[extropy-chat] Professor Being Sued Over Anti-Aging Comments

[Brent Neal]

 (6/22/05 12:00) Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

>You have no clue. It certainly provides no benefit to potential
>plaintiffs who never join a class action. Can any member of this list
>make the claim they've ever joined a class action? I have, on my
>defective Firestone Wilderness A/T tires. I received full value,
>thanks. I've also read the filings for a number of other class action
>suits in my work, such as the suit against JP Morgan and Barrack Gold
>for their manipulation of world gold markets in the late 1990's.

Yes, Mike, I have joined in class actions.  And where on earth did I say that it provided benefits to people who didn't join? Maybe you should learn to read before telling me to get a clue, eh?


>
>Certainly some class action lawsuits against many defendants have
>historically failed miserably. That is how the system works: you take
>your chances. You may have higher losses than what you wind up with, if
>you wind up with anything. Those are the calculations you make when you
>decide whether to join a class action or pursue your own action
>independently.

And pursuing independently is, of course, even riskier since the person you're up against can afford more lawyers than you can.


>
>Mr. Neal, please list the number of times that any government has
>actually distributed cash earned in fines to the actual people who
>suffered the damage the government prosecutes businesses over? They
>NEVER do, so your side of the equation has a score of ZERO.

Its Dr. Neal.  And your failure in logic is that you assume that it has to actually hurt people for the government to have stopped it. That's the beauty of things like the FDA and the USDA. You try to nip the problem in the bud, rather than waiting for bad stuff to happen first.

Have you ever read "The Jungle?"


>Your failure of logic here is that you assume that the number of cases
>would increase in an unregulated world. Not so, since regulations
>generally protect manufacturers from liabilities, a lack of such (or of
>bankruptcy and liability protections, etc) would result in businesses
>being operated much more scrupulously for fear of their corporate veils
>being pierced.

The FDA does not absolve pharma companies of any liability in re their products.  Take any of the recent painkillers that have been pulled from the market as an example. FDA approval of the drug does not prevent suits for damages incurred.  Once again, a bit of reality with your idealism would be helpful....


B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein