10 ms·

As far as I know, there is still no good evidence that talc usage leads to a significant increase in cancer risks. This is despite the product having been used

• user3939382 4y ago
  Who says what's true? Juries don't become scientists on issues like this, they listen to expert testimony. Technically you have to convince the experts that are testifying. It's not perfect, but of all the problems our (largely corrupt) government has this is the least. Corporate interests run roughshod over our entire democracy, the contemporary "justice" system is basically designed to protect them. I don't think we have to lose any sleep over them not getting a fair shake.
  • fsh 4y ago
    I don't think it is acceptable that the legal system is punishing someone for causing damages that are probably not real, even if that someone is some evil corporation.
    • user3939382 4y ago
      My primary point is, who decides they're probably not real, if not a jury informed by expert testimony?
      • fsh 4y ago
        My point is that countries whose legal systems don't rely on juries appear to be less affected by such counterfactual rulings. Maybe it is simply easier to manipulate jurors than professional judges.
      • Vaphell 4y ago
        in the world of antivaxxers, flat earthers you really trust a jury full of laymen to make judgements? Quoting Blazing Saddles: "These are people of the land, the common clay of the new west.... you know, morons" The vast majority of people believe what they want to believe and if that's how their roll, no expert in the world will convince them that 2+2=4
    • FireBeyond 4y ago
      Hang on. You've gone from "well, -I- have seen no evidence, and juries are just finding J&J guilty, regardless of evidence" to now your assumption that evidence doesn't exist and that this issue "probably isn't even real". Law firms make their money on judgments. I have little concern for their ability to do so. But it's a pretty big risk for a law firm to take on a $100B/year company with their legal backing with no evidence of a problem that "probably isn't even real", and standing up against their expert testimony and thinking "oh yeah, we got this, payday time".
      • Panzer04 4y ago
        Is it a big risk? In theory the upside is large (large settlement from company) and the downside small (wasted time on a lost lawsuit). I'm not sure the risk of losing the lawsuit is significant here.
      • Vaphell 4y ago
        you really think that in a world chock-full of antivaxxers, flat earthers and the climate change deniers it's hard to pad a jury with clueless mouthbreathers and exploit widespread anti-corpo sentiments? Same shit with glyphosate. It's pretty much the least bad pesticide of the bunch, with the alternatives being legitimately, undeniably cancerous, yet it's glyphosate that gets banned left and right, and sued for billions by anti-science twats, because "monstanto hurr durr". Hell, the damage of covid19 vaccines is actually proven and was noticed a few months in, yet in the case of talc used by millions of people for decades all they have is some weak, inconclusive shit.
        • user3939382 4y ago
          The fact that Monsanto lost their case despite their massive legal team and virtually unlimited resources against a school groundskeeper suggests how weak/horrible their case was. They lost because glyphosate is carcinogenic, their counter argument boils down to a bunch of research they directly or indirectly paid for. “Hur dur”, from my perspective, more aptly characterizes the defense of Monsanto/Bayer.
• mox1 4y ago
  I'm not an expert here, but the working theory I believe is that Talc mines also had asbestos in some of them. Like basically unseen veins of asbestos. So you mine for 100 days and get 100% Talc, then on 101 day you hit an asbestos vein, and contaminate some of the Talc. That asbestos ends up in a meaningful concentration in a small % of bottles of talc powder. But not reproducible and hard to catch. Some even smaller % of people use the contaminated powder A LOT, get cancer. Basically, its complicated and lots of factors.
  • fsh 4y ago
    I know the theory, but again there seems to be no good evidence for it. Some of the studies I found were quite large. If this had happened, they should really have seen it.
    • dekhn 4y ago
      You are correct; there is no truly strong case linking J&J's leadership to having specific knowledge that they were selling a product that was likely to cause serious harm. This is a common problem in the press and the courts; they play fast and loose with the science, and it's not really that hard to influence the public into thinking a corporate executive did something evil for monetary gain. Since this is such an easy narrative to believe, it's fairly straightforward to convince people just by making the suggestion.
