22 ms·

Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

508 points by sndean 3y ago

NovaDudely 3y ago
This will be an interesting one to follow. J&J may have a case but could also just be a case of supressing bad news. The original study had a very small sample size (33 people), which one could argue would be small enough to dismiss. Are there any larger follow up studies?
- ralph84 3y ago
  This is also interesting: > Moline published an article in 2019 studying 33 patients who said their only exposure to asbestos came from talc products, and Emory, Kradin and Maddox followed up with a 2020 study of 75 similar patients. > All four doctors have provided expert testimony in lawsuits against J&J, and their research has been cited in lawsuits where they have not testified, according to the complaints. > LTL said the researchers concealed the fact that some or all of the patients involved in their studies had been exposed to asbestos from other sources. If the only thing they used to exclude non-talc exposures was asking the study participants, that seems pretty weak science. And their income depended on not digging too deeply for other exposures.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
In some ways the talc controversy does seem similar to the silicone breast implant controversy in the 1990’s. An overview is at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206 https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206
- jey 3y ago
  Isn't the mechanism for the talc -> {ovarian cancer, mesothelioma} connection much clearer and stronger though? That talc co-occurs with asbestos, which is known to be highly carcinogenic and to cause the types of cancers being encountered here. The asbestos fibers were also (allegedly) found in laboratory analysis of samples of the commercial talc powder product.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Clearly, you’re one of those that feel like facts matter. This feels like one of those battles to be fought in the court of public opinion and not a court of law. In that type of fight, suppressing facts while speaking your narrative as loudly as possible is a winning move
  - scotty79 3y ago
    > The asbestos fibers were also (allegedly) found in laboratory analysis of samples of the commercial talc powder product. Were they found in ovarian cancers? What's the clear link?
    - beowulfey 3y ago
      This is transitive risk. Asbestos is clearly linked to cancer > asbestos was found in talc and known to form with talc naturally > risk of using talc that isn’t pure. The problem is whether talc is pure. At that point it becomes a question of how much you trust J&J to verify that. My guess is that different mined sources varied in asbestos composition and there likely was some contamination that went undetected. But who knows.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    >Isn't the mechanism for the talc -> {ovarian cancer, mesothelioma} connection much clearer and stronger though? No; not at all. It's extremely dubious indeed, in fact.
    - jey 3y ago
      You’re just creating FUD. Can you instead be more specific?
- rcme 3y ago
  That was published in 1996. Textured breast implants are associated with increased rates of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) [0]. Squamous cell carcinoma can also form in the scar tissue of many types of implants [1]. 0: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/patient-safety/breast-implant-safety/bia-alcl-summary https://www.plasticsurgery.org/patient-safety/breast-implant... 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/health/breast-implants-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/health/breast-implants-ca...
- ciabattabread 3y ago
  This is the key part of that article that hammered home to the point to me: > However, the benefit of implants to women's subjective well-being is less easily quantified. As Angell astutely points out, the FDA assumed that the benefits of breast implants were minimal—especially in women who desired implants for aesthetic reasons—and therefore demanded that implant manufacturers demonstrate virtually absolute safety.
FireBeyond 3y ago
Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management under a strategy called the “Texas two-step.” That legal but controversial approach allows a solvent parent company to protect its assets by creating a subsidiary to hold its liabilities — and then having the new company declare bankruptcy, as LTL did just days after incorporating. Critics complain it’s an abuse of the bankruptcy system and allows companies facing massive litigation to dodge corporate responsibility. > The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia dismissed the bankruptcy filing in January, finding LTL was not in financial distress and had “no valid bankruptcy purpose.” > But hours after that case was formally dismissed in April, LTL filed for bankruptcy protection again, this time with a higher settlement proposal of $8.9 billion. The fact that this is legal is such a mockery of consumer protection law.
- adastra22 3y ago
  How is this effective? Wouldn’t the creditors pierce the corporate veil of this obviously transparent and self-serving setup?
  - ozzydave 3y ago
