18 ms·

J&J tried to get federal judge to block publication of Reuters story

428 points by danboarder 5y ago

shocking 5y ago
I am truly shocked to learn that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder might cause cancer. This is from a company whose vaccines every single politician and journalist in the western world has assured us that they are 100% effective and safe. Can't the people who developed those vaccines in 6 months talk to the baby powder people to make sure they reach the same level of safety and effectiveness?
baybal2 5y ago
How talc causes cancer?
- daniel_reetz 5y ago
  Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a carcinogen.
  - ILMostro7 5y ago
    Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      No. Raw mined talc is processed to remove asbestos when used to baby powder. It is exceptionally unlikely that a large company would be explicitly aware of that and not modify their process (although not completely unprecedented).
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common contaminant or intentional additive. There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
      - ILMostro7 5y ago
        Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.
        daniel_reetz 5y ago
        I was downvoted incorrectly. I sourced my info from a team working on talc litigation. 686 of 1032 tests produced in litigation revealed the presence of asbestos in talcs used in cosmetics from 1948 to 2017. That's "often". Asbestos is a carcinogen, and it often contaminates talcs. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- moltar 5y ago
  talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer
  - dekhn 5y ago
    I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
    - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
      That's not the criteria required for a civil suit. That's the criteria for a criminal case, which is prosecuted by the DA.
    - afthonos 5y ago
      Since none of this is about criminal proceedings in the US, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a meaningless (quite literally; what do you mean?) standard.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        I know what the various standards are for cases but that's not the point. In this case, "preponderance of evidence". Let's turn what you said around. In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard. So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this). here's the CA case. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a matter of sharp dispute. As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of causation
- slobotron 5y ago
  Presumably when inhaled, since the lawsuit talks about talc containing asbestos.
  - aaronchall 5y ago
    Asbestos is an extremely stable mineral fiber and sharp like glass. If you get it on your skin it may penetrate but it will eventually probably slough off. If it gets in your lungs, it has nowhere to go and can continue damaging tissue for the rest of your life. Similarly, if it gets inside your body through other routes, it has nowhere to go. The lawsuit is about the product being marketed for feminine hygiene. Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.
- hedora 5y ago
  In addition to often containing asbestos, pure talc can cause cancer by getting stuck where it shouldn't and causing chronic irritation, etc. The most common issue is ovarian cancer, and talc used to be widely marketed for feminine hygiene.
  - tedivm 5y ago
    It's still used by parents in diapers, despite that being a huge cancer risk.
    - killjoywashere 5y ago
      As a father, and as a pathologist who has seen talc in ovarian cancers (under the microscope it is visible with polarizers), talc should be taken off the shelves. It's used on babies but also young women use it trying to cope with their fears of odor and moisture (whether or not there is an odor or moisture, let alone the conversation of whether those concerns themselves were manufactured). The ads are like tobacco ads: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-marketing/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona....
- mateo1 5y ago
  If you inhale it or put it in your vagina. Talcum might contain asbestos fibers, caution must be taken for it to be practically asbestos-free and women should be warned, but starch is not a damn replacement for it.
  - tedivm 5y ago
    To be clear, even without asbestos talcum powder can cause cancer in women. It also doesn't have to be put directly in a vagina- using it in diapers for children is enough to cause some to potentially migrate in. A study in New England linked the increased cancer risk to inflammation caused by the talcum powder itself.
- hmottestad 5y ago
  "Asbestos is also a naturally occurring silicate mineral, but with a different crystal structure. Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth." https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sethammons 5y ago
Is there an article actually linked? All I see is the footer for more from routers...
- capableweb 5y ago
