HankWankford (Not my real name🤦♂️)
@hankwankford.bsky.social
Genius, moron, unemployed billionaire, teacher, student, cop, fireman, native american.
Possibly related to Jose Ferrer.
Don't like pears.
Possibly related to Jose Ferrer.
Don't like pears.
You didn't say it wasn't likely.
You dismissed the possibility and then claimed most defamation cases are a waste of time and doomed to fail..
...despite the fact I suspect that's also based on a flawed understanding of statistics.🙄
You dismissed the possibility and then claimed most defamation cases are a waste of time and doomed to fail..
...despite the fact I suspect that's also based on a flawed understanding of statistics.🙄
September 26, 2025 at 11:43 AM
You didn't say it wasn't likely.
You dismissed the possibility and then claimed most defamation cases are a waste of time and doomed to fail..
...despite the fact I suspect that's also based on a flawed understanding of statistics.🙄
You dismissed the possibility and then claimed most defamation cases are a waste of time and doomed to fail..
...despite the fact I suspect that's also based on a flawed understanding of statistics.🙄
Again,maybe the FDA is slacking, but here the monitoring is active and they will pull a drug if side effects are reported.
Unlike your 'rat' idea, you're not regularly checking under the house, or asking the rat catcher of they are in the area, or even laying traps.
The medical profession ARE.
Unlike your 'rat' idea, you're not regularly checking under the house, or asking the rat catcher of they are in the area, or even laying traps.
The medical profession ARE.
September 26, 2025 at 11:41 AM
Again,maybe the FDA is slacking, but here the monitoring is active and they will pull a drug if side effects are reported.
Unlike your 'rat' idea, you're not regularly checking under the house, or asking the rat catcher of they are in the area, or even laying traps.
The medical profession ARE.
Unlike your 'rat' idea, you're not regularly checking under the house, or asking the rat catcher of they are in the area, or even laying traps.
The medical profession ARE.
Are you suggesting the BoP is not a thing too?
I'll ignore your suggestion until you have something to say.
I'll ignore your suggestion until you have something to say.
September 26, 2025 at 11:39 AM
Are you suggesting the BoP is not a thing too?
I'll ignore your suggestion until you have something to say.
I'll ignore your suggestion until you have something to say.
Did the poster say "I wish Kenvue would sue trump in less than 3 weeks"?
...and yet you thought a timeline expectation was required?🤔
You brought up jurisdiction because you HAD to make it all about american law, on account of your earlier assumption.
...and yet you thought a timeline expectation was required?🤔
You brought up jurisdiction because you HAD to make it all about american law, on account of your earlier assumption.
September 26, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Did the poster say "I wish Kenvue would sue trump in less than 3 weeks"?
...and yet you thought a timeline expectation was required?🤔
You brought up jurisdiction because you HAD to make it all about american law, on account of your earlier assumption.
...and yet you thought a timeline expectation was required?🤔
You brought up jurisdiction because you HAD to make it all about american law, on account of your earlier assumption.
That's bullshit and you know it.
Side effects ARE looked over and over.
I dunno about the FDA, but here the monitoring continues long after post release, usually forever.
We're not talking about a new drug here. Maybe that's where you're confused.
Side effects ARE looked over and over.
I dunno about the FDA, but here the monitoring continues long after post release, usually forever.
We're not talking about a new drug here. Maybe that's where you're confused.
September 26, 2025 at 11:36 AM
That's bullshit and you know it.
Side effects ARE looked over and over.
I dunno about the FDA, but here the monitoring continues long after post release, usually forever.
We're not talking about a new drug here. Maybe that's where you're confused.
Side effects ARE looked over and over.
I dunno about the FDA, but here the monitoring continues long after post release, usually forever.
We're not talking about a new drug here. Maybe that's where you're confused.
Don't be a dick.
Unless you're claiming to be a practicing paralegal with a felony, then accept your prejudice.
That's not owning anything btw. That's just ironic acceptance.
So you have no proof of 'terf island' either, apart from some anecdotal anonymous claims?
Unless you're claiming to be a practicing paralegal with a felony, then accept your prejudice.
That's not owning anything btw. That's just ironic acceptance.
So you have no proof of 'terf island' either, apart from some anecdotal anonymous claims?
September 26, 2025 at 11:33 AM
Don't be a dick.
Unless you're claiming to be a practicing paralegal with a felony, then accept your prejudice.
That's not owning anything btw. That's just ironic acceptance.
So you have no proof of 'terf island' either, apart from some anecdotal anonymous claims?
Unless you're claiming to be a practicing paralegal with a felony, then accept your prejudice.