    OP is spinning this as an attempt by J&J to escape paying out the liability which it wasn’t - Matt Levine (of course!) explains the details here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-levine-johnson-johnson-s-jnj-bankruptcy-didn-t-work?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
    - wak90 3y ago
      It's really odd that Bloomberg somehow reports that businesses abusing liability and bankruptcy laws is good, actually.
asdfasgasdgasdg 3y ago
If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? As we've seen in a number of other recent cases research is by no means free of malfeasance. Even research performed to some statistical standard may fall far short of truly indicating a casual link. These researchers have gained materially from the output of their research (expert witnesses do not testify for free). Of course if the lawsuit is baseless then it is an evil distraction but the mere act of suing researchers is not, on its face, a problem.
- blincoln 3y ago
  > If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? It depends. Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. and will argue things like "Subject A visited Australia ten years before the study and was in a city where some older structures were made using asbestos-infused concrete. Did the researchers think to ask their subjects if they'd traveled to Australia?"
  - mkagenius 3y ago
    > Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. Ideally that should be part of the research paper if done diligently, refuting them even before people doubt them.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Sure, but if people carrying out research were required to forensically examine the history of every research participant to the standard of a corporate law firm trying to find an angle to sue them, no research would ever be done.
    - danuker 3y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ > The present study has several limitations. It is both retrospective and uncontrolled, and the cases were submitted in medico‐legal consultation, all of which potentially introduce bias. I think the researchers were quite open about what they did.
nubinetwork 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36731667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36731667
paul7986 3y ago
Hard one to decide though the researchers did profit nicely and they are not naming their patients name. Are they real patients and if so J&J does should have the right to research their health records. Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.
- malfist 3y ago
  Exactly what profit did the scientists make?
  - jprete 3y ago
    According to J&J, literally millions of dollars: > LTL's lawsuits allege that the doctors' research allowed them to collect millions of dollars from plaintiffs' lawyers to push a "false narrative" about J&J. The complaint against Moline, for example, said she had made a "small fortune" testifying as a paid expert in lawsuits, receiving over $3 million from her work on asbestos lawsuits. LTL alleged that Kradin also made more than $3 million testifying as a plaintiffs' expert.
  - ma2t 3y ago
    The complaints outline substantial profits that the scientists are alleged to have made as expert witnesses. All four are alleged to have made hundreds of dollars and hour, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or more than $3 million over multi-decade careers. According to the linked complaint, at least two have profit sharing in Peninsula Pathology Associates through which some of this litigation work flows. On quick read, it's not clear how much of this is directly talc related or even what fraction is related to more general asbestos litigation though.
    - youngtaff 3y ago
      $3 mn in a decade is only 300,000 / year Plus they’ll be costs involved that will come from that 300,000 too
      - 3y ago
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
When you have a substance that is labeled "For External Use Only" and it's used in a way that manages to pack large quantities, asbestos or not, deeply into internal organs, then perhaps adverse effects can be expected. "Junk science" is a charitable description of what was perpetrated in those studies.
irjustin 3y ago
Scratching the surface on talc, it's difficult to determine what should/should-not be done. Cancer.org has a page on talc[0] and from it: > Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder. > Until more information is available, people who are concerned about possible links between talcum powder and cancer may choose to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it. Seems like more studies are needed for the consumer level. [0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...
- vibrio 3y ago
  “Scratching the surface on talc“ Did you pun here on purpose? Almost ironically, Talc is a standard of care for malignant pleural effusions ( mesothelioma, long metastasis is other cancers cause “pockets” in the lung cavity which collect fluid and impede breathing and are painful. Talc is commonly put in the pleural space too -as I understand it— abrade the tissue and cause it to adhere, sealing the pockets and relieve some symptoms. To me it has been an example of how new drugs are badly needed in some serious but “esoteric” diseases.
- bredren 3y ago
  This reminds me of how the potential danger of living next to electrical substations is described.
- fbdab103 3y ago
  Having not followed the story too closely, it is also unclear to me under what timelines the talc was most likely to be contaminated with asbestos. Always? Up until X date? Just the baby powder form, but not the pills, etc? This blurb on Wikipedia [0] indicates that asbestos levels might have started being controlled as of 1976. >...Stringent quality control since 1976, including separating cosmetic- and food-grade talc from "industrial"-grade talc, has largely eliminated this issue, but it remains a potential hazard requiring mitigation in the mining and processing of talc.[39] A 2010 US FDA survey failed to find asbestos in a variety of talc-containing products.[40] A 2018 Reuters investigation asserted that pharmaceuticals company Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that there was asbestos in its baby powder,[41] and in 2020 the company stopped selling its baby powder in the US and Canada. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbest...
SapporoChris 3y ago
This agency https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc... seems to downplay the risk of cancer. Is it possible Johnson and Johnson have been maligned? I'm not an advocate, I'd be interested in seeing significant evidence that their product causes cancer. However, I'd like to see a firm distinction between talc and talc contaminated with asbestos. The link with asbestos and cancer is clear. I'm not convinced of the problem with talc powder.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bagacrap 3y ago
  "J&J is facing more than 38,000 lawsuits alleging that the company's talc products, including its Baby Powder, were contaminated by asbestos and caused cancers"
  - KyleBerezin 3y ago
    And what does that prove? I'm not taking a side, but that just shows that 38,000 people got cancer and are litigating agains J&J. In a hypothetical world where talc doesn't cause cancer, and this study was published in error, I would still expect those sorts of numbers.
- azinman2 3y ago
  My understanding is that it naturally is in the material where talc is mined, so the inherent risk is always there.
  - sebstefan 3y ago
    Well that'd be enough for me to not want to use talc
- LMYahooTFY 3y ago
  Relevant Reuters investigation https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
10g1k 3y ago
Corporations = no personal liabilities. Scientists = personal liabilities. Even the threat of losing one's credibility and career for daring to publish science which might possibly harm corporate profits is a horrible thing.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  I was happy to see someone making this point, eventually. If the scientists formed their own spin-off limited liability company, declared bankruptcy days later, then gave ~$350 to J&J; that would make the playing field a bit more even.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
External-use-only products based on talc have been yanked from all shelves in every pharmacy and grocery store nationwide, while ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/myalli/products/alli%20120%20ct%20product%20label%20drug%20facts.pdf https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/my... I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.
- carbocation 3y ago
  > ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. Orlistat (tetrahydrolipstatin) is not talc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  It's listed as an inactive ingredient, so presumably it's just bulking up or binding together the pill in some way. Talc is approved as a food additive in the US and EU, it's probably fine. Considering the high profile nature of the baby powder lawsuit, I'd eat my boots if there aren't people examining other talc products looking for a new lawsuit opportunity. Besides, it's bound up in a pill instead of in a loose fine powder, so you're not likely to inhale it.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    I'm not saying it's dangerous; I'm saying it's ironic that the obviously-talc-containing products were quickly obliterated and replaced by corn starch, while alli® (and perhaps others) get by, because even cardiologists can't figure out that they contain talc.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
dreamcompiler 3y ago
Two things: 1. We need a federal anti-SLAPP law. 2. Discovery is a bitch, J&J.
- granzymes 3y ago
  J&J is certainly no stranger to discovery considering they’ve been sued hundreds of times over this product.
  - local_crmdgeon 3y ago
    And for their role in the opiod crisis. They're one of the "wow! Maybe we should use the corporate death penalty" companies
dcow 3y ago
What’s the story on the actual research? Is it legit? I find it hard to believe talc causes cancer. Apparently the research is on asbestos-containing talc, and J&J claims their talc never contained asbestos? What am I missing?
- msandford 3y ago
  You're missing that JJ probably doesn't have the many millions of lab tests for every talc batch sold to prove they're asbestos free. If they did they wouldn't be arguing they're asbestos free, they'd be proving it and suing the talc researchers for libel.
  - dcow 3y ago
    It sounds like they're suing them now.
verisimi 3y ago
I'm just so amazed! I thought Johnson & Johnson was one of the good corporations and would accept and honour its obligations. And that science has the truth to tell us what right or wrong, not a court. And that the law system would deliver justice. I'm just so amazed.
codelord 3y ago
As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statistical insignificance of improvements, overfitting to test data, and in some cases just flat-out fabrication of results. I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research. But just thinking that some paper can be used against you in court to claim billions of dollars in damages makes me uneasy. Peer reviewed paper != science. Peer review is a crude filter on research that can both accept bad work and reject good work. There must be a higher bar for something that can be used in the court of law. Some sort of scientific consensus must be needed at least. It's easy to dismiss this because screw J&J. But I think we are all paying for these lawsuits through our insurances and taxes and higher drug prices. Not saying these lawsuits don't have merits, but I think there must be a higher bar for what is presented as evidence.
- blitzar 3y ago
  We need a Journal of Medicore Results, or a Journal of Tried it and it Didn't Work. As with social media and society in general, only the most inflated of headlines gets attention causing the gold rush of hyped up results. Nothing can be published without the hype and hyperbole, which then sets the benchmark for the next round of hype.
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    You say it as if that is something that should be accepted.
    - willis936 3y ago
      Is their desire to change it not evidence that they don't accept it? What they want is a real solution rather than to simply complain about the problem while doing nothing (which is closer to acceptance).
amelius 3y ago
How did asbestos end up in the talc?
- sampo 3y ago
  Talc is a clay mineral, and sometimes is co-occurs with asbestos ore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Both talc and chrysotile (the most frequently encountered asbestos mineral) are hydrated magnesium silicates, which are formed together in various proportions through the alteration by water of certain volcanic rocks that are rich in olivine. When talc is mined, it is hard to ensure that it is sufficiently pure and not mixed with other minerals that are found together with it, like asbestos. When very pure talc is desired, it is made artificially, by chemical synthesis, using pure magnesium carbonate and pure silicon dioxide. This is much more expensive than natural mined talc.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Thanks! > When very pure talc is desired, it is made artificially, by chemical synthesis, using pure magnesium carbonate and pure silicon dioxide. This is much more expensive than natural mined talc. Is there a way to find out what kind of talc was used in a product?
anothernewdude 3y ago
If the country that this is happening in ever wants scientific research in their country to happen, this lawsuit needs to be thrown out.
andsoitis 3y ago
Here's the article that Reuters published in 2018 about their investigation into J&J's knowledge of asbestos contamination in their talc products: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
macinjosh 3y ago
The use of a bankruptcy court, to a layman like me, looks suspicious, even after reading all the comments explaining it. Is this not what class-action suits are for? Combining similar cases into one to save court resources? This seems like a backwards way to go about that which affords J&J lawyers more surface area from which to litigate about technicalities, loop-holes, etc. My assumption is they determined this first $65 billion will be enough to make the problem go away. Claimants will get a big check, but not big enough to launch further litigation to get more out of the company. IMO, this is solving a problem that does not exist. If one or two initial claimants were to clean out the whole company then subsequent claimants could sue them for their share, or the courts could step in and enforce a class-action.
xwdv 3y ago
Talc isn’t really used in sufficient quantities to cause cancer. So maybe this suit is justified? It’s kind of like those California cancer warning labels you find on everything but in practice the cancer risk is near zero, all it does is spook the masses.
sesuximo 3y ago
:/ - J&J made useful products that may have been problematic according to cutting edge research. Now they are broke and fighting tons of litigation. And they are acting shady in court (thx to their lawyers/management, not their researchers no doubt). - Researchers did cutting edge work on a relevant topic. Now they are getting sued. - a load of people are suing J&J after choosing to buy their products. I’m sure some of the plaintiffs have real tough situations and some are motivated by greed/pushy lawyers. These people might get paid. - the lawyers who did no cutting edge work and made no useful products are getting paid - regular folk might have to pay more for j&j products Few winners, and not the winners I would have wanted

