So they settled a dispute with a payoff to the claimant. I wonder how they noted this in their general ledger…. Does this effect any upcoming litigation or possible elections with regards to their donations?
I'm not going to defend J&J in any way, especially considering the fact that they have immunity from any side effects from their poisonous "vaccine", but a fucking $9 billion dollar settlement for knowingly selling an allegedly dangerous product is obscene.
It hasn't been factually and empirically proven that mesothelioma is caused exclusively by asbestos. From some website I found:
"In adults, the main cause of mesothelioma is past exposure to asbestos fibers and dust. Between 70% and 80% of people with mesothelioma were exposed to asbestos, mostly through work. It takes over 20 years for symptoms to develop.
"In smaller numbers, people have developed mesothelioma after exposure to similar minerals like silica and erionite. Erionite is a type of mineral (zeolite) that’s been linked to mesothelioma.
"Scientists are also investigating whether your genes contribute to your risk of developing mesothelioma. This is because only a small number of people who have been exposed to asbestos have developed mesothelioma."
It's far from being proved that these people's mesothelioma was caused by trace particles of asbestos in talcum powder.
Still, every executive at J&J should suffer and die for what they did with their injectable poison.
There are several examples of this is recent history. Smoking is another one - tobacco has never been shown to cause cancer. I suspect that some of these are cover ups for an environmental factor, such as atmospheric nuclear testing in the 1950's. The identify a business segment that can take the hit on their behalf, and pay them back through assorted means.
The key word is "cause". Smoking tobacco is correctly associated with several diseases, but most smokers don't succumb to them. The anti-tobacco lobby doesn't seem to understand that if tobacco causes some types of cancer, everyone who smokes would get those types of cancer. In fact, that number is disproportionately low compared to the number of smokers who don't get sick.
The most interesting statistic regarding smoking is that while smoking rates in the USA have declined 3x since the early 1990's, lung cancer rates have increased, and almost entirely in "non-smokers." Combine that with the Japanese example where smoking rates are high and lung cancer rates are low, and you can see that the correlation between the two is entirely absent. Regarding other 'smoking-related illnesses,' it's worth paying attention to the various additives used in cigarettes. This varies greatly by brand, and until I see a study on this that breaks out which brand of cigarettes they are smoking, I will consider the research entirely dubious.
The more interesting correlation is that nootropics were identified in the 1980's, with nicotine being a key one. Suddenly after that we find a huge push to get people away from smoking tobacco.
That's very interesting. I wasn't aware of any of that, but it doesn't surprise me. I've tried to discuss this with people who have much less ability to think for themselves, but they always go back to the "smoking causes cancer" sound bite. The most generous thing that could be said is that smoking correlates with various diseases, but it's never been shown to actually cause cancer.
Smoking is extremely popular in Asia, but I wasn't aware Japanese lung cancer rates are low. Tobacco companies make different blends of tobacco for domestic vs overseas markets. The biggest difference is that domestic brands tend to be much milder than what is sold overseas. There are also European and Asian cigarette manufacturers that likely don't use the heavily chemically laced formulas US companies use. When I was in Europe, I smoked Gauloise when I drank in bars and found it was much harsher (to my American taste of tobacco) than US brands.
They got nailed for this in court before Covid, but it took them this long to come up with a number. It’s so big because they proved that J&J had the data that this shit was killing people, and they hid it for generations. And still, after J&J was convicted of running this massive for-profit fraud; people were still stepping on each other’s neck to get the J&J Covid vax for which J&J had full immunity from being sued. Every J&J executive was beating off and hailing Satan for that unlikely turn of events. People are so fucking stupid.
[ + ] Steelerfish
[ - ] Steelerfish 0 points 2 yearsApr 5, 2023 21:32:52 ago (+0/-0)
I wonder how they noted this in their general ledger….
Does this effect any upcoming litigation or possible elections with regards to their donations?
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 2 points 2 yearsApr 5, 2023 19:52:34 ago (+2/-0)
It hasn't been factually and empirically proven that mesothelioma is caused exclusively by asbestos. From some website I found:
"In adults, the main cause of mesothelioma is past exposure to asbestos fibers and dust. Between 70% and 80% of people with mesothelioma were exposed to asbestos, mostly through work. It takes over 20 years for symptoms to develop.
"In smaller numbers, people have developed mesothelioma after exposure to similar minerals like silica and erionite. Erionite is a type of mineral (zeolite) that’s been linked to mesothelioma.
"Scientists are also investigating whether your genes contribute to your risk of developing mesothelioma. This is because only a small number of people who have been exposed to asbestos have developed mesothelioma."
It's far from being proved that these people's mesothelioma was caused by trace particles of asbestos in talcum powder.
Still, every executive at J&J should suffer and die for what they did with their injectable poison.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 2 yearsApr 5, 2023 22:11:07 ago (+2/-1)
This lawsuit wasn't about breathing the powder. It's about putting it in your vajajay
[ + ] Empire_of_the_Mind
[ - ] Empire_of_the_Mind 0 points 2 yearsApr 6, 2023 01:46:47 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 1 point 2 yearsApr 6, 2023 12:58:08 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Empire_of_the_Mind
[ - ] Empire_of_the_Mind 1 point 2 yearsApr 7, 2023 15:57:13 ago (+1/-0)
The more interesting correlation is that nootropics were identified in the 1980's, with nicotine being a key one. Suddenly after that we find a huge push to get people away from smoking tobacco.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 1 point 2 yearsApr 7, 2023 19:17:28 ago (+1/-0)
Smoking is extremely popular in Asia, but I wasn't aware Japanese lung cancer rates are low. Tobacco companies make different blends of tobacco for domestic vs overseas markets. The biggest difference is that domestic brands tend to be much milder than what is sold overseas. There are also European and Asian cigarette manufacturers that likely don't use the heavily chemically laced formulas US companies use. When I was in Europe, I smoked Gauloise when I drank in bars and found it was much harsher (to my American taste of tobacco) than US brands.
[ + ] TheYiddler
[ - ] TheYiddler -1 points 2 yearsApr 6, 2023 06:27:15 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager
[ - ] PearofAnguishJuniorManager 4 points 2 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:54:22 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 2 points 2 yearsApr 5, 2023 17:28:59 ago (+2/-0)