3 ms·

I don’t know anything about biology, so could someone explain the mechanism by which this powder could have caused ovarian cancer? (Genuine question, not rheto

I don’t know anything about biology, so could someone explain the mechanism by which this powder could have caused ovarian cancer? (Genuine question, not rhetorical, not intending to make any point with it)

ImHereToVote 3y ago
Asbestos fibers have been known for causing these cell changes for decades now.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  It’s not just the asbestos angle. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc > One of these, published in 1993, was a US National Toxicology Program report, which found that cosmetic grade talc containing no asbestos-like fibres was correlated with tumor formation in rats
  - SigmundA 3y ago
    "rats forced to inhale talc for 6 hours a day, five days a week over at least 113 weeks." Thats a lot different than applying it to your body. If I inhale sand for 6 hours a day for 113 weeks I would not be surprised to get tumors as well, I still go to the beach. Most things around us we touch could cause tumors if we inhaled them constantly over time.
Workaccount2 3y ago
Talc powder is what is used in baby powder. In nature, the majority of talc deposits also contain asbestos. Even worse, the form of asbestos in those deposits is the most cancerous form of it. So basically what was happening was that women were using baby powder as a absorbent to keep their lady parts feeling fresh, but were introducing a whole bunch of asbestos in the process. This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your hoo-haa to begin with.
- catlikesshrimp 3y ago
  "This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your hoo-haa to begin with" Not so uncommon where I live. BTW, baby girls ALSO have ovaries, and they use talc for prolonged periods of time. I also use talc in my groin. Not often, but still. Prostate cancer is not a concern for older males (we all develop it some time), but testicular cancer is a thing (mostly in children)
  - Shank 3y ago
    > Prostate cancer is not a concern for older males (we all develop it some time) I’m sorry? What? Prostate cancer is definitely a concern in males, and in no-way is it expected or an inevitability.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Prostate cancer becomes more commonplace as men grow older, but also less virulent. An urologist whom I helped with typesetting of his PhD thesis (in LaTeX, funny guy) told me once that in patients over 70, basically everyone has some cancerous cells in his biopsy samples, but that these usually aren't actually dangerous to the patients.
    - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
      I am more concerned about the surgery to unblock the urethra, which is often needed, becauseof the urinary incontinence that might result from it. Prostate cancer, as others have mentioned, is guaranteed, like death. But it is not something that affects most men's life beyond the worry of getting it. Going offtopic: Colorectal cancer is a more pressing matter for older adults. Correct Screening saves lives.
    - joncrocks 3y ago
      While it is a concern, I think all males 'get it' if they advance enough in years. I remember reading somewhere that if you biopsied those that died of 'old-age' then it would be present in some form. So it's not a question of if, but when, and when, whether it'll be the thing that gets you before something else gives out.
mikeyouse 3y ago
The talc they were sourcing was riddled with asbestos, which they covered up for years. Asbestos’s carcinogenic nature is unique in that the physical shape of the fibers is what causes the cancers. So many of the cancers implicated here were due to the typical path of women breathing the powder in while applying to their babies, etc, but the ovarian ones were likely caused by women applying talc to their perineum following birth or surgery - the asbestos fibers would be introduced into the vagina and ‘burrow’ into the cells where they cause similar cancers to mesothelioma or actually interfere with mitosis due to being similarly sized to chromosomes. It’s not too far fetched since the uterus and lungs are both lined with similar types of epithelial and mucosal cells.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  > were sourcing was riddled with asbestos It was allegedly contaminated beyond a couple of confirmed samples that contained very low levels. It was never demonstrated that the issue was widespread or that any plaintiff had ever purchased a contaminated product. That isn't to say that there isn't/wasn't a problem, but "sourcing was riddled with asbestos" is a gross overstatement.
  - TeeMassive 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - ch4s3 3y ago
      What I'm saying specifically is that only a few samples of talc over many years ever tested positive for any asbestos at all. It is likely that most of the plaintiffs were never actually exposed at all. The burden of proof in civil cases is "a preponderance of the evidence", which is basically legalese for 51% likely or better. That said, it is quite possible that pure talc itself is dangerous to epithelial cells but that's not well established yet.
      - mikeyouse 3y ago
        Part of the issue is that several of the mines that J&J sourced its talc from were known to have asbestos, which some of their tests discovered — and then we left it up to the company for the next 50 years to continue their own testing and disclosure… it strains credulity that some tests at eg Windsor Mines showed “rather high” levels of asbestos fibers and then they completely stopped finding fibers from the same mine later on. A responsible company would have stopped sourcing talc from asbestos-containing mines in favor of many other slightly more expensive sources that never showed any asbestos. J&J didn’t. That's not to say there aren't a bunch of shady lawyers filing suits on behalf of people who didn't actually have provable damages from the products - but I think it's okay to hold companies to very high standards in cases like this.
contravariant 3y ago
The most obvious would be asbestos contamination. There was for example a Reuters investigation in 2018 that claims J&J were aware of test showing asbestos in some of their talc. Looks like there are also suspicions towards talc itself, but it might be hard to prove that J&J was negligent in that regard. Unless there's been some cover-up that I/we don't know about.
SigmundA 3y ago
Exactly I can't find any explanation how abestos could migrate from external application up to the ovaries, this seems like an obvious issue. Abestos is not harmful just by touching it, you get cancer from it by breathing it in significant quantities over time (or ingesting it).