508 points by sndean 3y ago

This will be an interesting one to follow. J&J may have a case but could also just be a case of supressing bad news. The original study had a very small sample size (33 people), which one could argue would be small enough to dismiss. Are there any larger follow up studies?

ralph84 3y ago
This is also interesting: > Moline published an article in 2019 studying 33 patients who said their only exposure to asbestos came from talc products, and Emory, Kradin and Maddox followed up with a 2020 study of 75 similar patients. > All four doctors have provided expert testimony in lawsuits against J&J, and their research has been cited in lawsuits where they have not testified, according to the complaints. > LTL said the researchers concealed the fact that some or all of the patients involved in their studies had been exposed to asbestos from other sources. If the only thing they used to exclude non-talc exposures was asking the study participants, that seems pretty weak science. And their income depended on not digging too deeply for other exposures.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

In some ways the talc controversy does seem similar to the silicone breast implant controversy in the 1990’s. An overview is at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206 https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206

jey 3y ago
Isn't the mechanism for the talc -> {ovarian cancer, mesothelioma} connection much clearer and stronger though? That talc co-occurs with asbestos, which is known to be highly carcinogenic and to cause the types of cancers being encountered here. The asbestos fibers were also (allegedly) found in laboratory analysis of samples of the commercial talc powder product.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Clearly, you’re one of those that feel like facts matter. This feels like one of those battles to be fought in the court of public opinion and not a court of law. In that type of fight, suppressing facts while speaking your narrative as loudly as possible is a winning move
- scotty79 3y ago
  > The asbestos fibers were also (allegedly) found in laboratory analysis of samples of the commercial talc powder product. Were they found in ovarian cancers? What's the clear link?
  - beowulfey 3y ago
    This is transitive risk. Asbestos is clearly linked to cancer > asbestos was found in talc and known to form with talc naturally > risk of using talc that isn’t pure. The problem is whether talc is pure. At that point it becomes a question of how much you trust J&J to verify that. My guess is that different mined sources varied in asbestos composition and there likely was some contamination that went undetected. But who knows.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >Isn't the mechanism for the talc -> {ovarian cancer, mesothelioma} connection much clearer and stronger though? No; not at all. It's extremely dubious indeed, in fact.
  - jey 3y ago
    You’re just creating FUD. Can you instead be more specific?
rcme 3y ago
That was published in 1996. Textured breast implants are associated with increased rates of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) [0]. Squamous cell carcinoma can also form in the scar tissue of many types of implants [1]. 0: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/patient-safety/breast-implant-safety/bia-alcl-summary https://www.plasticsurgery.org/patient-safety/breast-implant... 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/health/breast-implants-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/health/breast-implants-ca...
ciabattabread 3y ago
This is the key part of that article that hammered home to the point to me: > However, the benefit of implants to women's subjective well-being is less easily quantified. As Angell astutely points out, the FDA assumed that the benefits of breast implants were minimal—especially in women who desired implants for aesthetic reasons—and therefore demanded that implant manufacturers demonstrate virtually absolute safety.

FireBeyond 3y ago

Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management under a strategy called the “Texas two-step.” That legal but controversial approach allows a solvent parent company to protect its assets by creating a subsidiary to hold its liabilities — and then having the new company declare bankruptcy, as LTL did just days after incorporating. Critics complain it’s an abuse of the bankruptcy system and allows companies facing massive litigation to dodge corporate responsibility. > The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia dismissed the bankruptcy filing in January, finding LTL was not in financial distress and had “no valid bankruptcy purpose.” > But hours after that case was formally dismissed in April, LTL filed for bankruptcy protection again, this time with a higher settlement proposal of $8.9 billion. The fact that this is legal is such a mockery of consumer protection law.

adastra22 3y ago
How is this effective? Wouldn’t the creditors pierce the corporate veil of this obviously transparent and self-serving setup?
- ozzydave 3y ago
  OP is spinning this as an attempt by J&J to escape paying out the liability which it wasn’t - Matt Levine (of course!) explains the details here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-levine-johnson-johnson-s-jnj-bankruptcy-didn-t-work?in_source=embedded-checkout-banner https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
  - wak90 3y ago
    It's really odd that Bloomberg somehow reports that businesses abusing liability and bankruptcy laws is good, actually.

