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

Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 336 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#41

Post by [deleted] »

carbocation wrote: post #40
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #38

External-use-only products based on talc have been yanked from all shelves in every pharmacy and grocery store nationwide, while ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/my... I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.

> ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. Orlistat (tetrahydrolipstatin) is not talc.

[deleted]

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#42

Post by mcpackieh »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #38

External-use-only products based on talc have been yanked from all shelves in every pharmacy and grocery store nationwide, while ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/my... I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.

It's listed as an inactive ingredient, so presumably it's just bulking up or binding together the pill in some way. Talc is approved as a food additive in the US and EU, it's probably fine. Considering the high profile nature of the baby powder lawsuit, I'd eat my boots if there aren't people examining other talc products looking for a new lawsuit opportunity. Besides, it's bound up in a pill instead of in a loose fine powder, so you're not likely to inhale it.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#43

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

mcpackieh wrote: post #42
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #38

External-use-only products based on talc have been yanked from all shelves in every pharmacy and grocery store nationwide, while ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/my... I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.

It's listed as an inactive ingredient, so presumably it's just bulking up or binding together the pill in some way. Talc is approved as a food additive in the US and EU, it's probably fine. Considering the high profile nature of the baby powder lawsuit, I'd eat my boots if there aren't people examining other talc products looking for a new lawsuit opportunity. Besides, it's bound up in a pill instead of in a loose fi…

I'm not saying it's dangerous; I'm saying it's ironic that the obviously-talc-containing products were quickly obliterated and replaced by corn starch, while alli® (and perhaps others) get by, because even cardiologists can't figure out that they contain talc.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#44

Post by [deleted] »

darth_avocado wrote: post #28
nl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read the Matt Levine piece linked below ( https://archive.is/KcL2P ) I think that J&J did the right thing by attempting to use bankruptcy to organize payments. It was not avoiding liability at all. The court that dismissed the claim in general agreed with J&J's process, but said it was too early. Some key quote from Levine: > Juries in the US don’t like it when companies make products that kill people, and the…

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90. There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.

[deleted]

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#45

Post by mcpackieh »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #43
mcpackieh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's listed as an inactive ingredient, so presumably it's just bulking up or binding together the pill in some way. Talc is approved as a food additive in the US and EU, it's probably fine. Considering the high profile nature of the baby powder lawsuit, I'd eat my boots if there aren't people examining other talc products looking for a new lawsuit opportunity. Besides, it's bound up in a pill instead of in a loose fi…

I'm not saying it's dangerous; I'm saying it's ironic that the obviously-talc-containing products were quickly obliterated and replaced by corn starch, while alli® (and perhaps others) get by, because even cardiologists can't figure out that they contain talc.

? Anybody can figure out alli contains talc, it's listed right there on the document you linked.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#46

Post by fbdab103 »

irjustin wrote: post #14

Scratching the surface on talc, it's difficult to determine what should/should-not be done. Cancer.org has a page on talc[0] and from it: > Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder. > Until more…

Having not followed the story too closely, it is also unclear to me under what timelines the talc was most likely to be contaminated with asbestos. Always? Up until X date? Just the baby powder form, but not the pills, etc?

This blurb on Wikipedia [0] indicates that asbestos levels might have started being controlled as of 1976.

>...Stringent quality control since 1976, including separating cosmetic- and food-grade talc from "industrial"-grade talc, has largely eliminated this issue, but it remains a potential hazard requiring mitigation in the mining and processing of talc.[39] A 2010 US FDA survey failed to find asbestos in a variety of talc-containing products.[40] A 2018 Reuters investigation asserted that pharmaceuticals company Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that there was asbestos in its baby powder,[41] and in 2020 the company stopped selling its baby powder in the US and Canada.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbest...

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#47

Post by youngtaff »

ma2t wrote: post #35
malfist wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly what profit did the scientists make?

The complaints outline substantial profits that the scientists are alleged to have made as expert witnesses. All four are alleged to have made hundreds of dollars and hour, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, or more than $3 million over multi-decade careers. According to the linked complaint, at least two have profit sharing in Peninsula Pathology Associates through which some of this litigation work flows. On…

$3 mn in a decade is only 300,000 / year

Plus they’ll be costs involved that will come from that 300,000 too

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#48

Post by John23832 »

medler wrote: post #25
wak90 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really odd that Bloomberg somehow reports that businesses abusing liability and bankruptcy laws is good, actually.

He doesn’t say it’s good. He says that’s not what’s happening. If you think he’s wrong, please explain why. I genuinely would love to hear a well-reasoned critique of his analysis.

It allows j&j to only offer what they are willing to lose?

It would different if the court themselves attempted to limit liabilities. If I could limit the cost of my liabilities, you could sure that I’d discount them to the detriment of those that owned the liabilities.

Re: Johnson and Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

#50

Post by bagacrap »

darth_avocado wrote: post #28
nl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read the Matt Levine piece linked below ( https://archive.is/KcL2P ) I think that J&J did the right thing by attempting to use bankruptcy to organize payments. It was not avoiding liability at all. The court that dismissed the claim in general agreed with J&J's process, but said it was too early. Some key quote from Levine: > Juries in the US don’t like it when companies make products that kill people, and the…

> This can lead to unfair results, not for you — who cares about you — but for your victims: If a $1 billion company has killed 100 people, the first 10 who sue might get $100 million each of damages, leaving nothing for the remaining 90. There is a valid point there, but one could argue it sets up unfair precedent for companies to act in bad faith if they can get off easy.

How is the business getting off easy in this scenario. It's dissolving. What else can we do to it?
Post reply on HN