4 ms·

This is such a weird topic. People should be skeptical as hell of corporations when it comes to safety and honesty, but everything about this one seems so tenuo

This is such a weird topic. People should be skeptical as hell of corporations when it comes to safety and honesty, but everything about this one seems so tenuous. Not to say there is no fault, but the rulings just don't seem right as reported. Even the normally level-headed HN crowd are using verbiage like typical un-objective headline writers: "riddled with asbestos" "introducing a whole bunch of asbestos [while using baby powder]" "[asbestos is] known for causing [cancer] for decades" (this is implicitly referring to inhalation - the link to ovarian cancer via genital contact is way, way less solid, isn't it?)

ryandrake 3y ago
You have an entity (the corporation) that: - is amoral - is required and heavily incentivized by shareholders to maximize business value/output/growth at all costs - is lead by people who cannot be held responsible for bad behavior (prison time) You have to expect the worst. You have to assume they are going to do the absolute worst behavior they can get away with, that they will operate up to a millimeter away from the law, and sometimes go over the line if they think they can. The entire system is set up such that they would be foolish not to. IMO we should presume guilt instead of innocence when it comes to corporations--there is no reason to think they would voluntarily uphold some ethical or moral code if it meant lower profits.
- prewett 3y ago
  Johnson and Johnson is very explicit NOT amoral. They have guiding principles that basically put the needs of their customers first, then employees, communities, and finally shareholders. [1] These old companies were founded in a society that had clear values, and many of those companies reflect those values. Even modern companies frequently have moral values, for instance, Zappos. As a society, though, we have jettisoned those old, constraining Christian/Protestant values, and the prevailing value, to the extent I can identify it, is a Marxist, everything is just the use power to oppress. If we take that as our value system, then that is what we'll become. So if you don't like companies living out that value, then it behooves you to promote the kind of values that benefit society and bring people together. [1] https://www.jnj.com/our-credo https://www.jnj.com/our-credo
- mvkel 3y ago
  1. What makes them amoral? That they're seeking profit? 2. They're a publicly traded company. Shareholders are we. 3. This sounds like the "if you're not religious, what's stopping you from killing people all the time?" logic
- Spivak 3y ago
  I don't think your points lead to your conclusion. They're a lawful neutral amalgam made up of mostly lawful good people, they're not lawful evil.
  - masfuerte 3y ago
    Except that people in groups mostly aren't good. They just go along with what everybody else is doing and don't give any thought to the legal or ethical consequences. Of course there are exceptions, whistle-blowers for example, and they are often reviled by the "good" people.
- hammock 3y ago
  Isn’t all that true of the Covid vaccines, and they’re makers (including J&J)? I took them and was fine. So something is wrong in your logic
  - calculatte 3y ago
    You're alive is the most you can say. Would you say the same if you develop cancer in 5 years? There is and was no long term testing, so enjoy being the experiment. You can't pretend those makers are all perfect. Who was it that was hit with the largest criminal fine in US history? And for what? "marketing the drug with the intent to deceive and mislead the public" weird.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    As someone who got all three shots, and has no regrets: There's nothing wrong with their logic, it's just that my risk tolerances change based on the context. If I'm escaping from, say, a war; I'm not going to complain if the last flight out of the country is a Boeing 737 MAX - at least not until I'm in a safe country and can switch planes. Likewise, the risk tolerances for vaccines are extremely low normally[1], but I'm willing to accept a slightly riskier one if it means not getting infected with an extremely risky novel coronavirus with very well documented negative effects. Furthermore, the extremely politicized nature of the vaccine development process[0] constrains corporate misbehavior. In other words, the CEOs knew they had eyes on themselves and had to restrain themselves. Corporate misbehavior is far more likely when the public stops caring and corporations can start capturing regulatory agencies. In other words, their evil is very boring. "Company invents new vaccine that kills people" is an unusually sexy kind of evil, which means it gets unusually scrutinized. "Company neglects higher-than-average asbestos in talcum powder" is so boring nobody cares even after they get nasty cancer. [0] Which, oddly enough, resulted in Trump getting booed for taking credit for the vaccine he funded. [1] As far as I'm aware, these risks have not borne out into increased harm from the vaccines. I feel like there would have been a conservative media shitstorm if it had.
    - hammock 3y ago
      If a company invented a drug that kills people, I don't think "extreme politicization" would be necessary for that company to have eyes and scrutiny on it. That would happen naturally. But in this case weren't the makers actually indemnified? Here's a CNBC article from 2020 called "You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c... Side note you mentioned you took "all" the vaccines but if you haven't gotten a dose since at least mid-Sept 2023, you are recommended to get another one: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html#All https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-t...
abracadaniel 3y ago
Well for the last point, the method of action with asbestos is that it physically damages tissue and isn’t broken down by the body right? So any internal exposure would be cumulative. The question then is can small fibers migrate up to the ovaries. The prevalence of microplastics in the placenta suggests it’s at least plausible that small particles can migrate in unexpected ways. It seems to me, that daily use of something with a small amount of asbestos near any orifice would be dangerous.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  But there's really not any evidence that talc for personal use actually contained any asbestos, other than some extremely vague indirect discussion of quality control parameters and testing quality confidence. Even assuming that there was indeed a microscopic amount of asbestos in talc, you should be aware that you're breathing in probably ~5,000 asbestos fibers every day - that's about the ambient level from naturally occurring asbestos in air. If you do yard work, or you drive off-road, then you're probably getting more than that.
- legitster 3y ago
  Well, in these cases it would be pretty easy to test for the presence of asbestos in these cancers. If it works like mesothelioma, it would still be present in the tissue. However, it doesn't sound like anyone has actually done any testing like this.

