5 ms·

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 m

by 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.
      - iancmceachern 4y ago
        The fact that analytical chemistry can find things in absurdly small amounts is exactly why it's a useful testing tool. So you are arguing that you would believe it if they used a less accurate, less precise and less sensitive testing method?
        dekhn 4y ago
        No, I mean the found amounts that were below thresholds of caring. I've read through the reuters reports to read the actual letters and documentation they're citing and I still don't see anything convincing that says "J&J knew that their talc was causing cancer in US patients and should have stopped selling the product, or done a better job cleaning it up". My standard of evidence is fairly high after seeing decades of well-meaning but clueless people propose all sorts of ridiculous things for companies to do.
        iancmceachern 4y ago
        I'm curious, how are you defining amounts that were below thresholds of caring and what scientific basis you have for the selection of those thresholds. Per the mesothelioma folks "no amount of asbestos exposure is considered safe" https://www.asbestos.com/exposure/ https://www.asbestos.com/exposure/ It's a statistical thing. It's not like they test every single package of talc that goes out. The fact that asbestos is present in some samples means that asbestos is present in the rock formations from which the talc is mined. That means that one day the mining equipment could scoop up 99.9999% talc and a tiny amount of asbestos and package it. The next day the mining machines could hit a big vein of asbestos and the talc packages going out that day could be a very high percentage. It's random, only having to do with the geology of the area of the earth they were digging up that day. With no testing, with no process control this is certain to have happened.
        dekhn 4y ago
        Generally, things that cause cancer don't cause cancer when people are exposed to extremely small amounts. From our understanding, this is because the body is able to tolerate a certain amount of carcinogenic substances before a statistical threshold is reached. In situations where people are only exposed to tiny amounts of asbestos through fiber inhalation, we don't really have good stats on what happens to people who inhale tiny amounts (and these amounts are parts-per-million, found only in a subset of samples). In epi, what ends up happening is that people down-extrapolate using a linear model, outside the linear regime. Testing is normally done by pooling multiple samples. Again, I simply think there's a lack of evidence that anybody did anything crimimal.

by mox1 4y ago

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.
    - iancmceachern 4y ago
      The fact that analytical chemistry can find things in absurdly small amounts is exactly why it's a useful testing tool. So you are arguing that you would believe it if they used a less accurate, less precise and less sensitive testing method?
      - dekhn 4y ago
        No, I mean the found amounts that were below thresholds of caring. I've read through the reuters reports to read the actual letters and documentation they're citing and I still don't see anything convincing that says "J&J knew that their talc was causing cancer in US patients and should have stopped selling the product, or done a better job cleaning it up". My standard of evidence is fairly high after seeing decades of well-meaning but clueless people propose all sorts of ridiculous things for companies to do.
        iancmceachern 4y ago
        I'm curious, how are you defining amounts that were below thresholds of caring and what scientific basis you have for the selection of those thresholds. Per the mesothelioma folks "no amount of asbestos exposure is considered safe" https://www.asbestos.com/exposure/ https://www.asbestos.com/exposure/ It's a statistical thing. It's not like they test every single package of talc that goes out. The fact that asbestos is present in some samples means that asbestos is present in the rock formations from which the talc is mined. That means that one day the mining equipment could scoop up 99.9999% talc and a tiny amount of asbestos and package it. The next day the mining machines could hit a big vein of asbestos and the talc packages going out that day could be a very high percentage. It's random, only having to do with the geology of the area of the earth they were digging up that day. With no testing, with no process control this is certain to have happened.
        dekhn 4y ago
        Generally, things that cause cancer don't cause cancer when people are exposed to extremely small amounts. From our understanding, this is because the body is able to tolerate a certain amount of carcinogenic substances before a statistical threshold is reached. In situations where people are only exposed to tiny amounts of asbestos through fiber inhalation, we don't really have good stats on what happens to people who inhale tiny amounts (and these amounts are parts-per-million, found only in a subset of samples). In epi, what ends up happening is that people down-extrapolate using a linear model, outside the linear regime. Testing is normally done by pooling multiple samples. Again, I simply think there's a lack of evidence that anybody did anything crimimal.