  Yes, in the opening sentence: > Johnson & Johnson tried to get a U.S. judge to block Reuters from publishing a story Story: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/inside-jjs-secret-plan-cap-litigation-payouts-cancer-victims-2022-02-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... Summary: > J&J's covert 'Project Plato' team crafted strategy to redirect cancer plaintiffs out of trial courts and into bankruptcy process > J&J documents show how it planned 'Texas two-step' maneuver to limit payouts for talc claims > J&J executive asked whether maneuver would affect company's credit rating, documents show > U.S. judge to weigh whether bankruptcy was filed in bad faith > Company lawyer warned the team (Project Plato): Tell no one, not even your spouse. “It is critical that any activities related to Project Plato, including the mere fact the project exists, be kept in strict confidence,” Chris Andrew, a J&J lawyer, wrote in an internal memo reviewed by Reuters.
  - nunez 5y ago
    This is absolutely infuriating, and I'm glad Reuters was able to publish this.
- samwillis 5y ago
  It’s strange, it’s crashing Safari on iOS: Mirror here: https://archive.ph/vfOkX https://archive.ph/vfOkX
  - scottshea 5y ago
    Chrome on Android as well
    - Miner49er 5y ago
      Firefox on Android as well.
hanselot 5y ago
bsedlm 5y ago
what's interesting is that they think to get a judge to do this, as in they consider it a viable strategy that may work. (which means it has worked before)
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I mean someone must try a strategy the first time only hoping it will work, but it does seem suspicious as I wouldn't think of J&J as particularly innovative or daring.
Geeek 5y ago
I remember reading this Axios[1] article and fuming at the fact that this is a legal and socially acceptable outcome to this saga. Glad this is getting a deeper look from news organizations. [1]https://www.axios.com/johnson-johnson-texas-baby-powder-gambit-a2a39456-4a8b-46fe-ba1e-9d56c12d6022.html https://www.axios.com/johnson-johnson-texas-baby-powder-gamb...
legalcorrection 5y ago
So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
- theknocker 5y ago
- Dwelve 5y ago
  Why not both?
- Retric 5y ago
  Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h... Though it didn’t last long.
  - legalcorrection 5y ago
    It lasted all about two weeks and the judge basically embarrassed himself by granting it in the first place. He reversed himself in anticipation of being bench slapped by the appellate court. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge-does-expected-gets-rid-prior-restraint-order-against-mary-trump-allows-her-to-publish-her-book.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge... (note that in New York, the lower courts are the "Supreme Court", very confusing). But you're right, there's always a judge stupid enough out there to do something outrageously illegal.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this I wouldn't be surprised. My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired. I've only been involved in a court case once. I was picked as a juror in a case where two divorce lawyers were suing each other over how to split the fee from a high-profile divorce. I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies.
grapescheesee 5y ago
I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think the manner they public conduct themselves speaks volumes about how and where they generate wealth.
- shitpost 5y ago
- Covzire 5y ago
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  In the US EUAs at the beginning, for me, it was 95% the technology and 5% the manufacturer convinced me mRNA vaccines were superior because of their precisely-targeted nature. It was a gamble between Pfizer and Moderna. Went with Moderna for the first 2 (before the data on "mix-and-match") and Pfizer booster. Btw, sequencing of both mRNA vaccines: https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdfhttps://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdf https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV...
- tasha0663 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tasha0663 5y ago
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1%. And that was before Omicron. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
- mpyne 5y ago
  > No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people Gambling? Options trading? Do you get refunds from your weed dealer when it doesn't hit quite right? > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. You can, it's just that you get damages paid by the Federal government, not the manufacturer. You also can't sue if the military fails to defend a U.S. city from attack, for what it's worth.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. We don't want politicians to turn pill pushers with kickback schemes for things that barely work. How does the saying go ... "Don't invite the devil in"
    - mpyne 5y ago
      > All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is the only area where you can't directly sue Pharma companies (i.e. when the government makes a vaccine series part of the childhood vaccination series or part of a pandemic response regimen). But at that point the party directing you to take the vaccine isn't the Pharma company or companies, it's the Federal government, so they are properly the ones that should be counter-party to a suit in any event. > It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. You say that as if it proves your case, and yet we can see from data that is obvious even to the untrained eye that the product you're complaining about 'actually works'.
