Recently Russell Brand covered this topic on his YouTube channel.
Here is what he said in the video, as transcribed below. The video is certainly worth watching in its entirety. A transcript are not exactly great ways to see the humor Brand uses, and not only is the video information but it’s also humorous. If you don’t have 13 minutes and you prefer to read, the transcript is below.
Does Johnson & Johnson have a secret plan to limit lawsuits around the allegation that they are making baby powder that causes cancer?
Big Pharma throughout the pandemic (of course, because of their responsibility, power, and control) have been big players around the world in the last two years. And this coronavirus pandemic, necessarily because of the power, responsibility, and control they’ve been granted, we need to have a great deal of trust in them. It’s curious that this time people have been cynical or suspicious about vaccines, (and I would never dare to direct you on how you should approach such subjects, I have no opinion on that matter). It’s interesting that Johnson and Johnson right now, during the time of the pandemic, during the time of the conversation around some of the measures that have been mandated through the pandemic, have an ongoing lawsuit about baby powder causing cancer. Now, for me, this is an interesting introduction to the practices and potential malfeasance of these companies. Let’s look into this further.
Johnson and Johnson has been accused of trying to suppress speech by asking a judge to block the Reuters news agency from publishing a story about the pharmaceutical giant’s legal strategy to counter lawsuits claiming that its baby powder is a cause of cancer. Some really interesting wording going on there. So this is clearly an ongoing legal matter around which I should be duly cautious. The filing was made at the US bankruptcy court, where the big Pharma giant is trying to get protections from bankruptcy from 38,000 lawsuits. 38,000! That’s a lot of lawsuits. 38,000 lawsuits alleging the company’s baby powder product was advertised as safe, but had long term cancer risk. Baby powder! If you can’t offer that it’s safe, I don’t know what else you can offer for a baby powder. It’s baby powder. Baby powder has got to be safe.
Now, the idea that Johnson and Johnson are trying to file for bankruptcy, presumably through some sub corporation or whatever, to avoid paying out 38,000 claims, that’s not exactly the kind of reassuring attitude that I would expect from someone who’s a player on a global scale. I’m not naive stupid enough to suggest that Johnson and Johnson would necessarily have malpracticed in every area of their business. I wouldn’t suggest that unless there’s bloody evidence here. 38,000 lawsuits, that’s evidence, right? So here we can say, Jesus Christ, and we can also see how they’re behaving in this instance. Is it by going, oh, my God, we’re so sorry. We produced a baby powder that’s causing cancer. Let’s get this shit solved. Even if there’s the slightest child. Let’s just look after your babies. That’s what we’re all about. Look at our advertisers little babies. Look at all snug and lovely. We’re Johnson and Johnson. I mean, I can’t vouch for Johnson, but me, Johnson, I’m a good guy. Instead of that. No, what they’ve done is quick, set up some shelf firm, file for bankruptcy and say we can’t pay out. Basically, that won’t it.
So how can you trust an organization or even a system that even has that in its playbook? This week, Reuters reported that J&J had a secret plan to shift the liability from the lawsuits to a new subsidiary, which would then declare bankruptcy to limit having to pay up over the cancer lawsuits. That’s what happens when you have an economic system that cares about profit above all else. The conversation will go, the only way to deal with this without share value plummeting, without you getting hit with a load of costs that you just can’t afford to pay out your shareholders won’t tolerate. You got to set up this subsidiary. That’s actually reprehensible, isn’t it? That’s morally reprehensible. And the point I suppose I’m making is that during the pandemic, all manner of advantages, financial and legal were granted to Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, all the manufacturers of vaccines. And I’m certainly not alleging that there’s been any malpractice. But you would want to know that elsewhere in their business, they’re not, for example, producing opioids, or they’re not settling lawsuits, or in the event that something goes wrong because we’re all human infallible, they hold their hands up and go, that was bang out of order. Sorry about the old cancer causing baby powder. How can we make amends? Again, I don’t want to stoke fear. I want to stoke questioning and inquiry and rationalism and awakeness, awareness. But if they were granted indemnity at the beginning of the pandemic, is that a sensible thing to do? Is that what’s best for everybody? Again, I’m alleging nothing about the efficacy of those vaccines. I really am not. But we do know this this we do know J & J attempted to stop Reuters from publishing the story by requesting the judge intervene and issue a restraining order.
Can I just ask you a question? As one of our glorious army of 5 million awakening souls, have you seen this story anywhere else? Right. People are the media, the mainstream media, reporting that Johnson & Johnson are trying to avoid responsibility for lawsuits that claim that their baby powder caused cancer. Right. You’ve not seen it, oddly, anywhere because they’ve been handling it legally. But if someone speaks out and says, oh, I’m skeptical and cynical about vaccines, why is that hypothetical person, who’s definitely not Russell? Well, the reason I’m skeptical and cynical is because I’ve seen, like, Johnson & Johnson and their baby powder, cancer and the opioid crisis in America. Conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorist. Suddenly there’s all the attention. Well, Novak Djokovic, don’t fancy a vaccine. The guy’s a lunatic. You can’t play tennis like that. What we’re talking about is transparency in reporting rather than creating an entire media industry around some people who, you could argue are justifiably cynical.
Johnson & Johnson tried to get a US judge to block Reuters from publishing a story based on what it said were confidential company documents about the healthcare giants legal maneuvers to fight lawsuits claiming its baby powder caused cancer. Sometimes I think that I’m reading some mad thing out of the Onion. Don’t you? Like “what the..!. What’s going on now?”
The First Amendment is not a license to knowingly violate the law, said the company in a filing. Who should that law be on the side of? Johnson & Johnson or people that are trying to report carcinogens in baby powder? Allegedly.
Potentially, if you love the law so much, how about this law don’t have baby powder that causes cancer. That’s not actually a law. On Friday, Reuters reported that JNJ had secretly launched Project Plato last year to shift liability from 38,000 pending baby powdered tow lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J & J could limit his financial exposure to the lawsuit.
Firstly, I’m offended. They called it Project Plato. That in ancient Greece, Socrates and Plato’s debates about freedom and the nature of democracy and the establishment of a Republic and the true nature of reality. And also, I don’t want to take the flak over any alleged carcinogens in those baby powders we’re making. J&J said Reuters had obtained documents that were protected from public disclosure. The company demanded that Reuters return the documents and refrain from publishing information gleaned from the documents. On one end, you’ve got protecting documents. On the other hand, you’ve got potentially carcinogenic baby powders, which to you seems like the more important issue?
[Brand does impression of a mother talking]: “There’s nothing more beautiful than a mother’s love for its documents. It’s an instinct to protect my documents. Don’t you dare. Don’t shoot there on my documents. Hope that dust on these documents are not baby powder. Why? No reason. The baby powder is great.”
This is a complex matter that should be heard by the court in a forum where both sides present their cases in an appropriate setting, not argued through the media, said a J & J spokesperson. Bloody hell, man. When it suits them, they’ll use the media. When it’s against their calls, they’ll set up subsidiaries, deny the right for free communication. I’m not disputing this such a thing as legally sensitive documentation. But surely in an issue such as this one, the key and most important thing is establishing whether or not that baby powder is carcinogenic, making sure that no more harm is done, having a clear and open conversation about it, and in the event that there is evidence that it caused it, which I’m sure won’t be easy to bloody get, given the clandestine nature of the way this is already being conducted, that the people affected are rightly remunerated for the suffering that they’ve encountered.
J&J maintains that its consumer talc products are safe and have been confirmed to be asbestos free. “And the link between babies that have used Johnson and Johnson baby powder and then have somehow developed cancer down the line is merely a coincidence. 38,000 coincidences.”
