8 ms·

Lumina's legal threats and my about-face

121 points by gdudeman 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vertis 2y ago
[0]Barbra Streisand Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh, wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh, wooo, wooo, wooo Another one of those things that as soon as you start throwing legal threats around it get much much more interesting. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQdVA2hjsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQdVA2hjsA
therein 2y ago
Great write up. I hadn't seen the original post, and now I have. Mutacin and ethanol production does sound problematic. It is a product that I would have tried otherwise. It is also kinda hilarious that the guy is related to the most overrated escort in the Bay Area and is using her to further his product.
- ljsprague 2y ago
  Who's that?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Aella [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aella_(influencer) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aella_(influencer)
- amarcheschi 2y ago
  May I ask what makes aella overrated? I mean, I didn't understand whether it was in a sense of purely related to escort activity or for her writings, surveys (...), I'm asking because this isn't the first time I read about aella being not reputable. Searching on hn.algolia a user came - pun intended - up with a script to hide certain website on hn, and aella's substack was one of them. I glanced at her Twitter/substack in the past and I found content varying from crappy to at least interesting or quite interesting
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
jawns 2y ago
Former journalist here. I spent lots of time in college learning about libel law, and then applying it in my professional life as an editor. One thing about libel that many people don't understand is that retraction and editing of the content isn't a defense. So where it says "note the libel-friendly phrasing" and "now edited to avoid any possible threats of libel" and "[editor’s note: removed a possibly incorrect claim]" he could still be found guilty of libel if previously published assertions contained non "libel-friendly" phrasing. As long as a defamatory assertion was published at some point, you can still be found guilty of libel. It probably goes without saying, but it is also not a defense to libel to say that you asserted something to be true merely because there was no evidence to the contrary. Absent a contractual or legal obligation, Lumina had no duty to engage with him and answer his questions. So if Lumina can provide evidence that Trevor asserted things that are demonstrably false, and they damaged Lumina's business, then Trevor can't argue as a defense that he merely had no way of knowing that they were false. Finally, Trevor seems to be saying in his update that he was merely asking questions -- but it's possible for a court to find that merely phrasing false, defamatory assertions in the form of a question is not an absolute protection against a libel claim.
- debacle 2y ago
  Libel is tricky, especially with public companies. A libel suit opens you up to discovery, which is pretty much never good in the court of public opinion. There's also a (relatively) high bar, even when the author is an SME (Trevor seems like an SME). The only thing that rubs me the wrong way about Trevor's post is only giving 48 hours to respond. I've had serious nonfactual information published about me because I didn't respond to an email in a timely fashion, and then when I asked for corrections (kindly), was met with a hostile reporter. In my mind, if Lumina was in the right (and had good lawyers), they would have not responded to Trevor, mic-dropped his claims, and moved on with their lives. Trying to wrestle with something like this is not generally a good idea, and the CEO's approach seems unwise at best.
  - throwway120385 2y ago
    To wit, I now know about this where before I had no idea, and it leaves enough of a stink that I wouldn't touch their product with a ten foot pole. Especially the whole idea that they wouldn't answer any questions over email, which is a red flag for me about them not wanting a record of a discussion about this. You do that when you think there might be controversy or you're not totally certain about your claims and don't want that uncertainty reflected in a back-and-forth.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Apparently the former CEO of Reddit, Yishan Wong, is trying it and is an investor? He posted a series of long tweets/Xs whatever: https://x.com/yishan/status/1780131189753569310 https://x.com/yishan/status/1780131189753569310
- debacle 2y ago
  The current CEO as well, IIRC.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Animats 2y ago
Look into "anti-SLAPP laws". California has strong enough ones to make people back down from threats like that.
ai_what 2y ago
I don't have any skin in this game but this is confusing to me because in the article that he put back up it (still) says: > Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging. But in the new article it says: > Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices. Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong? I understand that it's weird that it didn't get revealed until he was pressed on it but then so is stating that he likely wasn't following the best practices, right? Furthermore, the first article doesn't mention that it's voluntary to follow the best practices guidelines but the second one does. To me that sounds kind of like "okay fine you were right, but it's voluntary anyway, so whatever". Why not mention that in the original claim? In fairness, the original article also has some great points, like the concerns about this particular BCS3L-1 strain that Lumina uses. I wish he had focused more on that. I feel like both of them could have gone about this in a better way.
- flumpcakes 2y ago
  > Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong? I don't think so. At least in my reading, it appears both of these things can be true at the same time if you ready carefully: > Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging. > Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices. These are saying the same thing - it looks like the probiotic best practices aren't being followed, but they appear to not be legally mandated.
