5 ms·

J&J responds [1]: > The Reuters article is one-sided, false and inflammatory. > The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading indepe

by lixtra 8y ago

J&J responds [1]: > The Reuters article is one-sided, false and inflammatory. > The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos. [1] https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-issues-statement-on-reuters-talc-article https://www.jnj.com/our-company/johnson-johnson-issues-state...

iscrewyou 8y ago
What a short response, all the while not citing any sources to their claims.
- Isamu 8y ago
  In fact they link to a whole website that discusses studies: http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety [edit] I think the original reply is pretty to the point: >J&J attorneys provided Reuters with hundreds of documents and directly responded to dozens of questions in order to correct misinformation and falsehoods. Notwithstanding this, Reuters repeatedly refused to meet with our representatives to review the facts and refused to incorporate much of the material we provided them. >The Reuters article is wrong in three key areas: >The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos. >The article ignores that J&J has cooperated fully and openly with the U.S. FDA and other global regulators, providing them with all the information they requested over decades. We have also made our cosmetic talc mines and processed talc available to regulators for testing. Regulators have tested both, and they have always found our talc to be asbestos-free. >The article ignores that J&J has always used the most advanced testing methods available to confirm that our cosmetic talc does not contain asbestos. Every method available to test J&J’s talc for asbestos has been used by J&J, regulators, or independent experts, and all of these methods have all found that our cosmetic talc is asbestos-free.
  - noja 8y ago
    > that our cosmetic talc Strange word there, what other types of talc do they make?
    - rhcom2 8y ago
      Apparently talc is also used in surgical procedures such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurodesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurodesis
    - newnewpdro 8y ago
      Why? Talc has many applications [1], cosmetics obviously have a distinct set of requirements vs. food vs. internal use vs. industrial applications, etcetera. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Uses
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    It's interesting reading their site, considering it focuses almost entirely on the ovarian cancer side of things and manages to cite zero sources for their mesothelioma claims. Their miner and miller statistics have zero data backing them up. I'm inclined to believe J&J is heavily bullshitting here given how misleading their talc site is.
mikeyouse 8y ago
Which is a cute line, but Reuters has the receipts... dozens of documents with experts from all over pointing out that the J&J talc sources have worrying levels of asbestos. My favorite one is a 2018 lab report in which they tested a sample of 1978 Baby Powder that they pulled from the J&J Museum and found asbestos: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-report-on1978-Baby-Powder-sample-from-J.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-rep... > "Based on the results of our analysis, it can be stated, that individuals who used 1978 Johnson's Baby Powder would have, more likely than not, been exposed to fibrous amphibole asbestos." Caveats that this likely came from a plaintiff's attorney, but the methods seem solid. Another fun one from J&J's scientists in 1973: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-1973-DeWitt-Petterson-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-197... > "The talcs contain widely varying amounts of tremolite or fibrous talc. Our Baby Powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. [...] It should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made which will be totally free of respirable particles." They knew their product had respirable particles, including nonzero quantities fibrous particles.. they lobbied the FDA to use less sensitive tests so that their products wouldn't fail tests, and they lied about it for the past 40 years. I'm shocked they only lost 10% of their company's value today.
- lixtra 8y ago
  > It should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made which will be totally free of respirable particles. What is the definition of particles? I’m not surprised that talcum powder contains respirable (talc) particles.
  - mikeyouse 8y ago
    The important distinction is "Respirable" not "particles". Respirable particles are those that are small enough to get into the alveoli of the lungs. Most talc particles are much larger, >25μm, which are easily caught in the nasal passages or cilia in the throat but there's a huge range of sizes depending on the talc source. Small particles (<10μm) can move to the lungs, hence the air quality warnings at PM2.5, PM7.5, and PM10. Particles of that size are particularly dangerous, but moreso when they contain fibrous silicates like asbestos, which are known to cause cancer when respired. In the Reuters documents, you see repeated references from scientists / consultants to just swapping the talc for corn starch since it has a larger average particle size and a smaller distribution of sizes -- and importantly, doesn't have any fibrous silicates which can't be guaranteed with mined talc.
zygotic12 8y ago
Just looking at the account histories for the defence worries me. J&J come proper clean otherwise your fucked. If you are fucked admit it. If you're not fucked name the competitor that is fucking you. These are our children - you're not going to fuck with us about this. How the fuck is the 1976 agreement not to include asbestos voluntary? Switzerland has very low talc sales btw.
- zygotic12 8y ago
  I'll track those accounts back if you want me to? Organised and we know where. Want that or handle it?
  - zygotic12 8y ago
    Drunk (but v angry still)
mirimir 8y ago
Well, "does not contain asbestos" may be true. Although that may just reflect reliance on flawed testing methodology. But more important, considering liability for past exposure, is whether it did contain asbestos, some decades ago.
jacobwilliamroy 8y ago
J&J's consistent use of the present tense really sticks out to me. They never said their talc did not contain asbestos, always does not.
Lio 8y ago
J&J’s test results are meaningless if they have been suppressing other result sets they don’t like. I’d like to hear them discuss that part of the allogations. Personally I think it should be illegal to run these kinds of studies or pharmaceutical trials without committing to publish the results regardless of outcome.

by lixtra 8y ago

iscrewyou 8y ago

What a short response, all the while not citing any sources to their claims.

