$4.69 billion verdict against Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder

[realibrad]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/health/4-69-billion-verdict-johnson--johnson-talcum-powder/index.html

After 8 hours of deliberations Thursday, a St. Louis jury awarded $4.69 billion to 22 women who sued pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson alleging their ovarian cancer was caused by using its powder as a part of their daily feminine hygiene routine.

The jury award includes $550 million in compensatory damages and $4.14 billion in punitive damages. It's the largest verdict against the company that has sold Baby Powder and Shower to Shower brand talcum powder for decades.

The data is not very clear on this, so to award that amount of money is absurd.

 

[nakedfrog]

The segment I saw said something like they looked at the recent profit of $70 million in a year, and then multiplied that by the number of years it's been available.

 

[realibrad]

The segment I saw said something like they looked at the recent profit of $70 million in a year, and then multiplied that by the number of years it's been available.

Still absurd. The link is small at best and needs way more study before you can say that it causes cancer. This is a case where people felt bad for someone, and wanted a rich company to pay for their suffering.

 

[zinfamous]

Still absurd. The link is small at best and needs way more study before you can say that it causes cancer. This is a case where people felt bad for someone, and wanted a rich company to pay for their suffering.

Maybe. But really it's further enforcement that the only real way to hold to account bad companies acting in bad ways is through tort. On top of that, a lot of these products aimed at "feminine hygiene" have been conclusively shown to be not only useless, but extremely damaging to health for decades now. I assume this lawsuit goes back years, but essentially any company that markets products claiming that women need to clean out their vaginas or use powders to keep things dry, and to buy their products to do so, needs to be held to account. It's worse than gross negligence.

 

[realibrad]

Maybe. But really it's further enforcement that the only real way to hold to account bad companies acting in bad ways is through tort. On top of that, a lot of these products aimed at "feminine hygiene" have been conclusively shown to be not only useless, but extremely damaging to health for decades now. I assume this lawsuit goes back years, but essentially any company that markets products claiming that women need to clean out their vaginas or use powders to keep things dry, and to buy their products to do so, needs to be held to account. It's worse than gross negligence.

Its one thing to say false advertising. Its a whole different story when you blame them for your cancer and the data just is not there.

Also, if you think that keeping your vagina dry is not something beneficial, then you should talk to women. Just like when your balls get hot and wet and it get annoying when it sticks to your leg, so does the labia. If you shave it only makes it worse as the hairs grind.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe. But really it's further enforcement that the only real way to hold to account bad companies acting in bad ways is through tort. On top of that, a lot of these products aimed at "feminine hygiene" have been conclusively shown to be not only useless, but extremely damaging to health for decades now. I assume this lawsuit goes back years, but essentially any company that markets products claiming that women need to clean out their vaginas or use powders to keep things dry, and to buy their products to do so, needs to be held to account. It's worse than gross negligence.

Gwyneth Paltrow has a Crystal for that.

 

[Thebobo]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/health/4-69-billion-verdict-johnson--johnson-talcum-powder/index.html

The data is not very clear on this, so to award that amount of money is absurd.

Well why didn't the defense ask you to testify then? You seem to know more about "the data" then they do.

 

[Mai72]

I wonder if this case will open the door to other possible lawsuits that have huge financial ramifications for name brands?

Lets look at Type 2 diabities and the foods we eat and drink. If I have type 2, why couldn't I sue Coke or Doritos for contributing to my type 2? Or, fast food restaurants for that matter.

 

[realibrad]

Well why didn't the defense ask you to testify then? You seem to know more about "the data" then they do.

They actually did have researchers say just that. As I said, they awarded the amount based on feeling bad for the woman. This is going to open up a can of worms, because now a company can be sued for anything even if there is not science behind it.

 

[sdifox]

Asbestos plus mineral talc. WTF they covered up an adbestos product for forty years! Asbestos and talc were found in many of thr plaintiff's ovaries.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/johnson-johnson-talc-powder-cancer-lawsuit-1.4745406

 

[realibrad]

Asbestos plus mineral talc. WTF they covered up an adbestos product for forty years! Asbestos and talc were found in many of thr plaintiff's ovaries.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/johnson-johnson-talc-powder-cancer-lawsuit-1.4745406

That was a claim and no evidence was found. What they said was that they found talc particles as well as asbestos on ovarian tissue. There has never been any evidence where talc was shown to have it. All samples tested did not show asbestos.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...c-cancer-risk-differs-for-jurors-researchers/

Talcum powders are made of talc, a mineral comprised of bits of magnesium, silicon and oxygen that absorbs moisture. In its natural form, some talc contains asbestos, a known carcinogen. But all commercial products sold in the United States have been asbestos-free since the 1970s.

Even so, the association stuck, said Dr. Ranit Mishori, a professor of family medicine at Georgetown University.

"That initial idea that talcum has some asbestos in it put that on the radar of certain researchers and public health experts years and years ago," she said.