- resolutebat 2y ago
  Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics != Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
someotherperson 2y ago
The writing by Trevor didn't make me shy away from Lumina's product, I was still quite excited. It would have been good to see scientific debate which could hopefully improve or clarify processes and safety. Lumina's court threats, however, would definitely make me shy away. I imagine for myself (and many others) that this would be the case.
- kbenson 2y ago
  That's probably true, but I think that's actually kind of sad. We've seen enough legal threatening to prevent the truth from getting out that I think our reactions are to assume that's the case. If indeed this is Lumina being upset that a journalist went to far and made false claims about them as they indicate, and the truth is better than indicated, would we not expect a legal proceeding if the journalist would not retract false claims? I don't know who is ultimately in the right here (but at least one of Trevor's defenses of his assertions seems flimsy at best to me, namely the "you didn't say otherwise so I assumed this was true" one), and it would have been better if they could come to an agreement without the legal system about how best to handle this (Lumina does seem to be going harder at this than possibly needed), but I think we should assess the situation on the merits, not that there is a legal case at all.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    No. Good faith conversations with truth as their goal don't come out swinging with legal threats, period. It's certainly possible that taking it there was a regrettable mistake. But without those threats being publicly walked back, I don't see why we should just assume that's the case.
    - kbenson 2y ago
      And good faith conversations don't come away with one party publishing assertions of fact just because the other side didn't directly refute the assertion in question. If the company thinks the journalist isn't working in good faith, are they not then justified in that? Context is everything. I think there's poor behavior on both sides, but to my eyes it starts with a journalist making unfounded assertions. Would Lumina have gotten upset and threatened over poor press even if it wasn't to the point where someone was making statement of fact that were both wrong and perceived as hurtful to their business? We'll never know, because it appears those statements were made. We can dumb this down and make it very simple. If someone interviews me, and asks if I beat my wife and I don't answer (for whatever reason. Maybe I perceive it as a joke that doesn't need a response, maybe I don't want to engage with bad-faith questions), and they then print that I'm a wifebeater, should I not be upset enough to threaten to sue initially? Should I assume they're working in good faith, or is that enough to assume bad faith? Personally, I think my choices would be to assume bad faith or that the person is inept and uneducated at the job, and if the person didn't seem stupid, that seems unlikely.
dang 2y ago
Recent and related: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40369084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40369084 - May 2024 (149 comments)
lxe 2y ago
Now I'm curious to read the edited sections.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Antibiotic-resistant bugs is a tragedy of the commons. We may need a blanket requirement for FDA approval for products, including probiotics, which create antibiotics.
- hooverd 2y ago
  Got a prescription for that kefir?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > kefir What antibiotic do the probiotics in kefir produce? (Antimicrobial != antibiotic.)
- MostlyStable 2y ago
  The anti-biotic production portion of this bacteria is naturally occurring, including in strains that naturally occur in people's mouths.
MauranKilom 2y ago
Regardless of all the "he said, she said", libel or not libel, email response times, GMP, threats and whatever drama: Is there anyone who is seriously contesting the "it is intended to cure/prevent a disease, therefore it is a drug, therefore it needs FDA approval to be sold legally" line of reasoning? More humoristically: https://xkcd.com/2475/ https://xkcd.com/2475/ and https://xkcd.com/2530/ https://xkcd.com/2530/ Less humoristically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
- Sevii 2y ago
  Seems like a stretch to argue a biological organism qualifies as a drug.
  - SamBam 2y ago
    Except it's not at all. The FDA regulates plenty of live organisms as drugs if they're claimed to be used to treat diseases. For example, fecal transplants are regulated by the FDA. Rebiotix Inc is developing a bacterial fecal transplant, RBX2660, and Seres Therapeutics is developing an oral version (also live bacteria) called SER-109. Both of these are being regulated by the FDA. There are hundreds of other live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) regulated by the FDA.
  - perlgeek 2y ago
    Live-attenuated vaccines (see [1]) seem to fit that role, and have been around for ages. I'd be very surprised if they didn't count as drug. [1] https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/types/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/types/index.html
  - dekhn 2y ago
    It's not a stretch at all.
philipwhiuk 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
causality0 2y ago
spending years in and out of a California courtroom Yeah, that's totally not something a company that's completely full of shit from the top down and bottom up would threaten. Now we can be sure this product functions as advertised.
shadowgovt 2y ago
> Dude, if the product wasn't safe, I wouldn't be using it myself, giving it to my girlfriend, and giving it to my friends. I hope Mr. Silverbrook understands how hollow that reasoning is in the post-OceanGate era.
ziofill 2y ago
Not trying to stir anything up, but one can't not recognize the disparity of consequences for saying something "false" that "may affect a business" between Trevor and basically any politician who's done the same (even without going into good/bad intent)