That's not owning anything btw. That's just ironic acceptance.
So you have no proof of 'terf island' either, apart from some anecdotal anonymous claims?
That's not what you said, you said it would take 3 years to conduct a study.
Also, nobody asked for a timeline, the original poster just wished there could be a case.
Your original dismissal didn't mention jurisdiction once.
Also, nobody asked for a timeline, the original poster just wished there could be a case.
Your original dismissal didn't mention jurisdiction once.
September 26, 2025 at 11:29 AM
That's not what you said, you said it would take 3 years to conduct a study.
Also, nobody asked for a timeline, the original poster just wished there could be a case.
Your original dismissal didn't mention jurisdiction once.
Also, nobody asked for a timeline, the original poster just wished there could be a case.
Your original dismissal didn't mention jurisdiction once.
The historic data also records discovered side effects.
Do you think the doctor doesn't report it?
Where do you think the list of 'side effects' come from on the bottle, do you think they're the same as the 1951 bottle?🤦♂️
Do you think the doctor doesn't report it?
Where do you think the list of 'side effects' come from on the bottle, do you think they're the same as the 1951 bottle?🤦♂️
September 26, 2025 at 11:27 AM
The historic data also records discovered side effects.
Do you think the doctor doesn't report it?
Where do you think the list of 'side effects' come from on the bottle, do you think they're the same as the 1951 bottle?🤦♂️
Do you think the doctor doesn't report it?
Where do you think the list of 'side effects' come from on the bottle, do you think they're the same as the 1951 bottle?🤦♂️
Is america the 'land of the felon' since you elected your president?
...or are you still following the law over there?
I'm fascinated that you cannot identify your own prejudices, whilst encouraging the berating of others you think show it.
What's the kick there? Power?
...or are you still following the law over there?
I'm fascinated that you cannot identify your own prejudices, whilst encouraging the berating of others you think show it.
What's the kick there? Power?
September 26, 2025 at 11:25 AM
Is america the 'land of the felon' since you elected your president?
...or are you still following the law over there?
I'm fascinated that you cannot identify your own prejudices, whilst encouraging the berating of others you think show it.
What's the kick there? Power?
...or are you still following the law over there?
I'm fascinated that you cannot identify your own prejudices, whilst encouraging the berating of others you think show it.
What's the kick there? Power?
Nobody asked for a prediction
Why do you think it was relevant to bring up jurisdiction in a case you said wouldn't be brought because Kenvue would have to re-prove if tylenol is safe in a new 3 years study?
Why do you think it was relevant to bring up jurisdiction in a case you said wouldn't be brought because Kenvue would have to re-prove if tylenol is safe in a new 3 years study?
September 26, 2025 at 11:23 AM
Nobody asked for a prediction
Why do you think it was relevant to bring up jurisdiction in a case you said wouldn't be brought because Kenvue would have to re-prove if tylenol is safe in a new 3 years study?
Why do you think it was relevant to bring up jurisdiction in a case you said wouldn't be brought because Kenvue would have to re-prove if tylenol is safe in a new 3 years study?
No problem with my english at all, I'm a native.
The lack of 'publicly noted' (whatever the fuck that means) side effects IS THE METADATA on which the aforementioned study would have to be based.
You're claiming the historic data is pointless, but it would be used to prove efficacy.
The lack of 'publicly noted' (whatever the fuck that means) side effects IS THE METADATA on which the aforementioned study would have to be based.
You're claiming the historic data is pointless, but it would be used to prove efficacy.
September 26, 2025 at 11:22 AM
No problem with my english at all, I'm a native.
The lack of 'publicly noted' (whatever the fuck that means) side effects IS THE METADATA on which the aforementioned study would have to be based.
You're claiming the historic data is pointless, but it would be used to prove efficacy.
The lack of 'publicly noted' (whatever the fuck that means) side effects IS THE METADATA on which the aforementioned study would have to be based.
You're claiming the historic data is pointless, but it would be used to prove efficacy.
"any of the UK non-terfs I know"
Just fucking listen to yourself🙄
You also didn't answer, have you ever left the USA?
Just fucking listen to yourself🙄
You also didn't answer, have you ever left the USA?
September 26, 2025 at 11:18 AM
"any of the UK non-terfs I know"
Just fucking listen to yourself🙄
You also didn't answer, have you ever left the USA?
Just fucking listen to yourself🙄
You also didn't answer, have you ever left the USA?
No lawsuit exists. It was a hypothetical question, which you then decided the jurisdiction of......
...right AFTER you realised not every system of law is the US system of law.
If you can't see what you did, how can you aspire to work in the legal profession?