asdfasgasdgasdg 3y ago

If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? As we've seen in a number of other recent cases research is by no means free of malfeasance. Even research performed to some statistical standard may fall far short of truly indicating a casual link. These researchers have gained materially from the output of their research (expert witnesses do not testify for free). Of course if the lawsuit is baseless then it is an evil distraction but the mere act of suing researchers is not, on its face, a problem.

blincoln 3y ago
> If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? It depends. Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. and will argue things like "Subject A visited Australia ten years before the study and was in a city where some older structures were made using asbestos-infused concrete. Did the researchers think to ask their subjects if they'd traveled to Australia?"
- mkagenius 3y ago
  > Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. Ideally that should be part of the research paper if done diligently, refuting them even before people doubt them.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    Sure, but if people carrying out research were required to forensically examine the history of every research participant to the standard of a corporate law firm trying to find an angle to sue them, no research would ever be done.
  - danuker 3y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317550/ > The present study has several limitations. It is both retrospective and uncontrolled, and the cases were submitted in medico‐legal consultation, all of which potentially introduce bias. I think the researchers were quite open about what they did.

nubinetwork 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36731667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36731667

paul7986 3y ago

Hard one to decide though the researchers did profit nicely and they are not naming their patients name. Are they real patients and if so J&J does should have the right to research their health records. Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.

malfist 3y ago
Exactly what profit did the scientists make?
- jprete 3y ago
  According to J&J, literally millions of dollars: > LTL's lawsuits allege that the doctors' research allowed them to collect millions of dollars from plaintiffs' lawyers to push a "false narrative" about J&J. The complaint against Moline, for example, said she had made a "small fortune" testifying as a paid expert in lawsuits, receiving over $3 million from her work on asbestos lawsuits. LTL alleged that Kradin also made more than $3 million testifying as a plaintiffs' expert.
- ma2t 3y ago
  The complaints outline substantial profits that the scientists are alleged to have made as expert witnesses. All four are alleged to have made hundreds of dollars and hour, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or more than $3 million over multi-decade careers. According to the linked complaint, at least two have profit sharing in Peninsula Pathology Associates through which some of this litigation work flows. On quick read, it's not clear how much of this is directly talc related or even what fraction is related to more general asbestos litigation though.
  - youngtaff 3y ago
    $3 mn in a decade is only 300,000 / year Plus they’ll be costs involved that will come from that 300,000 too
    - 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

When you have a substance that is labeled "For External Use Only" and it's used in a way that manages to pack large quantities, asbestos or not, deeply into internal organs, then perhaps adverse effects can be expected. "Junk science" is a charitable description of what was perpetrated in those studies.

irjustin 3y ago

Scratching the surface on talc, it's difficult to determine what should/should-not be done. Cancer.org has a page on talc[0] and from it: > Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder. > Until more information is available, people who are concerned about possible links between talcum powder and cancer may choose to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it. Seems like more studies are needed for the consumer level. [0] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...

vibrio 3y ago
“Scratching the surface on talc“ Did you pun here on purpose? Almost ironically, Talc is a standard of care for malignant pleural effusions ( mesothelioma, long metastasis is other cancers cause “pockets” in the lung cavity which collect fluid and impede breathing and are painful. Talc is commonly put in the pleural space too -as I understand it— abrade the tissue and cause it to adhere, sealing the pockets and relieve some symptoms. To me it has been an example of how new drugs are badly needed in some serious but “esoteric” diseases.
bredren 3y ago
This reminds me of how the potential danger of living next to electrical substations is described.
fbdab103 3y ago
Having not followed the story too closely, it is also unclear to me under what timelines the talc was most likely to be contaminated with asbestos. Always? Up until X date? Just the baby powder form, but not the pills, etc? This blurb on Wikipedia [0] indicates that asbestos levels might have started being controlled as of 1976. >...Stringent quality control since 1976, including separating cosmetic- and food-grade talc from "industrial"-grade talc, has largely eliminated this issue, but it remains a potential hazard requiring mitigation in the mining and processing of talc.[39] A 2010 US FDA survey failed to find asbestos in a variety of talc-containing products.[40] A 2018 Reuters investigation asserted that pharmaceuticals company Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that there was asbestos in its baby powder,[41] and in 2020 the company stopped selling its baby powder in the US and Canada. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbest...

