>Like the 2018 case where the jury deemed J&J liable for 5 billion? (cut to 2 in appeals). ... that is literally "the Wisconsin case" I mentioned in my post?

>Like the 2018 case where the jury deemed J&J liable for 5 billion? (cut to 2 in appeals). ... that is literally "the Wisconsin case" I mentioned in my post? Look: I said a whole bunch of these cases don't even involve asbestos. That is true. It's a matter of record and if you want to do some basic research, you will discover that: these are the earlier talc cases from the 2013-2016 timeframe. >The claim is that the manufacture of talc baby powder lends itself to contamination with asbestos (a carcinogen) and that J&J knew about it but continued selling. They're losing on THOSE grounds. They're also winning on those grounds, more so than they're losing. Never mind that, even if true, those facts don't establish a good case unless there's actually a causal link between the level of contamination involved and the incidence of ovarian cancer. There is no good quality science (i.e. the cohort studies rather than the case-control ones) available that demonstrates a link between talc usage and ovarian cancer. >if you think you're going to be vindicated in the long run. It doesn't matter whether J&J gets vindicated in the long run - by which I assume you mean that we discover there is no causal link between talc and ovarian cancer and that the science promulgated by the plaintiffs attorneys was junk. They're guaranteed to take billions in losses because they've exhausted their appeals in at least one of the big cases. That was actually my point when I said it's too late.