adamrezich 5y ago
can 2022 be the year we go back to being distrustful of multinational for-profit pharmaceutical corporations please
- mpyne 5y ago
  Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.
  - shocking 5y ago
    The benefit of repurposing drugs is precisely that we have decades of safety profile data. That's why those are particularly interesting against emerging diseases, especially for low income countries. Obviously that's an issue for big pharma since they're not competitive when it comes to pure manufacturing of cheap drugs.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Very little profit, that's for sure.
  - finnx 5y ago
    Both (IVM/HCQ) are not patented so there is no reason to depend or trust on multinational pharmaceutical companies. You can access interactive meta analysis of 310 studies for HCQ[1] and 78 studies for ivermectin[2] below, it gets updated when new studies published. They also keep track of other treatments (in total 480[3]). But unfortunately only some of those treatments get media coverage like cannabidiol[4] even when they are neither the best performers nor best studied. [1]: https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqmeta.com/ [2]: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ [3]: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/ [4]: https://c19early.com/cbdmeta.html https://c19early.com/cbdmeta.html
    - azinman2 5y ago
      https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
errcorrectcode 5y ago
Wow. A prior restraint injunction would be kinda unconstitutional for going against the 1st a. National security is the primary injunctive exception, which can be avoided by handing documents to something like WikiLeaks. I guess JNJ's lawyers were desperate and so took a gamble on maneuvering without considering the optics.
Arjuna 5y ago
This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook: “On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- tylersmith 5y ago
  It's a much more interesting trick imo, where Texas allows "divisive mergers" that enable them to split liabilities off into a separate entity. It's not clear to me what the intended benefit of allowing this procedure is, other than this kind of action.
  - mijoharas 5y ago
    Yeah, I'm trying to understand how this is allowed? It seems like it's in incredibly bad faith. Can anyone explain how this can happen? Taking this to it's extreme, can't you just buy some property so that you owe 1 million dollars, put that debt into it's own company and then say "sorry, that company is bankrupt, I can't pay". Is that not what's happening here? I feel like I must be missing something.
    - haneefmubarak 5y ago
      IANAL, but IIRC from some reading on this a while back (I could totally be wrong) you have to group the assets that the debt is connected to in the new entity specifically to prevent this. You also can't liquidate the asset connected to the debt and then spin off the new entity while keeping the money from the liquidation. So I think the way that these rules play out WRT J&J would be that they have to include all assets pertaining to their baby powder / talc business into the new entity, along with the amount of cash that is ordinarily used to operate the business into the spin out. That way the spin out contains what realistically constituted the talc business (net of profits that have been taken or reallocate in the past), so it can be held liable for any debts associated with the same business. EDIT: looks like in their case they're basically splitting into two companies - one that does pharmaceuticals (drugs, vaccines, etc) and the spinoff that does consumer products (Listerine, shampoo, the baby powder / talc in question, etc) with each part receiving relevant operating assets and associated liabilities, but the pharma side (which will retain the name) keeping the excess cash on hand and other non-operating assets.
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/vfOkX https://archive.is/vfOkX
dade_ 5y ago
I think it was nearly a decade ago and I made an offhand comment to a friend about baby powder causing cancer. He didn’t believe me as the idea seemed absurd, but his aunt worked at J&J and he texted her, she responded with a canned legal response. He was shocked and couldn’t believe this could be kept under wraps.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I'm not sure what this proves or implies. It has been a hot topic of legal dispute for a long time.
azinman2 5y ago
So if a company like J&J has asbestos in their talc powder, what does one use instead?
- hedora 5y ago
  Not talc. Pure talc is also a carcinogen. It causes ovarian cancer. Pediatricians / dermatologists often recommend aquaphor these days. You can also get diaper rash cream, which is similar, but is opaque white and contains zinc.
  - eMSF 5y ago
    > Pure talc is also a carcinogen [citation needed]
    - bell-cot 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Safety (Studies cited there don't quite prove that asbestos-free talc is carcinogenic...but the evidence is damning enough that no well-informed consumer would actually use talc. Even if they somehow had access to guaranteed-0.00000% asbestos talc.) Also rather concerning - talc is GRAS by the FDA when used as an anti-caking agent in table salt at concentrations below 2%.