ImHereToVote 3y ago

Asbestos fibers have been known for causing these cell changes for decades now.

blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
It’s not just the asbestos angle. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc > One of these, published in 1993, was a US National Toxicology Program report, which found that cosmetic grade talc containing no asbestos-like fibres was correlated with tumor formation in rats
- SigmundA 3y ago
  "rats forced to inhale talc for 6 hours a day, five days a week over at least 113 weeks." Thats a lot different than applying it to your body. If I inhale sand for 6 hours a day for 113 weeks I would not be surprised to get tumors as well, I still go to the beach. Most things around us we touch could cause tumors if we inhaled them constantly over time.

Workaccount2 3y ago

Talc powder is what is used in baby powder. In nature, the majority of talc deposits also contain asbestos. Even worse, the form of asbestos in those deposits is the most cancerous form of it. So basically what was happening was that women were using baby powder as a absorbent to keep their lady parts feeling fresh, but were introducing a whole bunch of asbestos in the process. This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your hoo-haa to begin with.

catlikesshrimp 3y ago
"This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your hoo-haa to begin with" Not so uncommon where I live. BTW, baby girls ALSO have ovaries, and they use talc for prolonged periods of time. I also use talc in my groin. Not often, but still. Prostate cancer is not a concern for older males (we all develop it some time), but testicular cancer is a thing (mostly in children)
- Shank 3y ago
  > Prostate cancer is not a concern for older males (we all develop it some time) I’m sorry? What? Prostate cancer is definitely a concern in males, and in no-way is it expected or an inevitability.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Prostate cancer becomes more commonplace as men grow older, but also less virulent. An urologist whom I helped with typesetting of his PhD thesis (in LaTeX, funny guy) told me once that in patients over 70, basically everyone has some cancerous cells in his biopsy samples, but that these usually aren't actually dangerous to the patients.
  - catlikesshrimp 3y ago
    I am more concerned about the surgery to unblock the urethra, which is often needed, becauseof the urinary incontinence that might result from it. Prostate cancer, as others have mentioned, is guaranteed, like death. But it is not something that affects most men's life beyond the worry of getting it. Going offtopic: Colorectal cancer is a more pressing matter for older adults. Correct Screening saves lives.
  - joncrocks 3y ago
    While it is a concern, I think all males 'get it' if they advance enough in years. I remember reading somewhere that if you biopsied those that died of 'old-age' then it would be present in some form. So it's not a question of if, but when, and when, whether it'll be the thing that gets you before something else gives out.

mikeyouse 3y ago

The talc they were sourcing was riddled with asbestos, which they covered up for years. Asbestos’s carcinogenic nature is unique in that the physical shape of the fibers is what causes the cancers. So many of the cancers implicated here were due to the typical path of women breathing the powder in while applying to their babies, etc, but the ovarian ones were likely caused by women applying talc to their perineum following birth or surgery - the asbestos fibers would be introduced into the vagina and ‘burrow’ into the cells where they cause similar cancers to mesothelioma or actually interfere with mitosis due to being similarly sized to chromosomes. It’s not too far fetched since the uterus and lungs are both lined with similar types of epithelial and mucosal cells.

ch4s3 3y ago
> were sourcing was riddled with asbestos It was allegedly contaminated beyond a couple of confirmed samples that contained very low levels. It was never demonstrated that the issue was widespread or that any plaintiff had ever purchased a contaminated product. That isn't to say that there isn't/wasn't a problem, but "sourcing was riddled with asbestos" is a gross overstatement.
- TeeMassive 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    What I'm saying specifically is that only a few samples of talc over many years ever tested positive for any asbestos at all. It is likely that most of the plaintiffs were never actually exposed at all. The burden of proof in civil cases is "a preponderance of the evidence", which is basically legalese for 51% likely or better. That said, it is quite possible that pure talc itself is dangerous to epithelial cells but that's not well established yet.
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      Part of the issue is that several of the mines that J&J sourced its talc from were known to have asbestos, which some of their tests discovered — and then we left it up to the company for the next 50 years to continue their own testing and disclosure… it strains credulity that some tests at eg Windsor Mines showed “rather high” levels of asbestos fibers and then they completely stopped finding fibers from the same mine later on. A responsible company would have stopped sourcing talc from asbestos-containing mines in favor of many other slightly more expensive sources that never showed any asbestos. J&J didn’t. That's not to say there aren't a bunch of shady lawyers filing suits on behalf of people who didn't actually have provable damages from the products - but I think it's okay to hold companies to very high standards in cases like this.

contravariant 3y ago

The most obvious would be asbestos contamination. There was for example a Reuters investigation in 2018 that claims J&J were aware of test showing asbestos in some of their talc. Looks like there are also suspicions towards talc itself, but it might be hard to prove that J&J was negligent in that regard. Unless there's been some cover-up that I/we don't know about.

SigmundA 3y ago

Exactly I can't find any explanation how abestos could migrate from external application up to the ovaries, this seems like an obvious issue. Abestos is not harmful just by touching it, you get cancer from it by breathing it in significant quantities over time (or ingesting it).