...right AFTER you realised not every system of law is the US system of law.
If you can't see what you did, how can you aspire to work in the legal profession?
September 26, 2025 at 11:16 AM
No lawsuit exists. It was a hypothetical question, which you then decided the jurisdiction of......
...right AFTER you realised not every system of law is the US system of law.
If you can't see what you did, how can you aspire to work in the legal profession?
...right AFTER you realised not every system of law is the US system of law.
If you can't see what you did, how can you aspire to work in the legal profession?
No, I didn't say that, that's a lie.
I clearly referred to the lack of correlation between tylenol use and autism, and nobody mentioned dying once.
You said it was valid because 'things change', you still haven't shown what has changed since 1951 to prompt this claim.
I clearly referred to the lack of correlation between tylenol use and autism, and nobody mentioned dying once.
You said it was valid because 'things change', you still haven't shown what has changed since 1951 to prompt this claim.
September 26, 2025 at 11:14 AM
No, I didn't say that, that's a lie.
I clearly referred to the lack of correlation between tylenol use and autism, and nobody mentioned dying once.
You said it was valid because 'things change', you still haven't shown what has changed since 1951 to prompt this claim.
I clearly referred to the lack of correlation between tylenol use and autism, and nobody mentioned dying once.
You said it was valid because 'things change', you still haven't shown what has changed since 1951 to prompt this claim.
That's your proof that the entire nation has become 'terf island'?????
You even put "gender critical" in italics because you know that's bullshit.
I knew you were just another hysterical fantasist driven by partizan horsehit.
Have you ever left America?
You even put "gender critical" in italics because you know that's bullshit.
I knew you were just another hysterical fantasist driven by partizan horsehit.
Have you ever left America?
September 26, 2025 at 11:12 AM
That's your proof that the entire nation has become 'terf island'?????
You even put "gender critical" in italics because you know that's bullshit.
I knew you were just another hysterical fantasist driven by partizan horsehit.
Have you ever left America?
You even put "gender critical" in italics because you know that's bullshit.
I knew you were just another hysterical fantasist driven by partizan horsehit.
Have you ever left America?
No lawsuit exists, this was started by someone saying "I hope Kenvue sue trump..."
No jurisdiction was mentioned. You brought that in as your own assumption.
YOU tend to default to the US, WE do not.
Is that too hard to grasp? A world outside of your own personal fifedom?
No jurisdiction was mentioned. You brought that in as your own assumption.
YOU tend to default to the US, WE do not.
Is that too hard to grasp? A world outside of your own personal fifedom?
September 26, 2025 at 11:09 AM
No lawsuit exists, this was started by someone saying "I hope Kenvue sue trump..."
No jurisdiction was mentioned. You brought that in as your own assumption.
YOU tend to default to the US, WE do not.
Is that too hard to grasp? A world outside of your own personal fifedom?
No jurisdiction was mentioned. You brought that in as your own assumption.
YOU tend to default to the US, WE do not.
Is that too hard to grasp? A world outside of your own personal fifedom?
That metadata study IS the history of the use of tylenol. That's where the data would come from🤦♂️
You have just accepted the first point that evidence of tylenol being safe would come from its recorded historical use data.
You have just accepted the first point that evidence of tylenol being safe would come from its recorded historical use data.
September 26, 2025 at 11:06 AM
That metadata study IS the history of the use of tylenol. That's where the data would come from🤦♂️
You have just accepted the first point that evidence of tylenol being safe would come from its recorded historical use data.
You have just accepted the first point that evidence of tylenol being safe would come from its recorded historical use data.
What EVIDENCE do you have of that?
Come on, don't label an entire country and not explain how you came to that conclusion.
That WOULD be prejudicial.
Maybe you think prejudice is just a right wing thing?🤔
Partizan zombies.
Come on, don't label an entire country and not explain how you came to that conclusion.
That WOULD be prejudicial.
Maybe you think prejudice is just a right wing thing?🤔
Partizan zombies.
September 26, 2025 at 11:04 AM
What EVIDENCE do you have of that?
Come on, don't label an entire country and not explain how you came to that conclusion.
That WOULD be prejudicial.
Maybe you think prejudice is just a right wing thing?🤔
Partizan zombies.
Come on, don't label an entire country and not explain how you came to that conclusion.
That WOULD be prejudicial.
Maybe you think prejudice is just a right wing thing?🤔
Partizan zombies.
"We were discussing US law because only a moron would suggest..."
I didn't suggest anything, I merely pointed out how the legal system works, as I understand it (here)
Only an idiot would assume that everyone on the internet was talking about US law by default.
I didn't suggest anything, I merely pointed out how the legal system works, as I understand it (here)
Only an idiot would assume that everyone on the internet was talking about US law by default.
September 26, 2025 at 11:01 AM
"We were discussing US law because only a moron would suggest..."
I didn't suggest anything, I merely pointed out how the legal system works, as I understand it (here)
Only an idiot would assume that everyone on the internet was talking about US law by default.
I didn't suggest anything, I merely pointed out how the legal system works, as I understand it (here)
Only an idiot would assume that everyone on the internet was talking about US law by default.
You said the evidence of the actual use wasn't applicable.
That's wasn't true, you have now just admitted it.
That's wasn't true, you have now just admitted it.
September 26, 2025 at 10:59 AM
You said the evidence of the actual use wasn't applicable.
That's wasn't true, you have now just admitted it.
That's wasn't true, you have now just admitted it.
Ah, now I see you're just another moronic hysterical internet consuming fuckwit.
'Terf island'
So you interpreted the high.court ruling, or you just read a summary on the internet and decided that britain went anti-trans?
How do you conduct yourself in court with such rampant prejudice?
'Terf island'
So you interpreted the high.court ruling, or you just read a summary on the internet and decided that britain went anti-trans?
How do you conduct yourself in court with such rampant prejudice?
September 26, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Ah, now I see you're just another moronic hysterical internet consuming fuckwit.
'Terf island'
So you interpreted the high.court ruling, or you just read a summary on the internet and decided that britain went anti-trans?
How do you conduct yourself in court with such rampant prejudice?
'Terf island'
So you interpreted the high.court ruling, or you just read a summary on the internet and decided that britain went anti-trans?
How do you conduct yourself in court with such rampant prejudice?
No, you said there was no such thing as the balance of probabilities in law / civil cases.
That was untrue. Just not the legal system YOU trained on.
I find it bizarre you then decided to argue about jurisdictions, because you realised not everything is US centric, instead of just asserting it.
That was untrue. Just not the legal system YOU trained on.
I find it bizarre you then decided to argue about jurisdictions, because you realised not everything is US centric, instead of just asserting it.
September 26, 2025 at 10:57 AM
No, you said there was no such thing as the balance of probabilities in law / civil cases.
That was untrue. Just not the legal system YOU trained on.
I find it bizarre you then decided to argue about jurisdictions, because you realised not everything is US centric, instead of just asserting it.
That was untrue. Just not the legal system YOU trained on.
I find it bizarre you then decided to argue about jurisdictions, because you realised not everything is US centric, instead of just asserting it.
So your initial claim was false.
I didn't raise the point of immunity, malice or the mechanics of it, you did that yourself, and then argued against it.
Now you just look like a bunch of under employed bullies with time for this.
Meanwhile your nation burns into a lawless state.
Well done you.
I didn't raise the point of immunity, malice or the mechanics of it, you did that yourself, and then argued against it.
Now you just look like a bunch of under employed bullies with time for this.
Meanwhile your nation burns into a lawless state.
Well done you.
September 26, 2025 at 10:54 AM
So your initial claim was false.
I didn't raise the point of immunity, malice or the mechanics of it, you did that yourself, and then argued against it.
Now you just look like a bunch of under employed bullies with time for this.
Meanwhile your nation burns into a lawless state.
Well done you.
I didn't raise the point of immunity, malice or the mechanics of it, you did that yourself, and then argued against it.
Now you just look like a bunch of under employed bullies with time for this.
Meanwhile your nation burns into a lawless state.
Well done you.
Nobody said successfully, the question was whether they could be sued.
So you 'won' and argument you had with yourselves.
Congrats.
So you 'won' and argument you had with yourselves.
Congrats.
September 26, 2025 at 10:50 AM
Nobody said successfully, the question was whether they could be sued.
So you 'won' and argument you had with yourselves.
Congrats.
So you 'won' and argument you had with yourselves.
Congrats.
You're a paralegal trying to get noticed by the lawyers by claiming that the 70 years of tylenol use isn't proof of anything and the balance of probabilities in case evidence is 'not a thing'🙄
truthlegal.com/knowledge-ce...
truthlegal.com/knowledge-ce...
Balance of Probabilities - Truth Legal
The balance of probabilities is the standard of proof used […]
truthlegal.com
September 26, 2025 at 10:49 AM
You're a paralegal trying to get noticed by the lawyers by claiming that the 70 years of tylenol use isn't proof of anything and the balance of probabilities in case evidence is 'not a thing'🙄
truthlegal.com/knowledge-ce...
truthlegal.com/knowledge-ce...