      • iancmceachern 4y ago
        There is, see above comment with references, etc.
        • dekhn 4y ago
          if you mean the reuters article; no, that doesn't qualify. Analytic chemistry can find things in absurdly small amounts which don't affect human health- if the leadership knew that, I don't care because that's not actionable.
• Dalewyn 4y ago
  >You just have to convince the jury, regardless of what is actually true. More people need to understand that truth and fact are two seemingly similar but actually very different things. Truth is whatever the majority of people agree on. Fact is whatever the universe declares and understood by us as best we can. You can factually have two apples on a plate, but if the majority of people say there is only one apple on the plate the truth is there is only one apple on the plate.
  • fsh 4y ago
    That is a very unusual definition. Wikipedia defines truth as "the property of being in accord with fact or reality". In that sense truth exists independently of what people agree on.
    • FireBeyond 4y ago
      We're in civil court, where the balance of probability applies. It's also civil court that is being used to try this farcical "create a company with the intent of filing bankruptcy two days later to ... deflect ... liability". So civil court rules are good enough for the latter, but unacceptable for the former?
    • anonuser123456 4y ago
      That definition comes from someone that’s never been to the gulag or re-education camp.
  • thfuran 4y ago
    That isn't true.
    • Dalewyn 4y ago
      The fact of the matter is the Earth orbits around the Sun which orbits around the galactic core of the Milky Way which is hurtling through the universe. The truth of the matter is we have at various points in time considered: Earth being at the center of the universe as truth. Earth orbiting around the Sun as truth. The fact remains unchanged, regardless of our ability to understand or observe. The truth changes according to what the majority believes is true at a given point in time.
• PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  It's not talc, it's the asbestos that the talc is contaminated with. We know J&J knew that its talc was contaminated with asbestos since the 1950s. We know J&J have tested their own talc and found it was contaminated with asbestos, but never informed the public and still denies their internal investigation exists.
  • fsh 4y ago
    Could you give a reference for these claims? I couldn't find anything conclusive.
    • PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      Reuters was able to uncover undisclosed reports in court that J&J failed to disclose finding asbestos in their own talc to the public. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-special-report-idUSKBN1OD1RQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-cancer-sp... "The earliest mentions of tainted J&J talc that Reuters found come from 1957 and 1958 reports by a consulting lab. They describe contaminants in talc from J&J’s Italian supplier as fibrous and “acicular,” or needle-like, tremolite. That’s one of the six minerals that in their naturally occurring fibrous form are classified as asbestos. At various times from then into the early 2000s, reports by scientists at J&J, outside labs and J&J’s supplier yielded similar findings. The reports identify contaminants in talc and finished powder products as asbestos or describe them in terms typically applied to asbestos, such as “fiberform” and “rods.” In 1976, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was weighing limits on asbestos in cosmetic talc products, J&J assured the regulator that no asbestos was “detected in any sample” of talc produced between December 1972 and October 1973. It didn’t tell the agency that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc – in one case at levels reported as “rather high.”"
      • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        >“rather high.” ... at 2 ppm ... context is king. The EPA limit for safe drinking water is 7 million fibers per liter, as well as being present in measurable quantities in the air, by the way. If truly microscopic amounts of asbestos actually caused cancer, we'd all be dying of mesothelioma. Remember: "asbestos causes cancer", "there is no know safe limit for asbestos exposure" and "we all breathe in asbestos every day" can simultaneously be true.
• hedora 4y ago
  The existence of studies that don't show a statistical result does not imply a lack of causation. It's easy to run (and fund) sloppy studies that will produce low confidence interval results. J&J (and others) have a strong financial incentive to muddy the waters regarding talc and cancer. Similar shenanigans played out with tobacco and cancer. Most studies either show increased risk, or no risk. Apparently, none show a decreased risk, which is what you'd expect if there were a bunch of false positives due to sampling error. Pure talc is probably a carcinogen.