• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Johnson&Johnson Baby Powder

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,781
4,863
136
The corporate shell game should really be illegal. But blatant attempts of shielding assets like this have failed in the past, so lets hope this one does too.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,666
3,790
126
I remember people on Ars crying foul that J&J even lost the case let alone getting the punitive damages they did. It was disgusting watching people defend a company outed for knowing that their product was causing such harm and trying to cover it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,167
1,914
126
My bro-in-law doused himself with J&J baby powder every day. He was a machinist and thus sweat a lot and wanted not to sweat so much. Or, thinking the baby powder would help.
After years of dong this, he developed skin cancer under his armpits and on his back.

My mother developed ovarian cancer, had the surgery followed by radiation treatment, and had a terrible time ever after. That radiation treatment was especially hard on her. She's gone now, but I know it was the J&J powder.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,373
1,522
136
Regardless of what happens with the lawsuit, there should be criminal charges against the individuals that were responsible for this.
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,869
1,399
136
I remember people on Ars crying foul that J&J even lost the case let alone getting the punitive damages they did. It was disgusting watching people defend a company outed for knowing that their product was causing such harm and trying to cover it up.
Issue is the connection behind asbestos from talc causing cancer is pretty spotty:
"Talcum Powder and Cancer" https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html

Asbestos causing cancer is known but limited to lung cancer, at least as far as I've been able to find.

Links to systemic cancer (like ovarian) are extremely weak.

So did they have asbestos in their product? Yes. Did it cause a ton of cancer? Unlikely.

Courts are NOTORIOUSLY bad at interpreting scientific data appropriately.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,482
10,213
136
Don't know all the facts here, but I'd like to know when this corporate spinoff occurred relative to when it became clear that J&J could face liability over the baby powder.

The law precludes what they call "fraudulent transfers" of assets to avoid liability. This applies to both individuals and corporations. The classic case is a man is sued, then gets a "divorce" from his wife, giving her all his assets in the divorce settlement. Then you find out that husband and wife are still co-habiting. That BTW is an actual case I was involved in.

Conceptually, this is like a corporate divorce. If J&J did so after it was aware of potential liability, and did so for the purpose of shielding the bulk of its assets, that is illegal.
 

herm0016

Diamond Member
Feb 26, 2005
7,964
715
126
1. post the damn thing here. so we can know what you are talking about, not a link to twitter. its blocked on a lot of corp. networks.

2. There is no scientific evidence that the tiny amount of naturally occurring asbestos in talc is linked to cancer. they were also using the product off label. if I was huffing it and got lung cancer, should they also be liable? also, if it were true all those people that had lung cancer from it would have been having skin cancer, or we would have seen a huge increase in other cancer in asbestos related industries. like a couple older guys i know that did plaster work for their life. dead of lung cancer. or a industrial mechanic friend of mine that did as well. often exposure was in the form of dust from sanding the plaster down, or breathing in the plaster before its mixed, or disturbing insulation on a machine with your hands, etc.

3. i'm sure it was not all the nasty stuff in industrial machine shops that contributed to the skin cancer? stuff with scientific evidence of harm to humans?
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,871
4,673
126
Don't know all the facts here, but I'd like to know when this corporate spinoff occurred relative to when it became clear that J&J could face liability over the baby powder.

The law precludes what they call "fraudulent transfers" of assets to avoid liability. This applies to both individuals and corporations. The classic case is a man is sued, then gets a "divorce" from his wife, giving her all his assets in the divorce settlement. Then you find out that husband and wife are still co-habiting. That BTW is an actual case I was involved in.

Conceptually, this is like a corporate divorce. If J&J did so after it was aware of potential liability, and did so for the purpose of shielding the bulk of its assets, that is illegal.
wont proving the bolded part be difficult? like, unless they have emails saying "we need to do this to avoid liability", who's to say it isn't extremely conveniently timed and pure coincidence? (obligatory sarcasm disclaimer)
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
14,482
10,213
136
wont proving the bolded part be difficult? like, unless they have emails saying "we need to do this to avoid liability", who's to say it isn't extremely conveniently timed and pure coincidence? (obligatory sarcasm disclaimer)
Not as hard as you think because it's a civil law, not criminal. So, in the example I gave of the divorce, it was sufficient to show that the couple had continued co-habiting, and that no reasonable person would just give all of their assets away in a divorce unless they had an improper motive. Good circumstantial evidence will suffice in a civil context. No admissions are necessary.

In this case, I would argue that JJ just suddenly decides to spin off this ONE product out of like 1000 products they have, right when they are facing liability for just this ONE product. Coincidence? Probably not.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,570
136
1. post the damn thing here. so we can know what you are talking about, not a link to twitter. its blocked on a lot of corp. networks.

2. There is no scientific evidence that the tiny amount of naturally occurring asbestos in talc is linked to cancer. they were also using the product off label. if I was huffing it and got lung cancer, should they also be liable? also, if it were true all those people that had lung cancer from it would have been having skin cancer, or we would have seen a huge increase in other cancer in asbestos related industries. like a couple older guys i know that did plaster work for their life. dead of lung cancer. or a industrial mechanic friend of mine that did as well. often exposure was in the form of dust from sanding the plaster down, or breathing in the plaster before its mixed, or disturbing insulation on a machine with your hands, etc.

