by gdudeman on 5/20/24, 5:09 PM with 45 comments
by jawns on 5/20/24, 6:01 PM
One thing about libel that many people don't understand is that retraction and editing of the content isn't a defense. So where it says "note the libel-friendly phrasing" and "now edited to avoid any possible threats of libel" and "[editor’s note: removed a possibly incorrect claim]" he could still be found guilty of libel if previously published assertions contained non "libel-friendly" phrasing. As long as a defamatory assertion was published at some point, you can still be found guilty of libel.
It probably goes without saying, but it is also not a defense to libel to say that you asserted something to be true merely because there was no evidence to the contrary. Absent a contractual or legal obligation, Lumina had no duty to engage with him and answer his questions. So if Lumina can provide evidence that Trevor asserted things that are demonstrably false, and they damaged Lumina's business, then Trevor can't argue as a defense that he merely had no way of knowing that they were false.
Finally, Trevor seems to be saying in his update that he was merely asking questions -- but it's possible for a court to find that merely phrasing false, defamatory assertions in the form of a question is not an absolute protection against a libel claim.
by ai_what on 5/20/24, 6:16 PM
> Lumina likely aren’t following the Best Practices Guidelines for Probiotics, which require you to state how much of each strain in CFUs is in each batch that you send out on your packaging.
But in the new article it says:
> Lumina’s manufacturing process follows legally mandated GMP protocols, if not the probiotic trade association’s voluntary best practices.
Because that does sound to me like the original claim was wrong?
I understand that it's weird that it didn't get revealed until he was pressed on it but then so is stating that he likely wasn't following the best practices, right?
Furthermore, the first article doesn't mention that it's voluntary to follow the best practices guidelines but the second one does. To me that sounds kind of like "okay fine you were right, but it's voluntary anyway, so whatever". Why not mention that in the original claim?
In fairness, the original article also has some great points, like the concerns about this particular BCS3L-1 strain that Lumina uses. I wish he had focused more on that.
I feel like both of them could have gone about this in a better way.
by someotherperson on 5/20/24, 6:25 PM
Lumina's court threats, however, would definitely make me shy away. I imagine for myself (and many others) that this would be the case.
by dang on 5/20/24, 7:25 PM
Reasons not to take Lumina's anticavity probiotic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40369084 - May 2024 (149 comments)
by Animats on 5/20/24, 6:02 PM
by JumpCrisscross on 5/20/24, 8:03 PM
by ziofill on 5/21/24, 2:21 AM
by blackeyeblitzar on 5/20/24, 6:01 PM
by shadowgovt on 5/20/24, 10:49 PM
I hope Mr. Silverbrook understands how hollow that reasoning is in the post-OceanGate era.
by MauranKilom on 5/20/24, 8:42 PM
Is there anyone who is seriously contesting the "it is intended to cure/prevent a disease, therefore it is a drug, therefore it needs FDA approval to be sold legally" line of reasoning?
More humoristically: https://xkcd.com/2475/ and https://xkcd.com/2530/
Less humoristically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
by causality0 on 5/20/24, 9:33 PM
Yeah, that's totally not something a company that's completely full of shit from the top down and bottom up would threaten. Now we can be sure this product functions as advertised.
by lxe on 5/20/24, 7:29 PM
by vertis on 5/20/24, 5:47 PM
Another one of those things that as soon as you start throwing legal threats around it get much much more interesting.
by therein on 5/20/24, 5:52 PM
It is also kinda hilarious that the guy is related to the most overrated escort in the Bay Area and is using her to further his product.