Talc plaintiff committees argue that J&J should not be permitted to use bankruptcy to address the talc litigation, and that by doing so, is depriving plaintiffs of their day in court. Anyway, those 38,000 claims isn’t the only time that Johnson & Johnson have ever been involved in anything like this. Johnson Johnson has faced hundreds of thousands of lawsuits over claims its products are defective. Lawsuits point to internal documents showing that JNJ and its subsidiaries knew about problems with their products but sold them anyway. That’s what the documentation shows. That’s why the documents are secret. That is what is being alleged. And certainly I would not have an opinion on whether or not it’s true, because I’m sure it’s legally sensitive. In addition to individual product liability lawsuits, individual states who say Johnson & Johnson helped fuel the opioid crisis are suing the company for millions of dollars.
I mean, we’re starting now to get a pretty interesting dossier of malpractice. 38,000 lawsuits with a talc, hundreds of thousands of other complaints. The opioid crisis, a clandestine attitude towards this documentation. It’s starting to look like something might be going on. In 2019, Johnson and Johnson were ordered to pay $572,000,000 for helping fuel the opioid crisis by flooding the market with painkillers. Johnson &Johnson accused of a cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme. I pronounced this to have been a cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme. But can we continue to make baby powders? Oh, yes, carry on making the baby powders. In order to ramp up narcotic painkiller cells as one of a web of firms that created the biggest drug epidemic in American history as profits surged. The company has worked in step to change medical culture and practice by influencing doctors, researchers, federal regulators, and politicians.
When there is such evidence for malpractice, why is Congress not doing something about it? In 2020, at least 13 senators and 35 US representatives held shares of Johnson Johnson. Good luck with your democracy! Lawmakers held these investments in COVID-19 minded companies as Congress was at the center of pandemic relief efforts. In 2000, and 22,021 Congress authorized more than $10 billion to help drug companies develop and distribute vaccines and forced health insurers to cover the costs of getting the shot. Now, I have no opinion on the nature of the vaccines and the mandates and all of that. That kind of stuff is not allowed to be discussed. But I think the information here taken together, at least legitimizes conversation around people’s skepticism. For example, one of the ways of perjuring any legitimate protests like the Canadian trucker protest, 90% of whom are vaccinated statistics reveal, is are there anti-vaxxers, they’re crazy. Well, like anti-vaxxers has now become an accepted pejorative term, right? But no wonder there is such contempt and cynicism around mandating when the obvious malpractice and I’m talking about the proven stuff of Johnson & Johnson is a matter of public record. How can you condemn a section of the population for having doubts when there is such legitimacy to their doubts in the form of practices of companies charged with the manufacture of the product that they are cynical about taking. How can you deny them that right. And what do you think the result will be of continuing condemnation and marginalization of those groups? Do you think that people are going to go, oh yeah, maybe Johnson & Johnson didn’t do that. The censorship, the condemnation, the criticism leads to more fortification of those views. There needs to be an open minded discourse, acceptance and transparency around this issue. Otherwise I don’t see a favorable outcome. Do you?
Why do you have to spend that much money lobbying the government? What is the motivation for it and what do you suppose the outcomes are? Both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson gave more to the Democrats than to the Republicans. And if nothing else, these dudes know how to conduct business So they must be getting a lot of bang for their buck from those Democrats. What a fascinating story. It begins with some allegations around baby powder that are subject to ongoing legal conversation but points out the opioid crisis and hundreds of thousands of other lawsuits and allegations that have been made. One extraordinary story and one for me that certainly requires an open conversation and an end to knee jerk criticism of people that express an alternative opinion Even though I am expressing no opinion at all. Because it’s my responsibility as a broadcaster to allow you, you 5 million shimmering glorious souls to have your own conversation in the comments below. Let me know what you think about this story. Let me know what conclusions you’re reaching. Let me know what you think about ongoing censorship and condemnation of sections of the population.