briandear 5y ago
Former Reuters COO is on the board of Pfizer. J&J is a vaccine competitor of Pfizer. To a reasonable person, this might be something of interest.
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  That seems like an extreme stretch unless you have have some reason to think that Reuters wouldn't have normally reported something like this and the COO intervened or something like that.
hedora 5y ago
It's interesting how effectively the J&J PR department keeps steering these lawsuits back to talc that is contaminated with asbestos, even though they're well aware that uncontaminated talc also causes cancer. A while back, I read that J&J has access to special uncontaminated talc mines.
- pas 5y ago
  > uncontaminated talc also causes cancer. Can you please point to the claim, data, evidence for this? :o
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    American cancer society: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-ca...
    - pas 5y ago
      > The evidence about asbestos-free talc is less clear. Mind you, I think any aerosol, particulate matter, etc.. is a big no-no for lungs, simply because it promotes inflammation, and our lungs are very sensitive. Hence all the lung problems in mines, flour factories, etc. Talc doesn't seem special in this regard. The problem is that it's a powder before it gets processed into whatever we use it for.
strogonoff 5y ago
The baby powder story is a great opportunity to remember that there are actual journalists doing valuable work, and society needs them. Meanwhile, the oft-repeated sentiment is that we should get rid of journalists and news agencies because every single one of them is supposedly a sell-out. That’d surely resolve a number of issues for companies like J&J.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    Governments belong in the same bucket as companies, from the point of view of actual journalism.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      I can't disagree with that, governments (cities, etc) are really just companies that the citizens work for once we are born.
  - pas 5y ago
    Not for any vaccines. In case of covid ones the waiver was to get the vaccine fast. But it didn't mean anything goes, no oversight. It makes sense in a pandemic to have a fast rollout with continuous monitoring instead of the usual wait for the courts, usually wait for enough cases to have a class action, wait for the certification of that, etc. Not to mention the anti vax nutjobs screaming about experimential vaccines being experimential. (Which is meaningless, because even if it is it might be a lot more safe than something that's old, boring but did not get this much scrutiny.) Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.
    - thenaterator 5y ago
      > anti vax nutjobs This phrase is often used to malign those with a different understanding or opinion. Most people who question the efficacy and safety profile of the experimental Covid vaccines are neither anti vaccine nor nutjobs. > Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone. The talc powder lawsuits are because it is suspected or causing cancer. Yes, they made something with long term side effects. Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.
j0ba 5y ago
Absolutely deplorable they would do this. But I am still extremely confident the vaccines are 100% and effective.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  they never claimed to be 100% effective, not ever, not once.
ismail 5y ago
Are we surprised when people invent far fetched conspiracies (i.e COVID 5G)? This is a symptom of a much larger problem we have in society. Morally bankrupt leadership and ethically questionable companies. J&J is right up there.
olliej 5y ago
Let’s ignore the attempt to use the court to silence the press and look at the other part: why are businesses allowed to create subsidiaries that are just debt vehicles to be placed in bankruptcy? If a company can do it, why can’t I do that for my personal debt?
- m0ngr31 5y ago
  Because you don't have enough money to lobby (bribe) the people who make these kinds of decisions.
  - zeroa093 5y ago
    To add clarity to this. OP _can_ do this right now if they wanted to. The difference is: 1. You have to have an LLC that actually does business. What you don't say is you're also running all your personal stuff through the LLC for business purposes. AFAIK this isn't illegal since the stuff is the company's and you're just "using" it. A good example is a mercedes benz "company car" that, should you fail to make payments (through the company), is now the company's problem and not yours. The other REALLY big nuance here is that the money can't come from you TO your company. It must be company money. Otherwise you pierce the veil. 2. You have to make the LLC before bad stuff happens. The difference is here J&J is trying to make a subsidiary after the fact. I don't think they can legally do this. Hollywood accounting has the subsidiaries made purpose built as fall guys. This is some "remember how we provided all those vaccines" level bribery.

