4 ms·
> "They are directly responsible for a lot of cancer in their patients" I would like to see extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
by LeoPanthera 3y ago
> "They are directly responsible for a lot of cancer in their patients"
I would like to see extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoThe pro-publica report describes how the machines would cause cancer: The polyurethane foam used to muffle the sound degrades over time, including into some substances that are carcinogenic. The CPAP machine then blows those particles into the lungs of patients every night. [1] I don't think the reporting proves that the CPAPs caused cancer, but I do think the preponderance of the evidence is that they did. No one is contesting that the foam degraded, or that it was blown into patient's lungs. People would wake up and regularly find black dust in their masks. The pro-publica report does not specify what substance is carcinogenic, but they mention a test report that sounds like a biocompatibility report which found genotoxicity. So it's likely that test also found carcinogenicity. If the machines were blowing carcinogenic particles into people's lungs, that would cause cancer. [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/philips-kept-warnings-about-dangerous-cpaps-secret-profits-soared https://www.propublica.org/article/philips-kept-warnings-abo...
- RecycledEle 3y agoRead the article. The evidence is in the article.
- LeoPanthera 3y agoThe word "cancer" is not in the article.
- vGPU 3y agoThe word “carcinogenic” is.
- LeoPanthera 3y agoAnd that is very different from "directly responsible for a lot of cancer in their patients".
- catchnear4321 3y agoyou know it’s true. this makes it sound like the company implanted cancer in people. hardly! it just enabled and concealed exposure to carcinogenic compounds, through breathing, nightly. for thousands of patients. these are not the same.