3 ms·

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 persona

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...
sacnoradhq 3y ago
The contamination with, and lack of testing for, asbestos is the root cause. The US FDA dropped the ball and J&J knowingly sold a dangerous product. PS: Pool hand chalk is compressed, low-grade talc powder likely to contain asbestos. Climbing chalk is usually made from MgCO3 so it's probably safe.
scotty79 3y ago
Why specifically ovarian cancer and not other cancers? I would expecf lung cancer or skin cancer before that. Did they confirm the link? Did they find asbestos in ovarian tumors?
refurb 3y ago
No doubt I'll be downloaded into oblivion, but it's a massive money making venture for lawyers, similar to "silicone breast implants cause cancer" back in the 90's (which turned out to be false). The FDA did test randomly test a bunch of talc products and the "FDA found “sub-trace” levels, or no greater than 0.00002%, of chrysotile asbestos contamination in a bottle purchased from an online retailer." That's 0.2 parts per million, or 200 nanograms in a gram, or 200 micrograms in a kilogram of powder in one sample. Add on top: - the FDA tested a number of products and most had zero asbestos (it's a trace contaminant not usually found in talc used for humans) - the amount of talc that might be suspended in the air when using the products is measured in milligrams (so now we're getting into picograms of asbestos) - J&J was sued for causing ovarian cancer, there isn't even a scientific link to ovarian cancer for asbestos. The link to cancer is tenuous as best, but the lawyers smelled blood and could piece together enough of a story to get jury to find J&J guilty based on a "more likely than not" threshold. In the end the winners in all this are the lawyers. Look at the studies that were used as evidence, here is a link to the full paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847157/pdf/12995_2023_Article_367.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847157/pdf/129... "Exposure data was obtained by sworn testimony of the mesothelioma patients in all cases, and/or from family members who had direct knowledge of the individual’s use of cosmetic talc and, if present, other sources of asbestos exposure." That's it. The patient's and family member's word. No testing of samples for asbestos contamination, no review of their home to see if there was asbestos. Just a sworn statement.
- wmeredith 3y ago
  That’s bananas. Self reported data is garbage.
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  >That's it. The patient's and family member's word. No testing of samples for asbestos contamination, no review of their home to see if there was asbestos. Just a sworn statement. I just looked at the two studies referenced in the article - Moline 2019 and Emory, Kradin, and Maddox 2020. One might assume that they looked at large samples of people with and without talc exposure and with and without a mesothelioma diagnosis to find a correlation. That assumption would be incorrect. Sample sizes were small, n=33 and n=75, respectively. In both studies, all subjects had a mesothelioma diagnosis. As you said, they relied on patient and family member statements that they had no asbestos exposure other than from cosmetic talc (something we now know to be false). They asked subjects when they started using talc, how long they used it, and to what degree they used it, and then calculated average latency to onset from that. They also looked at tissue biopsies in a subset of the subjects (e.g., 11 of the 75 in the later study) and confirmed the presence of asbestos fibers and made an attempt at calculating the fiber concentration in 9 of the 11. It is unclear exactly what these studies purport to demonstrate. There's really no conclusion to draw other than "these people all have mesothelioma, some of them have asbestos fibers in their lungs, they all claim to never have had any exposure to asbestos, and oh by the way they all also used cosmetic talc to varying degrees over the years".

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...

sacnoradhq 3y ago

The contamination with, and lack of testing for, asbestos is the root cause. The US FDA dropped the ball and J&J knowingly sold a dangerous product. PS: Pool hand chalk is compressed, low-grade talc powder likely to contain asbestos. Climbing chalk is usually made from MgCO3 so it's probably safe.

scotty79 3y ago

Why specifically ovarian cancer and not other cancers? I would expecf lung cancer or skin cancer before that. Did they confirm the link? Did they find asbestos in ovarian tumors?

refurb 3y ago

No doubt I'll be downloaded into oblivion, but it's a massive money making venture for lawyers, similar to "silicone breast implants cause cancer" back in the 90's (which turned out to be false). The FDA did test randomly test a bunch of talc products and the "FDA found “sub-trace” levels, or no greater than 0.00002%, of chrysotile asbestos contamination in a bottle purchased from an online retailer." That's 0.2 parts per million, or 200 nanograms in a gram, or 200 micrograms in a kilogram of powder in one sample. Add on top: - the FDA tested a number of products and most had zero asbestos (it's a trace contaminant not usually found in talc used for humans) - the amount of talc that might be suspended in the air when using the products is measured in milligrams (so now we're getting into picograms of asbestos) - J&J was sued for causing ovarian cancer, there isn't even a scientific link to ovarian cancer for asbestos. The link to cancer is tenuous as best, but the lawyers smelled blood and could piece together enough of a story to get jury to find J&J guilty based on a "more likely than not" threshold. In the end the winners in all this are the lawyers. Look at the studies that were used as evidence, here is a link to the full paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847157/pdf/12995_2023_Article_367.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847157/pdf/129... "Exposure data was obtained by sworn testimony of the mesothelioma patients in all cases, and/or from family members who had direct knowledge of the individual’s use of cosmetic talc and, if present, other sources of asbestos exposure." That's it. The patient's and family member's word. No testing of samples for asbestos contamination, no review of their home to see if there was asbestos. Just a sworn statement.

wmeredith 3y ago
That’s bananas. Self reported data is garbage.
DebtDeflation 3y ago
>That's it. The patient's and family member's word. No testing of samples for asbestos contamination, no review of their home to see if there was asbestos. Just a sworn statement. I just looked at the two studies referenced in the article - Moline 2019 and Emory, Kradin, and Maddox 2020. One might assume that they looked at large samples of people with and without talc exposure and with and without a mesothelioma diagnosis to find a correlation. That assumption would be incorrect. Sample sizes were small, n=33 and n=75, respectively. In both studies, all subjects had a mesothelioma diagnosis. As you said, they relied on patient and family member statements that they had no asbestos exposure other than from cosmetic talc (something we now know to be false). They asked subjects when they started using talc, how long they used it, and to what degree they used it, and then calculated average latency to onset from that. They also looked at tissue biopsies in a subset of the subjects (e.g., 11 of the 75 in the later study) and confirmed the presence of asbestos fibers and made an attempt at calculating the fiber concentration in 9 of the 11. It is unclear exactly what these studies purport to demonstrate. There's really no conclusion to draw other than "these people all have mesothelioma, some of them have asbestos fibers in their lungs, they all claim to never have had any exposure to asbestos, and oh by the way they all also used cosmetic talc to varying degrees over the years".