Isamu 8y ago
In fact they link to a whole website that discusses studies: http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety http://www.factsabouttalc.com/#section-safety [edit] I think the original reply is pretty to the point: >J&J attorneys provided Reuters with hundreds of documents and directly responded to dozens of questions in order to correct misinformation and falsehoods. Notwithstanding this, Reuters repeatedly refused to meet with our representatives to review the facts and refused to incorporate much of the material we provided them. >The Reuters article is wrong in three key areas: >The article ignores that thousands of tests by J&J, regulators, leading independent labs, and academic institutions have repeatedly shown that our talc does not contain asbestos. >The article ignores that J&J has cooperated fully and openly with the U.S. FDA and other global regulators, providing them with all the information they requested over decades. We have also made our cosmetic talc mines and processed talc available to regulators for testing. Regulators have tested both, and they have always found our talc to be asbestos-free. >The article ignores that J&J has always used the most advanced testing methods available to confirm that our cosmetic talc does not contain asbestos. Every method available to test J&J’s talc for asbestos has been used by J&J, regulators, or independent experts, and all of these methods have all found that our cosmetic talc is asbestos-free.
- noja 8y ago
  > that our cosmetic talc Strange word there, what other types of talc do they make?
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    Apparently talc is also used in surgical procedures such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurodesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurodesis
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    Why? Talc has many applications [1], cosmetics obviously have a distinct set of requirements vs. food vs. internal use vs. industrial applications, etcetera. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Uses
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  It's interesting reading their site, considering it focuses almost entirely on the ovarian cancer side of things and manages to cite zero sources for their mesothelioma claims. Their miner and miller statistics have zero data backing them up. I'm inclined to believe J&J is heavily bullshitting here given how misleading their talc site is.

mikeyouse 8y ago

Which is a cute line, but Reuters has the receipts... dozens of documents with experts from all over pointing out that the J&J talc sources have worrying levels of asbestos. My favorite one is a 2018 lab report in which they tested a sample of 1978 Baby Powder that they pulled from the J&J Museum and found asbestos: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-report-on1978-Baby-Powder-sample-from-J.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5080806-2018-lab-rep... > "Based on the results of our analysis, it can be stated, that individuals who used 1978 Johnson's Baby Powder would have, more likely than not, been exposed to fibrous amphibole asbestos." Caveats that this likely came from a plaintiff's attorney, but the methods seem solid. Another fun one from J&J's scientists in 1973: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-1973-DeWitt-Petterson-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5005205-April-26-197... > "The talcs contain widely varying amounts of tremolite or fibrous talc. Our Baby Powder contains talc fragments classifiable as fiber. [...] It should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made which will be totally free of respirable particles." They knew their product had respirable particles, including nonzero quantities fibrous particles.. they lobbied the FDA to use less sensitive tests so that their products wouldn't fail tests, and they lied about it for the past 40 years. I'm shocked they only lost 10% of their company's value today.

lixtra 8y ago
> It should be cautioned, however, that no final product will ever be made which will be totally free of respirable particles. What is the definition of particles? I’m not surprised that talcum powder contains respirable (talc) particles.
- mikeyouse 8y ago
  The important distinction is "Respirable" not "particles". Respirable particles are those that are small enough to get into the alveoli of the lungs. Most talc particles are much larger, >25μm, which are easily caught in the nasal passages or cilia in the throat but there's a huge range of sizes depending on the talc source. Small particles (<10μm) can move to the lungs, hence the air quality warnings at PM2.5, PM7.5, and PM10. Particles of that size are particularly dangerous, but moreso when they contain fibrous silicates like asbestos, which are known to cause cancer when respired. In the Reuters documents, you see repeated references from scientists / consultants to just swapping the talc for corn starch since it has a larger average particle size and a smaller distribution of sizes -- and importantly, doesn't have any fibrous silicates which can't be guaranteed with mined talc.

zygotic12 8y ago

Just looking at the account histories for the defence worries me. J&J come proper clean otherwise your fucked. If you are fucked admit it. If you're not fucked name the competitor that is fucking you. These are our children - you're not going to fuck with us about this. How the fuck is the 1976 agreement not to include asbestos voluntary? Switzerland has very low talc sales btw.

zygotic12 8y ago
I'll track those accounts back if you want me to? Organised and we know where. Want that or handle it?
- zygotic12 8y ago
  Drunk (but v angry still)

mirimir 8y ago

Well, "does not contain asbestos" may be true. Although that may just reflect reliance on flawed testing methodology. But more important, considering liability for past exposure, is whether it did contain asbestos, some decades ago.

jacobwilliamroy 8y ago

J&J's consistent use of the present tense really sticks out to me. They never said their talc did not contain asbestos, always does not.

Lio 8y ago

J&J’s test results are meaningless if they have been suppressing other result sets they don’t like. I’d like to hear them discuss that part of the allogations. Personally I think it should be illegal to run these kinds of studies or pharmaceutical trials without committing to publish the results regardless of outcome.