428 points by danboarder 5y ago

I am truly shocked to learn that Johnson & Johnson's baby powder might cause cancer. This is from a company whose vaccines every single politician and journalist in the western world has assured us that they are 100% effective and safe. Can't the people who developed those vaccines in 6 months talk to the baby powder people to make sure they reach the same level of safety and effectiveness?

baybal2 5y ago

How talc causes cancer?

daniel_reetz 5y ago
Talc is often contaminated with asbestos, which is a carcinogen.
- ILMostro7 5y ago
  Assuming that this got down-voted because it says "contaminated", whereas the other posts here suggest that it's often used intentionally--or at least with indifference--as an ingredient.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    No. Raw mined talc is processed to remove asbestos when used to baby powder. It is exceptionally unlikely that a large company would be explicitly aware of that and not modify their process (although not completely unprecedented).
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It is downvoted because both statements are coming from a place of ignorance. Asbestos is neither a common contaminant or intentional additive. There have been disputed allegations that contamination could have occurred and resulted in cancer.
    - ILMostro7 5y ago
      Although my comment came from admitted ignorance, it was seeking clarification; not merely proclaiming an incorrect statement. Ultimately, it contributed to the discourse.
      - daniel_reetz 5y ago
        I was downvoted incorrectly. I sourced my info from a team working on talc litigation. 686 of 1032 tests produced in litigation revealed the presence of asbestos in talcs used in cosmetics from 1948 to 2017. That's "often". Asbestos is a carcinogen, and it often contaminates talcs. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6784763/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moltar 5y ago
talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer
- dekhn 5y ago
  I don't think anybody demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the vended product was the cause of ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    That's not the criteria required for a civil suit. That's the criteria for a criminal case, which is prosecuted by the DA.
  - afthonos 5y ago
    Since none of this is about criminal proceedings in the US, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a meaningless (quite literally; what do you mean?) standard.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      I know what the various standards are for cases but that's not the point. In this case, "preponderance of evidence". Let's turn what you said around. In a civil case, a jury can find a defendent guilty of something, but with inadequate evidence. This can lead to enormous fines, and potentially even make a large company go bankrupt. One imagines that if you're going to find somebody guilty, they actually have to be guilty. How does that look? Scientific studies. And scientific studies don't exist that show that people who consumed J*J talc got cancer at elevated rates with a significance level that meets any judicial standard. So basically, what you are saying (which is true, and is exactly what bothers me) is that court cases can find a defendent guilty using a lack of scientific evidence, as long as the jury believes what was shown to them is a preponderance. That could just be erin brockovich walking around in court saying hexavalent chromium causes cancer (again, not enough data to conclude this). here's the CA case. https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159609.PDF """ While none of this is disputed, whether asbestos was present in JBP during the six-decade exposure period is a matter of sharp dispute. As further explained below, the trial court ruled that Dr. Compton’s and Dr. Fitzgerald’s declarations, to the extent they infer the presence of asbestos in milled, finished talcum powder from nothing more than positive tests for asbestos in raw talc ore used to manufacture it, are legally insufficient to create a triable issue of fact under applicable principles of causation
slobotron 5y ago
Presumably when inhaled, since the lawsuit talks about talc containing asbestos.
- aaronchall 5y ago
  Asbestos is an extremely stable mineral fiber and sharp like glass. If you get it on your skin it may penetrate but it will eventually probably slough off. If it gets in your lungs, it has nowhere to go and can continue damaging tissue for the rest of your life. Similarly, if it gets inside your body through other routes, it has nowhere to go. The lawsuit is about the product being marketed for feminine hygiene. Presumably if women put it on their privates every day, and it contains asbestos fibers, they will eventually have enough asbestos migrate internally to cause cancer, for example, in their ovaries - just like asbestos causes lung cancer when inhaled.
hedora 5y ago
In addition to often containing asbestos, pure talc can cause cancer by getting stuck where it shouldn't and causing chronic irritation, etc. The most common issue is ovarian cancer, and talc used to be widely marketed for feminine hygiene.
- tedivm 5y ago
  It's still used by parents in diapers, despite that being a huge cancer risk.
  - killjoywashere 5y ago
    As a father, and as a pathologist who has seen talc in ovarian cancers (under the microscope it is visible with polarizers), talc should be taken off the shelves. It's used on babies but also young women use it trying to cope with their fears of odor and moisture (whether or not there is an odor or moisture, let alone the conversation of whether those concerns themselves were manufactured). The ads are like tobacco ads: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-marketing/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona....
mateo1 5y ago
If you inhale it or put it in your vagina. Talcum might contain asbestos fibers, caution must be taken for it to be practically asbestos-free and women should be warned, but starch is not a damn replacement for it.
- tedivm 5y ago
  To be clear, even without asbestos talcum powder can cause cancer in women. It also doesn't have to be put directly in a vagina- using it in diapers for children is enough to cause some to potentially migrate in. A study in New England linked the increased cancer risk to inflammation caused by the talcum powder itself.
hmottestad 5y ago
"Asbestos is also a naturally occurring silicate mineral, but with a different crystal structure. Both talc and asbestos are naturally occurring minerals that may be found in close proximity in the earth." https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/talc

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sethammons 5y ago

Is there an article actually linked? All I see is the footer for more from routers...

capableweb 5y ago
Yes, in the opening sentence: > Johnson & Johnson tried to get a U.S. judge to block Reuters from publishing a story Story: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/inside-jjs-secret-plan-cap-litigation-payouts-cancer-victims-2022-02-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/... Summary: > J&J's covert 'Project Plato' team crafted strategy to redirect cancer plaintiffs out of trial courts and into bankruptcy process > J&J documents show how it planned 'Texas two-step' maneuver to limit payouts for talc claims > J&J executive asked whether maneuver would affect company's credit rating, documents show > U.S. judge to weigh whether bankruptcy was filed in bad faith > Company lawyer warned the team (Project Plato): Tell no one, not even your spouse. “It is critical that any activities related to Project Plato, including the mere fact the project exists, be kept in strict confidence,” Chris Andrew, a J&J lawyer, wrote in an internal memo reviewed by Reuters.
- nunez 5y ago
  This is absolutely infuriating, and I'm glad Reuters was able to publish this.
samwillis 5y ago
It’s strange, it’s crashing Safari on iOS: Mirror here: https://archive.ph/vfOkX https://archive.ph/vfOkX
- scottshea 5y ago
  Chrome on Android as well
  - Miner49er 5y ago
    Firefox on Android as well.

hanselot 5y ago

bsedlm 5y ago

what's interesting is that they think to get a judge to do this, as in they consider it a viable strategy that may work. (which means it has worked before)

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
I mean someone must try a strategy the first time only hoping it will work, but it does seem suspicious as I wouldn't think of J&J as particularly innovative or daring.