SapporoChris 3y ago

This agency https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc... seems to downplay the risk of cancer. Is it possible Johnson and Johnson have been maligned? I'm not an advocate, I'd be interested in seeing significant evidence that their product causes cancer. However, I'd like to see a firm distinction between talc and talc contaminated with asbestos. The link with asbestos and cancer is clear. I'm not convinced of the problem with talc powder.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago
[flagged]
bagacrap 3y ago
"J&J is facing more than 38,000 lawsuits alleging that the company's talc products, including its Baby Powder, were contaminated by asbestos and caused cancers"
- KyleBerezin 3y ago
  And what does that prove? I'm not taking a side, but that just shows that 38,000 people got cancer and are litigating agains J&J. In a hypothetical world where talc doesn't cause cancer, and this study was published in error, I would still expect those sorts of numbers.
azinman2 3y ago
My understanding is that it naturally is in the material where talc is mined, so the inherent risk is always there.
- sebstefan 3y ago
  Well that'd be enough for me to not want to use talc
LMYahooTFY 3y ago
Relevant Reuters investigation https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

10g1k 3y ago

Corporations = no personal liabilities. Scientists = personal liabilities. Even the threat of losing one's credibility and career for daring to publish science which might possibly harm corporate profits is a horrible thing.

mandmandam 3y ago
I was happy to see someone making this point, eventually. If the scientists formed their own spin-off limited liability company, declared bankruptcy days later, then gave ~$350 to J&J; that would make the playing field a bit more even.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

External-use-only products based on talc have been yanked from all shelves in every pharmacy and grocery store nationwide, while ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/myalli/products/alli%20120%20ct%20product%20label%20drug%20facts.pdf https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/my... I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.

carbocation 3y ago
> ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. Orlistat (tetrahydrolipstatin) is not talc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mcpackieh 3y ago
It's listed as an inactive ingredient, so presumably it's just bulking up or binding together the pill in some way. Talc is approved as a food additive in the US and EU, it's probably fine. Considering the high profile nature of the baby powder lawsuit, I'd eat my boots if there aren't people examining other talc products looking for a new lawsuit opportunity. Besides, it's bound up in a pill instead of in a loose fine powder, so you're not likely to inhale it.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  I'm not saying it's dangerous; I'm saying it's ironic that the obviously-talc-containing products were quickly obliterated and replaced by corn starch, while alli® (and perhaps others) get by, because even cardiologists can't figure out that they contain talc.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago

dreamcompiler 3y ago

Two things: 1. We need a federal anti-SLAPP law. 2. Discovery is a bitch, J&J.

granzymes 3y ago
J&J is certainly no stranger to discovery considering they’ve been sued hundreds of times over this product.
- local_crmdgeon 3y ago
  And for their role in the opiod crisis. They're one of the "wow! Maybe we should use the corporate death penalty" companies

dcow 3y ago

What’s the story on the actual research? Is it legit? I find it hard to believe talc causes cancer. Apparently the research is on asbestos-containing talc, and J&J claims their talc never contained asbestos? What am I missing?

msandford 3y ago
You're missing that JJ probably doesn't have the many millions of lab tests for every talc batch sold to prove they're asbestos free. If they did they wouldn't be arguing they're asbestos free, they'd be proving it and suing the talc researchers for libel.
- dcow 3y ago
  It sounds like they're suing them now.