The real issue here was not about asbestos at all. The accusation is that talc power causes inflammation, and inflammation is associated with higher risk of cancer, therefor if you get talc power into your vagina it can eventually make its way to your ovaries, cause inflammation and thus cancer.

This case was not about asbestos.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

My grandmother died of ovarian cancer. There was always talcum powder around the house. She used if for everything from folding sheets to keeping your feet dry. I always hated the smell and thus stayed away from the stuff...but still makes you think....

 

[Amused]

This really is based on little to no science whatsoever.

It's sad that there exists a divide between actual scientific consensus and jury awards. It's far to easy for pseudoscience to enter courtroom testimony.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html

• Based on the lack of data from human studies and on limited data in lab animal studies, IARC classifies inhaled talc not containing asbestos as “not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.”
• Based on limited evidence from human studies of a link to ovarian cancer, IARC classifies the perineal (genital) use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
  

This is not nearly enough evidence to base an award on. At all. About all they have is barely noticable correlation in a minority of studies.

And the fact that some talc many years ago may have contained asbestos fogs this issue, because this lawsuit was not about asbestos containing talc.

All in all, a bad verdict and one I hope gets overturned on appeal.

 

[Greenman]

This really is based on little to no science whatsoever.

It's sad that there exists a divide between actual scientific consensus and jury awards. It's far to easy for pseudoscience to enter courtroom testimony.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html

• Based on the lack of data from human studies and on limited data in lab animal studies, IARC classifies inhaled talc not containing asbestos as “not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.”
• Based on limited evidence from human studies of a link to ovarian cancer, IARC classifies the perineal (genital) use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

This is not nearly enough evidence to base an award on. At all. About all they have is barely noticable correlation in a minority of studies.

And the fact that some talc many years ago may have contained asbestos fogs this issue, because this lawsuit was not about asbestos containing talc.

All in all, a bad verdict and one I hope gets overturned on appeal.

Well isn't this a red letter day, I agree with you 100%! We should both go and buy lottery tickets, or maybe get commemorative tattoos. Then we could both lose two bucks and both get a skin infection and the universe would be back in balance.

 

[Amused]

Well isn't this a red letter day, I agree with you 100%! We should both go and buy lottery tickets, or maybe get commemorative tattoos. Then we could both lose two bucks and both get a skin infection and the universe would be back in balance.

I will always object to anti-science and pseudoscience nonsense.

The funny thing about science is people agree with it... up until it proves something they believe to be false or without merit.

This is a good example.

Others are:
GMOs (the fears are unfounded)
"Organic" food (is a scam)
alt-medicine (snake oil salesman)
climate change (yes, it is real and yes, we are the major cause of it)
chemophobia (everything is chemicals)
Vaccines. (are perfectly safe and the single most important advance in medical history)

And that's just a short list.

 

[Greenman]

I will always object to anti-science and pseudoscience nonsense.

The funny thing about science is people agree with it... up until it proves something they believe to be false or without merit.

This is a good example.

Others are:
GMOs (the fears are unfounded)
"Organic" food (is a scam)
alt-medicine (snake oil salesman)
climate change (yes, it is real and yes, we are the major cause of it)
chemophobia (everything is chemicals)
Vaccines. (are perfectly safe and the single most important advance in medical history)

And that's just a short list.

Only thing on that list I would quibble with is vaccines. There is a tiny percentage that react badly to them. All my kids were vaccinated, there is just no arguing with the numbers.

 

[Amused]

Only thing on that list I would quibble with is vaccines. There is a tiny percentage that react badly to them. All my kids were vaccinated, there is just no arguing with the numbers.

OK, yes, one in millions can have an allergic reaction to them. And that number is smaller today because tests can predict if they will for a large number, and those kids are exempted.

 

[sdifox]

This really is based on little to no science whatsoever.

It's sad that there exists a divide between actual scientific consensus and jury awards. It's far to easy for pseudoscience to enter courtroom testimony.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html

• Based on the lack of data from human studies and on limited data in lab animal studies, IARC classifies inhaled talc not containing asbestos as “not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans.”
• Based on limited evidence from human studies of a link to ovarian cancer, IARC classifies the perineal (genital) use of talc-based body powder as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

This is not nearly enough evidence to base an award on. At all. About all they have is barely noticable correlation in a minority of studies.

And the fact that some talc many years ago may have contained asbestos fogs this issue, because this lawsuit was not about asbestos containing talc.

All in all, a bad verdict and one I hope gets overturned on appeal.

But I thought MAGA is all about feels?

 

[uclaLabrat]

I will always object to anti-science and pseudoscience nonsense.

The funny thing about science is people agree with it... up until it proves something they believe to be false or without merit.

This is a good example.

Others are:
GMOs (the fears are unfounded)
"Organic" food (is a scam)
alt-medicine (snake oil salesman)
climate change (yes, it is real and yes, we are the major cause of it)
chemophobia (everything is chemicals)
Vaccines. (are perfectly safe and the single most important advance in medical history)

And that's just a short list.

I'm a scientist, and I approve this message.