5 ms·

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, jus

> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer. So no evidence, just suspicion? I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have. EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
It's not uncommon, science does not hold the ultimate truth of the world, it's a complex system based on intuition and beliefs and politics. Medical responsibility is highly complex and it does not follow the same rules (thankfully). In Europe, courts have been compensating people who got multiple sclerosis induced by the Hep B vaccine for decades even though there is no evidence of a causal link.
jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  Thank you for being the first person to post an informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN is turning into reddit. > I'm not sure how you could believe Though this is unnecessarily insulting. > the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing. If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking! > The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
  - jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
    Researchers at Johnson & Johnson detected unsafe levels of asbestos in the talc as part of their own internal testing. There are internal emails that show high level executives asking researchers to switch to a less sensitive test which would allow them to make the concentration of asbestos appear lower than it really was. I remember that when the story first dropped, the people writing J&J's press releases were very careful to use only the present tense when discussing the asbestos levels in their talcum products which implies to me that they did eventually rectify it. That's all I know. I didn't follow the story for very long.
contrahax 5y ago
The information in the article posted by the person you're responding to answers your questions - J&J knew their product had high levels of asbestos and hid it from regulators while doing nothing about it. There absolutely was evidence of this, if you would read any of the information posted above. If I sold you a bottle of water with enough asbestos in it to give you cancer, knew about it, and didn't tell you: that would be illegal - it is pretty straightforward.
foerbert 5y ago
Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread. Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not count as evidence... seems to be what you're saying.
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose that makes the poison. The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN. I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    Asbestos -> Cancer. Safe amount = 0.
    - TheManInThePub 5y ago
      What an inane response. Perhaps I can counter with Alcohol -> Cancer. Safe amount = 0. Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0
    - Google234 5y ago
      Radiation also -> cancer. Should we ban windows that allow sun light into our lives??
  - foerbert 5y ago
    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.
njovin 5y ago
From the parent comment's link: > A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public. I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.
- TheManInThePub 5y ago
  > sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
  - alsetmusic 5y ago
    If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.
    - TheManInThePub 5y ago
      If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it. I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
      - ohyeshedid 5y ago
        Slant related: I've never seen anyone asking where the upvotes came from, and that makes the opposite a bit odd across the board for me.
        5y ago

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago

It's not uncommon, science does not hold the ultimate truth of the world, it's a complex system based on intuition and beliefs and politics. Medical responsibility is highly complex and it does not follow the same rules (thankfully). In Europe, courts have been compensating people who got multiple sclerosis induced by the Hep B vaccine for decades even though there is no evidence of a causal link.

jacobwilliamroy 5y ago

The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.

TheManInThePub 5y ago
Thank you for being the first person to post an informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN is turning into reddit. > I'm not sure how you could believe Though this is unnecessarily insulting. > the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing. If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking! > The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
- jacobwilliamroy 5y ago
  Researchers at Johnson & Johnson detected unsafe levels of asbestos in the talc as part of their own internal testing. There are internal emails that show high level executives asking researchers to switch to a less sensitive test which would allow them to make the concentration of asbestos appear lower than it really was. I remember that when the story first dropped, the people writing J&J's press releases were very careful to use only the present tense when discussing the asbestos levels in their talcum products which implies to me that they did eventually rectify it. That's all I know. I didn't follow the story for very long.

contrahax 5y ago

The information in the article posted by the person you're responding to answers your questions - J&J knew their product had high levels of asbestos and hid it from regulators while doing nothing about it. There absolutely was evidence of this, if you would read any of the information posted above. If I sold you a bottle of water with enough asbestos in it to give you cancer, knew about it, and didn't tell you: that would be illegal - it is pretty straightforward.

foerbert 5y ago

Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread. Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not count as evidence... seems to be what you're saying.

TheManInThePub 5y ago
Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose that makes the poison. The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN. I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
- craftinator 5y ago
  Asbestos -> Cancer. Safe amount = 0.
  - TheManInThePub 5y ago
    What an inane response. Perhaps I can counter with Alcohol -> Cancer. Safe amount = 0. Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0
  - Google234 5y ago
    Radiation also -> cancer. Should we ban windows that allow sun light into our lives??
- foerbert 5y ago
  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.

njovin 5y ago

From the parent comment's link: > A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public. I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.

TheManInThePub 5y ago
> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
- alsetmusic 5y ago
  If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.
  - TheManInThePub 5y ago
    If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it. I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
    - ohyeshedid 5y ago
      Slant related: I've never seen anyone asking where the upvotes came from, and that makes the opposite a bit odd across the board for me.
      - 5y ago