ryandrake 3y ago

You have an entity (the corporation) that: - is amoral - is required and heavily incentivized by shareholders to maximize business value/output/growth at all costs - is lead by people who cannot be held responsible for bad behavior (prison time) You have to expect the worst. You have to assume they are going to do the absolute worst behavior they can get away with, that they will operate up to a millimeter away from the law, and sometimes go over the line if they think they can. The entire system is set up such that they would be foolish not to. IMO we should presume guilt instead of innocence when it comes to corporations--there is no reason to think they would voluntarily uphold some ethical or moral code if it meant lower profits.

prewett 3y ago
Johnson and Johnson is very explicit NOT amoral. They have guiding principles that basically put the needs of their customers first, then employees, communities, and finally shareholders. [1] These old companies were founded in a society that had clear values, and many of those companies reflect those values. Even modern companies frequently have moral values, for instance, Zappos. As a society, though, we have jettisoned those old, constraining Christian/Protestant values, and the prevailing value, to the extent I can identify it, is a Marxist, everything is just the use power to oppress. If we take that as our value system, then that is what we'll become. So if you don't like companies living out that value, then it behooves you to promote the kind of values that benefit society and bring people together. [1] https://www.jnj.com/our-credo https://www.jnj.com/our-credo
mvkel 3y ago
1. What makes them amoral? That they're seeking profit? 2. They're a publicly traded company. Shareholders are we. 3. This sounds like the "if you're not religious, what's stopping you from killing people all the time?" logic
Spivak 3y ago
I don't think your points lead to your conclusion. They're a lawful neutral amalgam made up of mostly lawful good people, they're not lawful evil.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  Except that people in groups mostly aren't good. They just go along with what everybody else is doing and don't give any thought to the legal or ethical consequences. Of course there are exceptions, whistle-blowers for example, and they are often reviled by the "good" people.
hammock 3y ago
Isn’t all that true of the Covid vaccines, and they’re makers (including J&J)? I took them and was fine. So something is wrong in your logic
- calculatte 3y ago
  You're alive is the most you can say. Would you say the same if you develop cancer in 5 years? There is and was no long term testing, so enjoy being the experiment. You can't pretend those makers are all perfect. Who was it that was hit with the largest criminal fine in US history? And for what? "marketing the drug with the intent to deceive and mislead the public" weird.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  As someone who got all three shots, and has no regrets: There's nothing wrong with their logic, it's just that my risk tolerances change based on the context. If I'm escaping from, say, a war; I'm not going to complain if the last flight out of the country is a Boeing 737 MAX - at least not until I'm in a safe country and can switch planes. Likewise, the risk tolerances for vaccines are extremely low normally[1], but I'm willing to accept a slightly riskier one if it means not getting infected with an extremely risky novel coronavirus with very well documented negative effects. Furthermore, the extremely politicized nature of the vaccine development process[0] constrains corporate misbehavior. In other words, the CEOs knew they had eyes on themselves and had to restrain themselves. Corporate misbehavior is far more likely when the public stops caring and corporations can start capturing regulatory agencies. In other words, their evil is very boring. "Company invents new vaccine that kills people" is an unusually sexy kind of evil, which means it gets unusually scrutinized. "Company neglects higher-than-average asbestos in talcum powder" is so boring nobody cares even after they get nasty cancer. [0] Which, oddly enough, resulted in Trump getting booed for taking credit for the vaccine he funded. [1] As far as I'm aware, these risks have not borne out into increased harm from the vaccines. I feel like there would have been a conservative media shitstorm if it had.
  - hammock 3y ago
    If a company invented a drug that kills people, I don't think "extreme politicization" would be necessary for that company to have eyes and scrutiny on it. That would happen naturally. But in this case weren't the makers actually indemnified? Here's a CNBC article from 2020 called "You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won’t compensate you for damages." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c... Side note you mentioned you took "all" the vaccines but if you haven't gotten a dose since at least mid-Sept 2023, you are recommended to get another one: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html#All https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-t...

abracadaniel 3y ago

Well for the last point, the method of action with asbestos is that it physically damages tissue and isn’t broken down by the body right? So any internal exposure would be cumulative. The question then is can small fibers migrate up to the ovaries. The prevalence of microplastics in the placenta suggests it’s at least plausible that small particles can migrate in unexpected ways. It seems to me, that daily use of something with a small amount of asbestos near any orifice would be dangerous.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
But there's really not any evidence that talc for personal use actually contained any asbestos, other than some extremely vague indirect discussion of quality control parameters and testing quality confidence. Even assuming that there was indeed a microscopic amount of asbestos in talc, you should be aware that you're breathing in probably ~5,000 asbestos fibers every day - that's about the ambient level from naturally occurring asbestos in air. If you do yard work, or you drive off-road, then you're probably getting more than that.
legitster 3y ago
Well, in these cases it would be pretty easy to test for the presence of asbestos in these cancers. If it works like mesothelioma, it would still be present in the tissue. However, it doesn't sound like anyone has actually done any testing like this.