6 ms·

talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer

by moltar 5y ago

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
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  It’s a civil suit. If Johnson and Johnson was so confident that there was no harm caused by their products, why go through all this trouble?
  - dekhn 5y ago
    because civil suits that find them guilty could make them go out of business even if they did nothing wrong.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      > because civil suits that find them guilty could make them go out of business That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive.
      - quesera 5y ago
        > That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive. Really? Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings. If JNJ was fined their market cap of $451B, it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, assuming no declines due to reputational damage from the judgement. (2021 earnings $23B, BTW up almost 40% from 2020!). So call it 20 years, with 100% of earnings dedicated to payment of the fine. They could sell off assets (recent valuation $179B), but a) that would diminish their earning potential over the period, and b) even if they sold literally every owned asset (reducing the company to nothing), it would only reduce the fine restitution period from 20 years to 12 years. And since they'd be reduced to zero revenue and earnings, it would take infinitely many years to pay off the remainder. Of course the company will have ceased to exist at that point, satisfying GP's prediction of non-survival. Or were you being hyperbolic?
        Supermancho 5y ago
        > > That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive. > Really? Yes. Even in this unlikely scenario, the company would easily continue on. The idea that this case could put them out of business is ridiculous and I stand by it. > it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, You're thinking about it the wrong way...like most people who think that you can stick it to megacorporations. Think about how it pays out over the next 100 years? Because that's much more likely and efficient. While you might think it depends on the terms, it's going to be financed so there's not much to be done to liquidate them. Then think about how many decades before it can lobby (cough legislate) some additional financial tools? > Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings. Irrelevant, at best. Large companies that should fold according to this kind of rough thinking don't fold on a consistent basis. Consider that you're oversimplified weasel calculation doesn't mean what you think it does. Good luck with whatever.
- hedora 5y ago
  The same has been said about nuclear meltdowns and toxic waste leaks. Sure, the baseline rate for this rare cancer is 1 in 10,000,000, and it's 1 in 10 in this town of 1000 people, but it's possible the plaintiff would have gotten it anyway.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Now can you provide the baseline rate and comparison for talc?
- Supermancho 5y ago
  European studies have already made studies around this[1]. J&J is simply trying to fight the same battle, again, in the US. [1]https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/Genital_use_of_talc_and_risk_of_ovarian_cancer__a.8.aspx#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20suggested%20that,et%20al.%2C%201996 https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/...).
  - dekhn 5y ago
    a single metaanalysis that finds a "weak but significant" result isn't sufficient evidence.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      I'm not providing discovery. I have demonstrated that it's trivial to dig up evidence. Regardless, it's considered common knowledge in other parts of the world and the US is one of the remaining battlegrounds. J&J quickly discontinued the talc-based baby powder (in the US) when the claims started to pile up.

talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer

by moltar 5y ago

talc-based products contained asbestos and caused mesothelioma and ovarian cancer

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
UncleMeat 5y ago
It’s a civil suit. If Johnson and Johnson was so confident that there was no harm caused by their products, why go through all this trouble?
- dekhn 5y ago
  because civil suits that find them guilty could make them go out of business even if they did nothing wrong.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > because civil suits that find them guilty could make them go out of business That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive.
    - quesera 5y ago
      > That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive. Really? Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings. If JNJ was fined their market cap of $451B, it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, assuming no declines due to reputational damage from the judgement. (2021 earnings $23B, BTW up almost 40% from 2020!). So call it 20 years, with 100% of earnings dedicated to payment of the fine. They could sell off assets (recent valuation $179B), but a) that would diminish their earning potential over the period, and b) even if they sold literally every owned asset (reducing the company to nothing), it would only reduce the fine restitution period from 20 years to 12 years. And since they'd be reduced to zero revenue and earnings, it would take infinitely many years to pay off the remainder. Of course the company will have ceased to exist at that point, satisfying GP's prediction of non-survival. Or were you being hyperbolic?
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        > > That's hyperbole. Even if they were fined their market cap, the company would survive. > Really? Yes. Even in this unlikely scenario, the company would easily continue on. The idea that this case could put them out of business is ridiculous and I stand by it. > it would take about 19.6 years of earnings to pay, You're thinking about it the wrong way...like most people who think that you can stick it to megacorporations. Think about how it pays out over the next 100 years? Because that's much more likely and efficient. While you might think it depends on the terms, it's going to be financed so there's not much to be done to liquidate them. Then think about how many decades before it can lobby (cough legislate) some additional financial tools? > Market capitalization is, loosely, asset valuation plus X years of projected future earnings. Irrelevant, at best. Large companies that should fold according to this kind of rough thinking don't fold on a consistent basis. Consider that you're oversimplified weasel calculation doesn't mean what you think it does. Good luck with whatever.
hedora 5y ago
The same has been said about nuclear meltdowns and toxic waste leaks. Sure, the baseline rate for this rare cancer is 1 in 10,000,000, and it's 1 in 10 in this town of 1000 people, but it's possible the plaintiff would have gotten it anyway.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Now can you provide the baseline rate and comparison for talc?
Supermancho 5y ago
European studies have already made studies around this[1]. J&J is simply trying to fight the same battle, again, in the US. [1]https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/Genital_use_of_talc_and_risk_of_ovarian_cancer__a.8.aspx#:~:text=It%20has%20been%20suggested%20that,et%20al.%2C%201996 https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/Abstract/2018/05000/...).
- dekhn 5y ago
  a single metaanalysis that finds a "weak but significant" result isn't sufficient evidence.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    I'm not providing discovery. I have demonstrated that it's trivial to dig up evidence. Regardless, it's considered common knowledge in other parts of the world and the US is one of the remaining battlegrounds. J&J quickly discontinued the talc-based baby powder (in the US) when the claims started to pile up.