3. i'm sure it was not all the nasty stuff in industrial machine shops that contributed to the skin cancer? stuff with scientific evidence of harm to humans?
If J&J thought they had a strong case, they wouldn't be moving to divest exposed assets.
Not disagreeing with you per se, just saying that this isn't a good look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54
Mar 11, 2004
21,666
3,790
126
Issue is the connection behind asbestos from talc causing cancer is pretty spotty:
"Talcum Powder and Cancer" https://amp.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html

Asbestos causing cancer is known but limited to lung cancer, at least as far as I've been able to find.

Links to systemic cancer (like ovarian) are extremely weak.

So did they have asbestos in their product? Yes. Did it cause a ton of cancer? Unlikely.

Courts are NOTORIOUSLY bad at interpreting scientific data appropriately.
Straight up, that's not even the issue. Go look at what J&J did. Everything from straight up lying about it to the FDA to not getting a patent because it would have exposed that they fucking knew their stuff had asbestos in it.

And this is where you go but these are personal injury trials concerning if their talc products caused ovarian cancer, whilst ignoring how that's kinda the problem. They shouldn't need to resort to this, which is why juries/judges levy such punitive damages because that's the only fucking way anything gets done about this shit. Its abhorrent that you are getting duped into defending this behavior under the guise of defending scientific objectivity whilst you straight up ignore how flawed the science is.

Also, I hope you assholes (I'm guessing you were one of the people on Ars since that's been the go to response) that keep linking to the cancer.org know they fucking used to just support the talc industry's claim that talc is/was free of asbestos but have started to revise that after exposure of J&J's behavior with regards to the science has started leading to J&J losing court cases.

Read this fucking shit and tell me that you're ok with scientific study largely controlled by the industry is fine.

Does that article show a link between ovarian cancer and asbestos containing talc? No. That's not the point. The point is, that when potential issue of asbestos in talc was raised, J&J has deliberately muddled the science to prevent it from even properly assessing that. Its the exact same behavior that the tobacco industry pulled, and other industries have been pulling. Its bullshit, and sadly the only way anything is being done about it is via people suing over personal injury where such behavior by corporations is finally is outed, leading to massive punitive damages. Which then gets spun as ridiculous greed towards the defendants.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,973
6,064
136
So Johnson and Johnson knew that they were selling a powder that contained asbestos. And it was marketed for babies.

So what? There was a lot of money to be made.

Also, let the free market decide. Now that we know Johnson and Johnson sells a powder that contains asbestos, you can decide if you want to sprinkle that powder on your baby and into the air that you and your baby breathes.

God damn socialists are ruining America. There's still a lot of money to be made.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,807
5,792
136
So Johnson and Johnson knew that they were selling a powder that contained asbestos. And it was marketed for babies.

So what? There was a lot of money to be made.

Also, let the free market decide. Now that we know Johnson and Johnson sells a powder that contains asbestos, you can decide if you want to sprinkle that powder on your baby and into the air that you and your baby breathes.

God damn socialists are ruining America. There's still a lot of money to be made.
Shit, there's literally nothing for nut sack relief on the shelves anymore. Flour?
 

uclaLabrat

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2007
4,869
1,399
136
Straight up, that's not even the issue. Go look at what J&J did. Everything from straight up lying about it to the FDA to not getting a patent because it would have exposed that they fucking knew their stuff had asbestos in it.

And this is where you go but these are personal injury trials concerning if their talc products caused ovarian cancer, whilst ignoring how that's kinda the problem. They shouldn't need to resort to this, which is why juries/judges levy such punitive damages because that's the only fucking way anything gets done about this shit. Its abhorrent that you are getting duped into defending this behavior under the guise of defending scientific objectivity whilst you straight up ignore how flawed the science is.

Also, I hope you assholes (I'm guessing you were one of the people on Ars since that's been the go to response) that keep linking to the cancer.org know they fucking used to just support the talc industry's claim that talc is/was free of asbestos but have started to revise that after exposure of J&J's behavior with regards to the science has started leading to J&J losing court cases.

Read this fucking shit and tell me that you're ok with scientific study largely controlled by the industry is fine.

Does that article show a link between ovarian cancer and asbestos containing talc? No. That's not the point. The point is, that when potential issue of asbestos in talc was raised, J&J has deliberately muddled the science to prevent it from even properly assessing that. Its the exact same behavior that the tobacco industry pulled, and other industries have been pulling. Its bullshit, and sadly the only way anything is being done about it is via people suing over personal injury where such behavior by corporations is finally is outed, leading to massive punitive damages. Which then gets spun as ridiculous greed towards the defendants.
Calm the fuck down Francis, my issue is with the $4.69B award the jury gave for plaintiffs' claims it cause ovarian cancer. Baby powder did not fucking cause ovarian cancer and there's no evidence to suggest it did. They breathed it in and it magically transported all the way to their ovaries? I'm not buying it. Those other plaintiffs claiming it caused their mesothelioma have a legitimate claim; I'm not disputing that one.

You don't like the study cause it's industry funded? Has anyone bought a pallet of baby powder and tested it? There need not be a reliance on data provided by J&J, someone else can fund the study.

Did the company do shady shit? I'm sure they did. As much as I abhor that, I also have an equal contempt for ambulance chasers conflating one risk for another knowing full well our legal system has not the capacity or wherewithal to distinguish between a valid claim based on known data or an invalid claim (cigarettes killed my father! And raped my mother!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

ASK THE COMMUNITY