Geeek 5y ago

I remember reading this Axios[1] article and fuming at the fact that this is a legal and socially acceptable outcome to this saga. Glad this is getting a deeper look from news organizations. [1]https://www.axios.com/johnson-johnson-texas-baby-powder-gambit-a2a39456-4a8b-46fe-ba1e-9d56c12d6022.html https://www.axios.com/johnson-johnson-texas-baby-powder-gamb...

legalcorrection 5y ago

So either 1) the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this or 2) J&J management was so angry and irrational that they demanded the lawyers waste their time on this. Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.

theknocker 5y ago
Dwelve 5y ago
Why not both?
Retric 5y ago
Here is a recent successful injunction delaying publication: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/media/mary-trump-book/index.h... Though it didn’t last long.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  It lasted all about two weeks and the judge basically embarrassed himself by granting it in the first place. He reversed himself in anticipation of being bench slapped by the appellate court. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge-does-expected-gets-rid-prior-restraint-order-against-mary-trump-allows-her-to-publish-her-book.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200713/17110644892/judge... (note that in New York, the lower courts are the "Supreme Court", very confusing). But you're right, there's always a judge stupid enough out there to do something outrageously illegal.
reaperducer 5y ago
the lawyers ripped off J&J by spending time on this I wouldn't be surprised. My mother worked for the VP a company that was involved in a lawsuit that went on for decades. It was commonly known in the company that the lawsuit was being deliberately dragged out for the benefit of the opposition's lawyers, and that the case was even handed down as a kind of sick inheritance from father-to-son as people retired. I've only been involved in a court case once. I was picked as a juror in a case where two divorce lawyers were suing each other over how to split the fee from a high-profile divorce. I'm sure there are good lawyers out there, but they seem as rare as hen's teeth and well-intentioned social media companies.

grapescheesee 5y ago

I have seen several people talk personally about why they do not trust the vaccine from Johnson and Johnson on HN over the last year in various comments. Overwhelmingly they were attacked when they spoke on the cancer link with talc powder. Regardless of the direct correlation or none at all to the 'contaminated' talc they were selling as a product with baby in the name, and it verifiable contained asbestos. I think the manner they public conduct themselves speaks volumes about how and where they generate wealth.

shitpost 5y ago
Covzire 5y ago
errcorrectcode 5y ago
In the US EUAs at the beginning, for me, it was 95% the technology and 5% the manufacturer convinced me mRNA vaccines were superior because of their precisely-targeted nature. It was a gamble between Pfizer and Moderna. Went with Moderna for the first 2 (before the data on "mix-and-match") and Pfizer booster. Btw, sequencing of both mRNA vaccines: https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdfhttps://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding-mRNA-sequences-for-vaccines-BNT-162b2-and-mRNA-1273/blob/main/Assemblies%20of%20putative%20SARS-CoV2-spike-encoding%20mRNA%20sequences%20for%20vaccines%20BNT-162b2%20and%20mRNA-1273.docx.pdf https://github.com/NAalytics/Assemblies-of-putative-SARS-CoV...
tasha0663 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tasha0663 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago

Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1%. And that was before Omicron. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...

mpyne 5y ago
> No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people Gambling? Options trading? Do you get refunds from your weed dealer when it doesn't hit quite right? > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. You can, it's just that you get damages paid by the Federal government, not the manufacturer. You also can't sue if the military fails to defend a U.S. city from attack, for what it's worth.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. We don't want politicians to turn pill pushers with kickback schemes for things that barely work. How does the saying go ... "Don't invite the devil in"
  - mpyne 5y ago
    > All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is the only area where you can't directly sue Pharma companies (i.e. when the government makes a vaccine series part of the childhood vaccination series or part of a pandemic response regimen). But at that point the party directing you to take the vaccine isn't the Pharma company or companies, it's the Federal government, so they are properly the ones that should be counter-party to a suit in any event. > It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. You say that as if it proves your case, and yet we can see from data that is obvious even to the untrained eye that the product you're complaining about 'actually works'.

adamrezich 5y ago

can 2022 be the year we go back to being distrustful of multinational for-profit pharmaceutical corporations please

mpyne 5y ago
Indeed, you can never tell what those companies put in their Ivermectin and HCQ tablets these days.
- shocking 5y ago
  The benefit of repurposing drugs is precisely that we have decades of safety profile data. That's why those are particularly interesting against emerging diseases, especially for low income countries. Obviously that's an issue for big pharma since they're not competitive when it comes to pure manufacturing of cheap drugs.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Very little profit, that's for sure.
- finnx 5y ago
  Both (IVM/HCQ) are not patented so there is no reason to depend or trust on multinational pharmaceutical companies. You can access interactive meta analysis of 310 studies for HCQ[1] and 78 studies for ivermectin[2] below, it gets updated when new studies published. They also keep track of other treatments (in total 480[3]). But unfortunately only some of those treatments get media coverage like cannabidiol[4] even when they are neither the best performers nor best studied. [1]: https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqmeta.com/ [2]: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ [3]: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/ [4]: https://c19early.com/cbdmeta.html https://c19early.com/cbdmeta.html
  - azinman2 5y ago
    https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

errcorrectcode 5y ago

Wow. A prior restraint injunction would be kinda unconstitutional for going against the 1st a. National security is the primary injunctive exception, which can be avoided by handing documents to something like WikiLeaks. I guess JNJ's lawyers were desperate and so took a gamble on maneuvering without considering the optics.

Arjuna 5y ago

This sounds like a similar strategy taken straight out of the Hollywood Accounting [1] playbook: “On Friday, Reuters reported that J&J secretly launched ‘Project Plato’ last year to shift liability from about 38,000 pending Baby Powder talc lawsuits to a newly created subsidiary, which was then to be put into bankruptcy. By doing so, J&J could limit its financial exposure to the lawsuits.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

tylersmith 5y ago
It's a much more interesting trick imo, where Texas allows "divisive mergers" that enable them to split liabilities off into a separate entity. It's not clear to me what the intended benefit of allowing this procedure is, other than this kind of action.
- mijoharas 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm trying to understand how this is allowed? It seems like it's in incredibly bad faith. Can anyone explain how this can happen? Taking this to it's extreme, can't you just buy some property so that you owe 1 million dollars, put that debt into it's own company and then say "sorry, that company is bankrupt, I can't pay". Is that not what's happening here? I feel like I must be missing something.
  - haneefmubarak 5y ago
    IANAL, but IIRC from some reading on this a while back (I could totally be wrong) you have to group the assets that the debt is connected to in the new entity specifically to prevent this. You also can't liquidate the asset connected to the debt and then spin off the new entity while keeping the money from the liquidation. So I think the way that these rules play out WRT J&J would be that they have to include all assets pertaining to their baby powder / talc business into the new entity, along with the amount of cash that is ordinarily used to operate the business into the spin out. That way the spin out contains what realistically constituted the talc business (net of profits that have been taken or reallocate in the past), so it can be held liable for any debts associated with the same business. EDIT: looks like in their case they're basically splitting into two companies - one that does pharmaceuticals (drugs, vaccines, etc) and the spinoff that does consumer products (Listerine, shampoo, the baby powder / talc in question, etc) with each part receiving relevant operating assets and associated liabilities, but the pharma side (which will retain the name) keeping the excess cash on hand and other non-operating assets.

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/vfOkX https://archive.is/vfOkX

dade_ 5y ago

I think it was nearly a decade ago and I made an offhand comment to a friend about baby powder causing cancer. He didn’t believe me as the idea seemed absurd, but his aunt worked at J&J and he texted her, she responded with a canned legal response. He was shocked and couldn’t believe this could be kept under wraps.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I'm not sure what this proves or implies. It has been a hot topic of legal dispute for a long time.

azinman2 5y ago

So if a company like J&J has asbestos in their talc powder, what does one use instead?

hedora 5y ago
Not talc. Pure talc is also a carcinogen. It causes ovarian cancer. Pediatricians / dermatologists often recommend aquaphor these days. You can also get diaper rash cream, which is similar, but is opaque white and contains zinc.
- eMSF 5y ago
  > Pure talc is also a carcinogen [citation needed]
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Safety (Studies cited there don't quite prove that asbestos-free talc is carcinogenic...but the evidence is damning enough that no well-informed consumer would actually use talc. Even if they somehow had access to guaranteed-0.00000% asbestos talc.) Also rather concerning - talc is GRAS by the FDA when used as an anti-caking agent in table salt at concentrations below 2%.

briandear 5y ago

Former Reuters COO is on the board of Pfizer. J&J is a vaccine competitor of Pfizer. To a reasonable person, this might be something of interest.

resoluteteeth 5y ago
That seems like an extreme stretch unless you have have some reason to think that Reuters wouldn't have normally reported something like this and the COO intervened or something like that.

hedora 5y ago

It's interesting how effectively the J&J PR department keeps steering these lawsuits back to talc that is contaminated with asbestos, even though they're well aware that uncontaminated talc also causes cancer. A while back, I read that J&J has access to special uncontaminated talc mines.

pas 5y ago
> uncontaminated talc also causes cancer. Can you please point to the claim, data, evidence for this? :o
- ipaddr 5y ago
  American cancer society: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-ca...
  - pas 5y ago
    > The evidence about asbestos-free talc is less clear. Mind you, I think any aerosol, particulate matter, etc.. is a big no-no for lungs, simply because it promotes inflammation, and our lungs are very sensitive. Hence all the lung problems in mines, flour factories, etc. Talc doesn't seem special in this regard. The problem is that it's a powder before it gets processed into whatever we use it for.

strogonoff 5y ago

The baby powder story is a great opportunity to remember that there are actual journalists doing valuable work, and society needs them. Meanwhile, the oft-repeated sentiment is that we should get rid of journalists and news agencies because every single one of them is supposedly a sell-out. That’d surely resolve a number of issues for companies like J&J.

encryptluks2 5y ago
But the government is happy to shield them from liability when it comes to vaccines.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  Governments belong in the same bucket as companies, from the point of view of actual journalism.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    I can't disagree with that, governments (cities, etc) are really just companies that the citizens work for once we are born.
- pas 5y ago
  Not for any vaccines. In case of covid ones the waiver was to get the vaccine fast. But it didn't mean anything goes, no oversight. It makes sense in a pandemic to have a fast rollout with continuous monitoring instead of the usual wait for the courts, usually wait for enough cases to have a class action, wait for the certification of that, etc. Not to mention the anti vax nutjobs screaming about experimential vaccines being experimential. (Which is meaningless, because even if it is it might be a lot more safe than something that's old, boring but did not get this much scrutiny.) Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone.
  - thenaterator 5y ago
    > anti vax nutjobs This phrase is often used to malign those with a different understanding or opinion. Most people who question the efficacy and safety profile of the experimental Covid vaccines are neither anti vaccine nor nutjobs. > Oh and baby bottom redness is not infectious and as far as we know did not kill anyone. The talc powder lawsuits are because it is suspected or causing cancer. Yes, they made something with long term side effects. Which is why some are concerned about the rushed implementation of Covid vaccine mandates.

j0ba 5y ago

Absolutely deplorable they would do this. But I am still extremely confident the vaccines are 100% and effective.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
they never claimed to be 100% effective, not ever, not once.

ismail 5y ago

Are we surprised when people invent far fetched conspiracies (i.e COVID 5G)? This is a symptom of a much larger problem we have in society. Morally bankrupt leadership and ethically questionable companies. J&J is right up there.

olliej 5y ago

Let’s ignore the attempt to use the court to silence the press and look at the other part: why are businesses allowed to create subsidiaries that are just debt vehicles to be placed in bankruptcy? If a company can do it, why can’t I do that for my personal debt?

m0ngr31 5y ago
Because you don't have enough money to lobby (bribe) the people who make these kinds of decisions.
- zeroa093 5y ago
  To add clarity to this. OP _can_ do this right now if they wanted to. The difference is: 1. You have to have an LLC that actually does business. What you don't say is you're also running all your personal stuff through the LLC for business purposes. AFAIK this isn't illegal since the stuff is the company's and you're just "using" it. A good example is a mercedes benz "company car" that, should you fail to make payments (through the company), is now the company's problem and not yours. The other REALLY big nuance here is that the money can't come from you TO your company. It must be company money. Otherwise you pierce the veil. 2. You have to make the LLC before bad stuff happens. The difference is here J&J is trying to make a subsidiary after the fact. I don't think they can legally do this. Hollywood accounting has the subsidiaries made purpose built as fall guys. This is some "remember how we provided all those vaccines" level bribery.