hand. J&J knew of asbestos contamination. That is what the current case asserts.
    - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
      On the contrary; I have been following this topic for a fairly long time. Have you read any of the other cases? The big talc litigation started in the early 2010s, and the asbestos contamination theory only really surfaced in the latter part of the decade. J&J is winning more of these cases than it is losing, and appeal courts are also overturning some of the decisions. Of course, it's all way too late due to the Wisconsin verdict and the loss in the court of public opinion.
      - John23832 4y ago
        > On the contrary; I have been following this topic for a fairly long time. Have you read any of the other cases? Like the 2018 case where the jury deemed J&J liable for 5 billion? (cut to 2 in appeals). > The big talc litigation started in the early 2010s, and the asbestos contamination theory only really surfaced in the latter part of the decade. The length of the litigation doesn't matter. Big Tobacco was litigated into the ground over decades. The claim is that the manufacture of talc baby powder lends itself to contamination with asbestos (a carcinogen) and that J&J knew about it but continued selling. They're losing on THOSE grounds. > J&J is winning more of these cases than it is losing, and appeal courts are also overturning some of the decisions. Of course, it's all way too late due to the Wisconsin verdict and the loss in the court of public opinion. The wins v. loses don't matter when the damages of the loses are billions. Unless you think that the loses will converge to zero (which is a pipe dream). You don't attempt to make a shell corp with a capped funding agreement so that a bankruptcy court has limited room to work with if you think you're going to be vindicated in the long run. The reason why they're trying to do this is because it's a lost case and they have such wide ranging legal exposure that it's going to be death by 1000 cuts.
        NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago

Are you ignorant of the facts of this case? Perhaps you’re pro asbestos? Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
A whole bunch of these cases assert that even pure talc (uncontaminated with asbestos) causes ovarian cancer, for which there is basically no evidence at all. Nor is there much evidence that talc actually ever contained much asbestos; especially bearing in mind that asbestos is naturally occurring at levels consistent with us inhaling several thousand fibers per day. >Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? Hmm, yes, I'm definitely the one showing the signs of bias here.
- res0nat0r 4y ago
  I'd highly suggest reading this then: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnson-and-a-new-war-on-consumer-protection https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnso... They knew of the increased risks and asbestos levels, and even when they finally agreed to stop selling talc in the usa, they continued to just sell it overseas until their supply ran out. This wasn't just a random mixup.
- John23832 4y ago
  “A whole bunch of these cases” is hand waving that signals you didn’t read about the case at hand. J&J knew of asbestos contamination. That is what the current case asserts.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    On the contrary; I have been following this topic for a fairly long time. Have you read any of the other cases? The big talc litigation started in the early 2010s, and the asbestos contamination theory only really surfaced in the latter part of the decade. J&J is winning more of these cases than it is losing, and appeal courts are also overturning some of the decisions. Of course, it's all way too late due to the Wisconsin verdict and the loss in the court of public opinion.
    - John23832 4y ago
      > On the contrary; I have been following this topic for a fairly long time. Have you read any of the other cases? Like the 2018 case where the jury deemed J&J liable for 5 billion? (cut to 2 in appeals). > The big talc litigation started in the early 2010s, and the asbestos contamination theory only really surfaced in the latter part of the decade. The length of the litigation doesn't matter. Big Tobacco was litigated into the ground over decades. The claim is that the manufacture of talc baby powder lends itself to contamination with asbestos (a carcinogen) and that J&J knew about it but continued selling. They're losing on THOSE grounds. > J&J is winning more of these cases than it is losing, and appeal courts are also overturning some of the decisions. Of course, it's all way too late due to the Wisconsin verdict and the loss in the court of public opinion. The wins v. loses don't matter when the damages of the loses are billions. Unless you think that the loses will converge to zero (which is a pipe dream). You don't attempt to make a shell corp with a capped funding agreement so that a bankruptcy court has limited room to work with if you think you're going to be vindicated in the long run. The reason why they're trying to do this is because it's a lost case and they have such wide ranging legal exposure that it's going to be death by 1000 cuts.
      - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago