This is why I specified significant amounts, but the exact details of my highly contrived example are obviously not that important.
If you phrased it the way you phased this response, I think you would have gotten a better response.
You didn't phrase it as "I have reason to believe certain levels are not a problem, and I am unaware of the levels recorded in the lawsuit. Where they high enough to be a problem?"
You instead phrased it far more absolute terms that stated that 'merely' finding a dangerous substance in a product was not evidence of it being dangerous. It absolutely is evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence on it's own, but each piece of evidence does not need to be sufficient to prove the case entirely on it's own. Your statements have also carried the extremely strong implication - and that's being generous - that the US courts were definitely wrong. I don't think anybody read your posts and thought you were requesting information and not stating a strong position in defense of J&J.
People have limited time and effort. You made it as difficult as possible to get the information you wished. I wouldn't blame this one on HN groupthink.
