3 ms·

I get that Ken Paxton is a Trump toady, but how will this not be dismissed out of hand? The autism claims have no basis in fact and "because RFK and Trump said

I get that Ken Paxton is a Trump toady, but how will this not be dismissed out of hand? The autism claims have no basis in fact and "because RFK and Trump said so" isn't evidence.

dragonwriter 1y ago
It won't be dismissed out of hand because there is a colorable legal argument assuming the necessary facts and some (very weak) evidence that can be proferred for each of the necessary facts, which is pretty much all that is necessary to get to trial if you are committed and not worried about winning. If the strategy is to get a settlement without agreement to fault extracting a bit of money to avoid the cost of litigation and use that also as a political hammer to reinforce the popular perception that the claim of a link is true, I can certainly see it being (despite being wildly unethical, an abuse of public office, etc.) an understandable course of action (I don't think it ultimately works even there, unless there is also separate corrupt pressure to settle by people abusing government, perhaps federal, offices in different ways—but that is also a possibility—because even a no admission of guilt settlement becomes hard for J&J publicly if even meaningful moves public perception.) I don't think there is much chance that they win a verdict at trial and survive appeals on it, but... that doesn't have to be the goal.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Well... by filing the suit, if it isn't dismissed immediately, then Texas gets to do discovery on J&J. J&J may be unwilling to let that happen. So options are dismissed immediately, J&J settles, Texas drops it after discovery (if they fail to find a smoking gun), or it goes to trial and Texas has to actually prove it.
- dylan604 1y ago
  If there's a settlement, that's as good as a win for those that believe this. They will look guilty as hell to everyone that wants to believe. I don't see any way a settlement is a valid choice for the defense. This is one of those you want to end decisively. Any time it is brought up after, you just point back to the court case. If you settle, any time it is brought up after there will always be linger speculation on why did they settle. It will forever be an albatross around their neck.
  - mcphage 1y ago
    > If there's a settlement, that's as good as a win for those that believe this. They will look guilty as hell to everyone that wants to believe. I don't see any way a settlement is a valid choice for the defense. Plus, Tylenol is... a pretty large product, and I don't think they're willing to just flush that entire product line down the toilet.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    All true. The only way J&J would settle is if what Texas might find in discovery is worse than accepting a settlement (including in PR terms). Look, I'm not saying that it's going to happen that way in this case. But in terms of possible outcomes, it's one that is possible.
aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
There are some actual studies behind it, which complicate things into a "scientific consensus" discussion rather than "no credible claims" discussion. Good statistics make the claims go away, but arguing about the correct use of statistics in court is gonna drag on.
zdragnar 1y ago
The claims and lawsuit are probably based on the internal memo from J&J execs who acknowledged the possible connection: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/bombshell-memo-claims-johnson-amp-johnson-admitted-to-tylenol-autism-link-years-ago/3991363/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/bombshel... The leaked memos went to DCNF via a law firm with prior suit with Kenvue, so take it with however much salt you want, but there does appear to be internal concern over the data.

I get that Ken Paxton is a Trump toady, but how will this not be dismissed out of hand? The autism claims have no basis in fact and "because RFK and Trump said so" isn't evidence.

dragonwriter 1y ago

It won't be dismissed out of hand because there is a colorable legal argument assuming the necessary facts and some (very weak) evidence that can be proferred for each of the necessary facts, which is pretty much all that is necessary to get to trial if you are committed and not worried about winning. If the strategy is to get a settlement without agreement to fault extracting a bit of money to avoid the cost of litigation and use that also as a political hammer to reinforce the popular perception that the claim of a link is true, I can certainly see it being (despite being wildly unethical, an abuse of public office, etc.) an understandable course of action (I don't think it ultimately works even there, unless there is also separate corrupt pressure to settle by people abusing government, perhaps federal, offices in different ways—but that is also a possibility—because even a no admission of guilt settlement becomes hard for J&J publicly if even meaningful moves public perception.) I don't think there is much chance that they win a verdict at trial and survive appeals on it, but... that doesn't have to be the goal.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

Well... by filing the suit, if it isn't dismissed immediately, then Texas gets to do discovery on J&J. J&J may be unwilling to let that happen. So options are dismissed immediately, J&J settles, Texas drops it after discovery (if they fail to find a smoking gun), or it goes to trial and Texas has to actually prove it.

dylan604 1y ago
If there's a settlement, that's as good as a win for those that believe this. They will look guilty as hell to everyone that wants to believe. I don't see any way a settlement is a valid choice for the defense. This is one of those you want to end decisively. Any time it is brought up after, you just point back to the court case. If you settle, any time it is brought up after there will always be linger speculation on why did they settle. It will forever be an albatross around their neck.
- mcphage 1y ago
  > If there's a settlement, that's as good as a win for those that believe this. They will look guilty as hell to everyone that wants to believe. I don't see any way a settlement is a valid choice for the defense. Plus, Tylenol is... a pretty large product, and I don't think they're willing to just flush that entire product line down the toilet.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  All true. The only way J&J would settle is if what Texas might find in discovery is worse than accepting a settlement (including in PR terms). Look, I'm not saying that it's going to happen that way in this case. But in terms of possible outcomes, it's one that is possible.

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago

There are some actual studies behind it, which complicate things into a "scientific consensus" discussion rather than "no credible claims" discussion. Good statistics make the claims go away, but arguing about the correct use of statistics in court is gonna drag on.

zdragnar 1y ago

The claims and lawsuit are probably based on the internal memo from J&J execs who acknowledged the possible connection: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/bombshell-memo-claims-johnson-amp-johnson-admitted-to-tylenol-autism-link-years-ago/3991363/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/bombshel... The leaked memos went to DCNF via a law firm with prior suit with Kenvue, so take it with however much salt you want, but there does appear to be internal concern over the data.