[dumpsterdiver]

> Further, if your company produces products that kill or injure people, then why should we show any interest in maintaining that companies existence with odd legal hacks like this?

> This seems fairly debatable.

To be fair, we might not have some of the drugs many of us are prescribed to us if we just cancelled every company that ever hurt anyone with experimental drugs.

[autoexec]

J&J wasn't accidentally hurting people with experimental drugs.

They had full knowledge that they were poisoning people, and they actively hid that from the people they were killing, because J&J wanted more of their victim's money before they died, and a continuous supply of new victims to take the place of the old ones.

[themitigating]

Your use of "cancelled" seems to be an attempt to imply their actions are similar to a comedian using the N word.

People died and they knew their product was dangerous. That's akin to murder.

[dumpsterdiver]

> Your use of "cancelled" seems to be an attempt to imply their actions are similar to a comedian using the N word.

No, those are your words. The discussion I was participating in was talking about medication, not race warfare.

My statement was also generalized, but you apparently applied it to a specific scenario (which I am unfamiliar with) that fits your narrative.

[ClumsyPilot]

> cancelled every company that ever hurt anyone with experimental drugs.

"This baby powder is an experimental drug and may have unknown and lethal side effects" - did it say this on the packaging?

If it did, fair play. Some people would be happy to try experimental and dangerous cure for cancer.

But somehow I have a suspicion that the potential market share for experimental and dangerous baby powder is about 0%.

[master-lincoln]

Maybe if we would have taken care malicious actors are removed we would now have more actors instead of a few giants who seem too big to fail