Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#51

Post by tedivm »

mark-r wrote: post #45
ksec wrote: post #42

So are those Johnson and Johnson Baby powder actually safe? I remember reading J&J said only a batch in some years contains ultra small amount of some substance and less than certain % of it is safe.

I thought they switched the baby powder formula from Talc to Cornstarch many years ago. Maybe I'm mistaken?

Some quick googling shows that they did come out with a cornstarch based variety but you have to explicitly look and find that. The J&J website lists the ingredients for Baby Powder as "Talc, Fragrance".

https://www.johnsonsbaby.com/baby-products/johnsons-baby-pow...

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#52

Post by ceejayoz »

loceng wrote: post #49
ceejayoz wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That you're completely dismissing my own personal experience, that I'm willing to spend $100k of money I'd much rather spend elsewhere, shows just how dismissive you are. Look, people have "personal experience" that prayer cured their cancer, that essential oils fixed their bipolar disorder, that aliens anally probed them, etc. Having invested large amounts of money can make one susceptible to sunk cost fallacies,…

I'm not arguing against proper research being done. You realize that there are, and you can see, before and after imagery - whether ultrasound, x-ray, or MRI - that is used to see the physical trauma of the area being treated, treating it, and then seeing the healing that's occurred with imagery afterward, right? I'm guessing your limited sources don't actually share that information with you based on your lack of in…

Lots of aggressive statements about me having "limited sources" and "dive in deeper into different sources" and... no sources.

I asked you for sources at the very top of this thread. Instead I got a bunch of defensiveness, which is itself illuminating.

Surely this sort of imagery you're talking about is available somewhere, with clear examples from both the experimental group and the control group, demonstrating better results in the experimental? These clinics should present that to the FDA, get the procedures approved, and rake in enormous amounts of cash from health insurance from their arthritis cures.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#53

Post by refurb »

gwern wrote: post #44
ksec wrote: post #42

So are those Johnson and Johnson Baby powder actually safe? I remember reading J&J said only a batch in some years contains ultra small amount of some substance and less than certain % of it is safe.

One has to wonder about a lengthy article which refuses to cite any numbers and instead repeats endlessly that 'no level is known to be safe', which is irrelevant.

I'll probably get down voted to hell, but this seems to be quite overblown.

The FDA has posted their latest analysis of J&J talcum powder.[1] Of the 3 samples, 1 had "none detected" and 2 had 0.00002% or less by TEM (electron microscope). We're talking close to limit of detection.

The bigger issue is the link to ovarian cancer. The data is all over the place. This one paper [1] sums up the data nicely - when looking at talc use there was no correlation with ovarian cancer. Even outside of hygienic use (condoms, gloves), many women had high talc exposure and no ovarian cancer, while others had no talc exposure and ovarian cancer.

"It may be argued that the overall null findings associated with talc-dusted diaphragms and condom use is more convincing evidence for a lack of a carcinogenic effect, especially given the lack of an established correlation between perineal dusting frequency and ovarian tissue talc concentrations and the lack of a consistent dose-response relationship with ovarian cancer risk."

[1]

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#55

Post by refurb »

loceng wrote: post #12

To bring a new fight to the attention of more of the public: big pharma is attempting to have the FDA prevent people from using their own stem cells for healing via regenerative medicine - either fat or bone marrow derived. They want to force centralization and also for consumers to buy the stem cell products they're developing. Their arguments are fear mongering and non-sense, however they've so far been doing a goo…

No, what they want to do is stop stem cell centers from make unsupported claims.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#56

Post by [deleted] »

chcknsammich wrote: post #41
davidhyde wrote: post #2

So if you are a small cosmetics company the FDA will prevent you from selling your product without thorough testing but if you are a large cosmetic company you can simply tell the FDA that everything is OK. This benefits the larger companies and therefore, monopolies. Strikingly similar to how the FAA seems to operate with Boeing and look how that turned out.

The real root of the problem is probably that the FDA is also a monopoly.

[deleted]

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#57

Post by openasocket »

merpnderp wrote: post #17
mikestew wrote: post #10

It was over seventy years, after it was decided lead in fuel was a bad idea, before it was banned in road-going vehicles. [0] Keep that in mind when some politician or business owner goes on about "bureaucrats". Because "bureaucrats" to them means "someone who stands between me and more profits". "Bureaucrats" to you should mean "people that make sure this shit gets enforced". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyl…

When these regulators stop "retiring" to cushy jobs in the industry, I'll believe it's the politicians and not the regulators openly taking bribes in the form of future "jobs". An easy fix would be for congress to pass a law preventing regulators from working in the industry they regulated, but then the politicians wouldn't also receive those same cushy "jobs".

While I agree with the sentiment, keep in mind it's a little more complicated than that. People who work on some category of regulations can only find relevant work in the government or in that sector of industry. Making it impossible to move from the government to an industry job effectively traps people for life in their one job unless they change careers.

As a concrete example, my fiance is a lawyer working in environmental policy. She's worked for the EPA and for various environmental justice groups because she went with whatever jobs were available in her field, and that wouldn't be possible with your proposed change.

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#58

Post by SolaceQuantum »

loceng wrote: post #12

To bring a new fight to the attention of more of the public: big pharma is attempting to have the FDA prevent people from using their own stem cells for healing via regenerative medicine - either fat or bone marrow derived. They want to force centralization and also for consumers to buy the stem cell products they're developing. Their arguments are fear mongering and non-sense, however they've so far been doing a goo…

Isn't there a podcast series by Wondery about this? I think it's called Bad Batch, regarding the non-scientifically backed woo that is stem cell treatments?

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#59

Post by travisporter »

openasocket wrote: post #57
merpnderp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When these regulators stop "retiring" to cushy jobs in the industry, I'll believe it's the politicians and not the regulators openly taking bribes in the form of future "jobs". An easy fix would be for congress to pass a law preventing regulators from working in the industry they regulated, but then the politicians wouldn't also receive those same cushy "jobs".

While I agree with the sentiment, keep in mind it's a little more complicated than that. People who work on some category of regulations can only find relevant work in the government or in that sector of industry. Making it impossible to move from the government to an industry job effectively traps people for life in their one job unless they change careers. As a concrete example, my fiance is a lawyer working in env…

You can argue this prevents people like FCC's Wheeler, but the current administration has several examples refuting this. Is there no way that you can still work in the field without being able to influence policy?

Re: FDA bowed to industry for decades as alarms were sounded over talc

#60

Post by markdown »

dboreham wrote: post #9
sjg007 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA doesn't regulate cosmetics...

The thing they don't regulate is vitamins, supplements etc. Interestingly those things can be just as potent as "real drugs", but they aren't regulated simply because the seller opted to not say they are drugs, rather on any theory that they're not actually drugs.

Not to worry, those are regulated by the banks, who won't provide financial services to any business selling anything that they think mimics illegal drugs.
Post reply on HN