A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
This isn't even punitive, but just the cost of doing business. Protip, if the fine wouldn't stop you from making the same business decision again, it's not really a fine.
Let's hope that all of these:
a setback for the company as it seeks to settle thousands of similar cases
come to similar results then.
If they have 10,000 lawsuits that result in the same fine, it might actually have an impact on their bottom line.
“Hernandez testified in June, telling jurors that he would have avoided J&J’s talc if he had been warned that it contained asbestos, as his lawsuit alleges.”
Got news for you — if there’s any asbestos in the talc, it likely wasn’t added by J&J. Asbestos occurs frequently where talc is mined. If J&J talcum powder has asbestos, chances are other brands of talc do too.
The only way to avoid it is to switch from talc to corn starch based products.
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc
https://www.asbestos.com/news/2022/01/18/fda-testing-asbestos-talc/
I feel this gets overlooked too easily. Also, there was a recent article reporting that the study that proofed talc was responsible for the asbestos exposure, was fundamentally flawed and ignored major historic exposure to asbestos in its participants.
Shit on J&J all you want, they deserve a fair bit of criticism, but the talc ruling is just plain ignorance by the jury.
The jury found that Hernandez was entitled to damages to compensate him for his medical bills and pain and suffering, but declined to award punitive damages against the company. Hernandez will not be able to collect the judgment in the foreseeable future, thanks to a bankruptcy court order freezing most litigation over J&J’s talc.
How the hell is J&J unsolvable?
So uh, should I throw this away...
Or just don’t maybe submerse your kid in it every hour of every day
Wasn't there a huge civil suit against J&J that they avoided paying?
Just another big pharma company that is getting charged fines, but that's just their cost of doing business. These suits against J&J, Pfizer & more should put the company permanently out of business.
Everyone complaining about that little cancer problem but no one is thanking J&J for making them fire resistant.
QA on powders is a legit hard thing to do. I remember when this story first broke thinking that it probably was just a real sad accident. Of course time showed differently.
What percentage of that is actually going to the patient after all the costs of the case are subtracted?
Will it cover the cancer treatment?
that's spare change... that's not a fine, that's just a small price to pay.
Hilariously, this fine is probably not even large enough for them to spin off a shell company and declare bankruptcy on the debts. They'll just shrug and move on. Toothless.