121 points by gdudeman 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

[0]Barbra Streisand Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh, wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooh, wooo, wooo, wooo Another one of those things that as soon as you start throwing legal threats around it get much much more interesting. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQdVA2hjsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VQdVA2hjsA

therein 2y ago

Great write up. I hadn't seen the original post, and now I have. Mutacin and ethanol production does sound problematic. It is a product that I would have tried otherwise. It is also kinda hilarious that the guy is related to the most overrated escort in the Bay Area and is using her to further his product.

ljsprague 2y ago
Who's that?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Aella [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aella_(influencer) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aella_(influencer)
amarcheschi 2y ago
May I ask what makes aella overrated? I mean, I didn't understand whether it was in a sense of purely related to escort activity or for her writings, surveys (...), I'm asking because this isn't the first time I read about aella being not reputable. Searching on hn.algolia a user came - pun intended - up with a script to hide certain website on hn, and aella's substack was one of them. I glanced at her Twitter/substack in the past and I found content varying from crappy to at least interesting or quite interesting
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

jawns 2y ago

Former journalist here. I spent lots of time in college learning about libel law, and then applying it in my professional life as an editor. One thing about libel that many people don't understand is that retraction and editing of the content isn't a defense. So where it says "note the libel-friendly phrasing" and "now edited to avoid any possible threats of libel" and "[editor’s note: removed a possibly incorrect claim]" he could still be found guilty of libel if previously published assertions contained non "libel-friendly" phrasing. As long as a defamatory assertion was published at some point, you can still be found guilty of libel. It probably goes without saying, but it is also not a defense to libel to say that you asserted something to be true merely because there was no evidence to the contrary. Absent a contractual or legal obligation, Lumina had no duty to engage with him and answer his questions. So if Lumina can provide evidence that Trevor asserted things that are demonstrably false, and they damaged Lumina's business, then Trevor can't argue as a defense that he merely had no way of knowing that they were false. Finally, Trevor seems to be saying in his update that he was merely asking questions -- but it's possible for a court to find that merely phrasing false, defamatory assertions in the form of a question is not an absolute protection against a libel claim.

debacle 2y ago
Libel is tricky, especially with public companies. A libel suit opens you up to discovery, which is pretty much never good in the court of public opinion. There's also a (relatively) high bar, even when the author is an SME (Trevor seems like an SME). The only thing that rubs me the wrong way about Trevor's post is only giving 48 hours to respond. I've had serious nonfactual information published about me because I didn't respond to an email in a timely fashion, and then when I asked for corrections (kindly), was met with a hostile reporter. In my mind, if Lumina was in the right (and had good lawyers), they would have not responded to Trevor, mic-dropped his claims, and moved on with their lives. Trying to wrestle with something like this is not generally a good idea, and the CEO's approach seems unwise at best.
- throwway120385 2y ago
  To wit, I now know about this where before I had no idea, and it leaves enough of a stink that I wouldn't touch their product with a ten foot pole. Especially the whole idea that they wouldn't answer any questions over email, which is a red flag for me about them not wanting a record of a discussion about this. You do that when you think there might be controversy or you're not totally certain about your claims and don't want that uncertainty reflected in a back-and-forth.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Apparently the former CEO of Reddit, Yishan Wong, is trying it and is an investor? He posted a series of long tweets/Xs whatever: https://x.com/yishan/status/1780131189753569310 https://x.com/yishan/status/1780131189753569310

debacle 2y ago
The current CEO as well, IIRC.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Animats 2y ago

Look into "anti-SLAPP laws". California has strong enough ones to make people back down from threats like that.

ai_what 2y ago

I don't have any skin in this game but this is confusing to me because in the article that he put back up it (still) says: > Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging. But in the new article it says: > Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices. Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong? I understand that it's weird that it didn't get revealed until he was pressed on it but then so is stating that he likely wasn't following the best practices, right? Furthermore, the first article doesn't mention that it's voluntary to follow the best practices guidelines but the second one does. To me that sounds kind of like "okay fine you were right, but it's voluntary anyway, so whatever". Why not mention that in the original claim? In fairness, the original article also has some great points, like the concerns about this particular BCS3L-1 strain that Lumina uses. I wish he had focused more on that. I feel like both of them could have gone about this in a better way.

flumpcakes 2y ago
> Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong? I don't think so. At least in my reading, it appears both of these things can be true at the same time if you ready carefully: > Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging. > Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices. These are saying the same thing - it looks like the probiotic best practices aren't being followed, but they appear to not be legally mandated.
resolutebat 2y ago
Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics != Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)

someotherperson 2y ago

The writing by Trevor didn't make me shy away from Lumina's product, I was still quite excited. It would have been good to see scientific debate which could hopefully improve or clarify processes and safety. Lumina's court threats, however, would definitely make me shy away. I imagine for myself (and many others) that this would be the case.

