An appeals court revived lawsuits blaming Tylenol for autism. There is no firm scientific evidence linking the two. The court looked at zero evidence and said let's find out in court.
Juries will now decide complex questions of neurological development and pharmacology. Perfect system. Nothing could go wrong when twelve people who couldn't get out of jury duty determine causation in prenatal neurodevelopment.
The lawyers filing these cases know there's no scientific link. They filed anyway. That's not a moral judgment. That's just describing their job. They saw a defendant with money and a plaintiff with a sick kid and they did math.
Retailers who trade biotech stocks on litigation headlines are creaming themselves right now. They think this means something for Johnson & Johnson's market cap. They will buy puts. They will lose money. They will blame market manipulation instead of their own stupidity.
Every pregnant woman who took Tylenol for a headache will now wonder if she gave her kid autism. She didn't. But some lawyer on a billboard will tell her maybe she did. Call now for a free consultation.
The scientific method has a process for determining causation. It involves studies and data and peer review. Courts have a different process. It involves which expert witness sounds more confident and whether the defendant's legal team wore the right ties.
This will end in either a settlement where no one admits fault or a verdict that gets appealed for six more years. Either way the lawyers win and science loses and your portfolio stays exactly as stupid as it was yesterday.
Johnson & Johnson's stock will move on this news. Traders will pretend they understand the liability exposure. They don't understand their own brokerage statements. But sure, they've got a handle on mass tort litigation risk modeling.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
Leave a Comment