verisimi 3y ago

I'm just so amazed! I thought Johnson & Johnson was one of the good corporations and would accept and honour its obligations. And that science has the truth to tell us what right or wrong, not a court. And that the law system would deliver justice. I'm just so amazed.

codelord 3y ago

As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statistical insignificance of improvements, overfitting to test data, and in some cases just flat-out fabrication of results. I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research. But just thinking that some paper can be used against you in court to claim billions of dollars in damages makes me uneasy. Peer reviewed paper != science. Peer review is a crude filter on research that can both accept bad work and reject good work. There must be a higher bar for something that can be used in the court of law. Some sort of scientific consensus must be needed at least. It's easy to dismiss this because screw J&J. But I think we are all paying for these lawsuits through our insurances and taxes and higher drug prices. Not saying these lawsuits don't have merits, but I think there must be a higher bar for what is presented as evidence.

blitzar 3y ago
We need a Journal of Medicore Results, or a Journal of Tried it and it Didn't Work. As with social media and society in general, only the most inflated of headlines gets attention causing the gold rush of hyped up results. Nothing can be published without the hype and hyperbole, which then sets the benchmark for the next round of hype.
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  You say it as if that is something that should be accepted.
  - willis936 3y ago
    Is their desire to change it not evidence that they don't accept it? What they want is a real solution rather than to simply complain about the problem while doing nothing (which is closer to acceptance).

amelius 3y ago

How did asbestos end up in the talc?

sampo 3y ago
Talc is a clay mineral, and sometimes is co-occurs with asbestos ore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos
adrian_b 3y ago
Both talc and chrysotile (the most frequently encountered asbestos mineral) are hydrated magnesium silicates, which are formed together in various proportions through the alteration by water of certain volcanic rocks that are rich in olivine. When talc is mined, it is hard to ensure that it is sufficiently pure and not mixed with other minerals that are found together with it, like asbestos. When very pure talc is desired, it is made artificially, by chemical synthesis, using pure magnesium carbonate and pure silicon dioxide. This is much more expensive than natural mined talc.
- amelius 3y ago
  Thanks! > When very pure talc is desired, it is made artificially, by chemical synthesis, using pure magnesium carbonate and pure silicon dioxide. This is much more expensive than natural mined talc. Is there a way to find out what kind of talc was used in a product?

anothernewdude 3y ago

If the country that this is happening in ever wants scientific research in their country to happen, this lawsuit needs to be thrown out.

andsoitis 3y ago

Here's the article that Reuters published in 2018 about their investigation into J&J's knowledge of asbestos contamination in their talc products: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

macinjosh 3y ago

The use of a bankruptcy court, to a layman like me, looks suspicious, even after reading all the comments explaining it. Is this not what class-action suits are for? Combining similar cases into one to save court resources? This seems like a backwards way to go about that which affords J&J lawyers more surface area from which to litigate about technicalities, loop-holes, etc. My assumption is they determined this first $65 billion will be enough to make the problem go away. Claimants will get a big check, but not big enough to launch further litigation to get more out of the company. IMO, this is solving a problem that does not exist. If one or two initial claimants were to clean out the whole company then subsequent claimants could sue them for their share, or the courts could step in and enforce a class-action.

xwdv 3y ago

Talc isn’t really used in sufficient quantities to cause cancer. So maybe this suit is justified? It’s kind of like those California cancer warning labels you find on everything but in practice the cancer risk is near zero, all it does is spook the masses.

sesuximo 3y ago

:/ - J&J made useful products that may have been problematic according to cutting edge research. Now they are broke and fighting tons of litigation. And they are acting shady in court (thx to their lawyers/management, not their researchers no doubt). - Researchers did cutting edge work on a relevant topic. Now they are getting sued. - a load of people are suing J&J after choosing to buy their products. I’m sure some of the plaintiffs have real tough situations and some are motivated by greed/pushy lawyers. These people might get paid. - the lawyers who did no cutting edge work and made no useful products are getting paid - regular folk might have to pay more for j&j products Few winners, and not the winners I would have wanted