4 ms·
Hard one to decide though the researchers did profit nicely and they are not naming their patients name. Are they real patients and if so J&J does should have
by paul7986 3y ago
Hard one to decide though the researchers did profit nicely and they are not naming their patients name. Are they real patients and if so J&J does should have the right to research their health records.
Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.
- malfist 3y agoExactly what profit did the scientists make?
- jprete 3y agoAccording to J&J, literally millions of dollars: > LTL's lawsuits allege that the doctors' research allowed them to collect millions of dollars from plaintiffs' lawyers to push a "false narrative" about J&J. The complaint against Moline, for example, said she had made a "small fortune" testifying as a paid expert in lawsuits, receiving over $3 million from her work on asbestos lawsuits. LTL alleged that Kradin also made more than $3 million testifying as a plaintiffs' expert.
- ma2t 3y agoThe complaints outline substantial profits that the scientists are alleged to have made as expert witnesses. All four are alleged to have made hundreds of dollars and hour, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or more than $3 million over multi-decade careers. According to the linked complaint, at least two have profit sharing in Peninsula Pathology Associates through which some of this litigation work flows. On quick read, it's not clear how much of this is directly talc related or even what fraction is related to more general asbestos litigation though.
- youngtaff 3y ago$3 mn in a decade is only 300,000 / year Plus they’ll be costs involved that will come from that 300,000 too
- sonicshadow 3y agoWow! Do people outside of tech not make that much money??
- mijoharas 3y agoDo you think it's normal for medical studies to name their participants?