3 ms·

At some point the US court system needs to examine the timeliness of judgements as a core component of justice. It's wild that J&J can hold off the lawsuits for

At some point the US court system needs to examine the timeliness of judgements as a core component of justice. It's wild that J&J can hold off the lawsuits for years while it's tries dodgy shell games to offload the legal liability. It's twice as insane for the slimey J&J guy to then come out and say "Oh well the passage of time means..". Yes, the passage of time means that all the people that J&J gave cancer will be dead long before a single penny of compensation will be paid. It's also wild that the judge has decided to re-open the examination of evidence based on a recent rule change approved by the supreme court. It's almost like their spurious corporate bullshit bought them enough time to literally change the rules around their case. Good thing the supreme court is above the suspicion of being bribed though. Here's a simple question: If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it.

cowsandmilk 3y ago
> If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it We lost the Lyme vaccine to untrue reports about their side effects. The truth doesn’t dictate public opinion and public opinion dictates what stays on the market.
pfdietz 3y ago
> If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it. If you didn't do anything, why did I have to beat you? This is abuser logic.
DannyBee 3y ago
"At some point the US court system needs to examine the timeliness of judgements as a core component of justice" It does. The rest of what you write isn't actually what happened, though to be fair the article sort of makes a hash of it. The trial hasn't happened yet. There is no reopening of anything, this is normal resolution of pre trial motions that happens in all lawsuits. The lawsuit is actually moving at a normal speed (fast even. It is also the case that the time taken he is as much plaintiffs needing time as defendants) and this particular ruling is totally normal and would have happened anyway. Your last question has a simple answer that is the same as why everyone stopped using MSG despite it turning out to not be bad for you.
- tomrod 3y ago
  The rest of what the grandparent commentator wrote is both the perceived and actual outcome, regardless of why the legal system decided to wait years and years and years to execute its judgement.
  - DannyBee 3y ago
    It is neither. The legal system did not wait. The plaintiffs did. Because they thought they would get more through bankruptcy , similar to the opiate settlement
- skyyler 3y ago
  MSG is still in a huge amount of processed and restaurant food, and it’s available in a couple different forms at my local grocery store. Maybe not the best example?
  - sp332 3y ago
    It was used a lot less for a while when people were more scared of it.
  - xeromal 3y ago
    It took a shit in the 90s though until people realized the claims were bunk
  - gosub100 3y ago
    Are you too young to remember the ubiquitous "NO MSG" signs in every Asian restaurants window in the 90s?
sam345 3y ago
>> Here's a simple question: If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it. I think you need to understand how plaintiff's attorneys work. They don't need any hard evidence they just need enough fuzzy science to cause a little doubt on product liability. Then it's gold mine time. They find the Court districts with the most reliably anti-corporate jury pools and start filing cases all across the country. Pick a horrible disease like cancer and some lousy epidemiological studies and you can finance your house in the Hamptons. Meanwhile they've just petrified every customer of your product. No wins required but eventually you will get one.
ezfe 3y ago
I don't defend J&J overall, but I want to point out: The "dodgy shell games" don't offload legal liability, and is not an uncommon practice to isolate different parts of a business. The shell company is still owned and operated by J&J. And as for why they might stop selling it, lots of companies stop selling things when the public gets a bad opinion of it, even with no evidence that it's bad.
- SilverBirch 3y ago
  In this specific case their shell game failed - they literally tried to bundle up all the lawsuits into a "bad" company and bankrupt it but federal judges unanimously ruled they couldn't.

cowsandmilk 3y ago

> If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it We lost the Lyme vaccine to untrue reports about their side effects. The truth doesn’t dictate public opinion and public opinion dictates what stays on the market.

pfdietz 3y ago

> If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it. If you didn't do anything, why did I have to beat you? This is abuser logic.

DannyBee 3y ago

"At some point the US court system needs to examine the timeliness of judgements as a core component of justice" It does. The rest of what you write isn't actually what happened, though to be fair the article sort of makes a hash of it. The trial hasn't happened yet. There is no reopening of anything, this is normal resolution of pre trial motions that happens in all lawsuits. The lawsuit is actually moving at a normal speed (fast even. It is also the case that the time taken he is as much plaintiffs needing time as defendants) and this particular ruling is totally normal and would have happened anyway. Your last question has a simple answer that is the same as why everyone stopped using MSG despite it turning out to not be bad for you.

tomrod 3y ago
The rest of what the grandparent commentator wrote is both the perceived and actual outcome, regardless of why the legal system decided to wait years and years and years to execute its judgement.
- DannyBee 3y ago
  It is neither. The legal system did not wait. The plaintiffs did. Because they thought they would get more through bankruptcy , similar to the opiate settlement
skyyler 3y ago
MSG is still in a huge amount of processed and restaurant food, and it’s available in a couple different forms at my local grocery store. Maybe not the best example?
- sp332 3y ago
  It was used a lot less for a while when people were more scared of it.
- xeromal 3y ago
  It took a shit in the 90s though until people realized the claims were bunk
- gosub100 3y ago
  Are you too young to remember the ubiquitous "NO MSG" signs in every Asian restaurants window in the 90s?

sam345 3y ago

>> Here's a simple question: If your product doesn't cause cancer, why did you stop selling it. I think you need to understand how plaintiff's attorneys work. They don't need any hard evidence they just need enough fuzzy science to cause a little doubt on product liability. Then it's gold mine time. They find the Court districts with the most reliably anti-corporate jury pools and start filing cases all across the country. Pick a horrible disease like cancer and some lousy epidemiological studies and you can finance your house in the Hamptons. Meanwhile they've just petrified every customer of your product. No wins required but eventually you will get one.

ezfe 3y ago

I don't defend J&J overall, but I want to point out: The "dodgy shell games" don't offload legal liability, and is not an uncommon practice to isolate different parts of a business. The shell company is still owned and operated by J&J. And as for why they might stop selling it, lots of companies stop selling things when the public gets a bad opinion of it, even with no evidence that it's bad.

SilverBirch 3y ago
In this specific case their shell game failed - they literally tried to bundle up all the lawsuits into a "bad" company and bankrupt it but federal judges unanimously ruled they couldn't.