kbenson 2y ago
That's probably true, but I think that's actually kind of sad. We've seen enough legal threatening to prevent the truth from getting out that I think our reactions are to assume that's the case. If indeed this is Lumina being upset that a journalist went to far and made false claims about them as they indicate, and the truth is better than indicated, would we not expect a legal proceeding if the journalist would not retract false claims? I don't know who is ultimately in the right here (but at least one of Trevor's defenses of his assertions seems flimsy at best to me, namely the "you didn't say otherwise so I assumed this was true" one), and it would have been better if they could come to an agreement without the legal system about how best to handle this (Lumina does seem to be going harder at this than possibly needed), but I think we should assess the situation on the merits, not that there is a legal case at all.
- mindslight 2y ago
  No. Good faith conversations with truth as their goal don't come out swinging with legal threats, period. It's certainly possible that taking it there was a regrettable mistake. But without those threats being publicly walked back, I don't see why we should just assume that's the case.
  - kbenson 2y ago
    And good faith conversations don't come away with one party publishing assertions of fact just because the other side didn't directly refute the assertion in question. If the company thinks the journalist isn't working in good faith, are they not then justified in that? Context is everything. I think there's poor behavior on both sides, but to my eyes it starts with a journalist making unfounded assertions. Would Lumina have gotten upset and threatened over poor press even if it wasn't to the point where someone was making statement of fact that were both wrong and perceived as hurtful to their business? We'll never know, because it appears those statements were made. We can dumb this down and make it very simple. If someone interviews me, and asks if I beat my wife and I don't answer (for whatever reason. Maybe I perceive it as a joke that doesn't need a response, maybe I don't want to engage with bad-faith questions), and they then print that I'm a wifebeater, should I not be upset enough to threaten to sue initially? Should I assume they're working in good faith, or is that enough to assume bad faith? Personally, I think my choices would be to assume bad faith or that the person is inept and uneducated at the job, and if the person didn't seem stupid, that seems unlikely.

dang 2y ago

Recent and related: Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40369084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40369084 - May 2024 (149 comments)

lxe 2y ago

Now I'm curious to read the edited sections.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Antibiotic-resistant bugs is a tragedy of the commons. We may need a blanket requirement for FDA approval for products, including probiotics, which create antibiotics.

hooverd 2y ago
Got a prescription for that kefir?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > kefir What antibiotic do the probiotics in kefir produce? (Antimicrobial != antibiotic.)
MostlyStable 2y ago
The anti-biotic production portion of this bacteria is naturally occurring, including in strains that naturally occur in people's mouths.

MauranKilom 2y ago

Regardless of all the "he said, she said", libel or not libel, email response times, GMP, threats and whatever drama: Is there anyone who is seriously contesting the "it is intended to cure/prevent a disease, therefore it is a drug, therefore it needs FDA approval to be sold legally" line of reasoning? More humoristically: https://xkcd.com/2475/ https://xkcd.com/2475/ and https://xkcd.com/2530/ https://xkcd.com/2530/ Less humoristically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Sevii 2y ago
Seems like a stretch to argue a biological organism qualifies as a drug.
- SamBam 2y ago
  Except it's not at all. The FDA regulates plenty of live organisms as drugs if they're claimed to be used to treat diseases. For example, fecal transplants are regulated by the FDA. Rebiotix Inc is developing a bacterial fecal transplant, RBX2660, and Seres Therapeutics is developing an oral version (also live bacteria) called SER-109. Both of these are being regulated by the FDA. There are hundreds of other live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) regulated by the FDA.
- perlgeek 2y ago
  Live-attenuated vaccines (see [1]) seem to fit that role, and have been around for ages. I'd be very surprised if they didn't count as drug. [1] https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/types/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/immunization/basics/types/index.html
- dekhn 2y ago
  It's not a stretch at all.

philipwhiuk 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

causality0 2y ago

spending years in and out of a California courtroom Yeah, that's totally not something a company that's completely full of shit from the top down and bottom up would threaten. Now we can be sure this product functions as advertised.

shadowgovt 2y ago

> Dude, if the product wasn't safe, I wouldn't be using it myself, giving it to my girlfriend, and giving it to my friends. I hope Mr. Silverbrook understands how hollow that reasoning is in the post-OceanGate era.

ziofill 2y ago

Not trying to stir anything up, but one can't not recognize the disparity of consequences for saying something "false" that "may affect a business" between Trevor and basically any politician who's done the same (even without going into good/bad intent)