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

121–130 of 336 posts

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

#121

Post by adrian_b »

amelius wrote: post #108

How did asbestos end up in the talc?

Both talc and chrysotile (the most frequently encountered asbestos mineral) are hydrated magnesium silicates, which are formed together in various proportions through the alteration by water of certain volcanic rocks that are rich in olivine.

When talc is mined, it is hard to ensure that it is sufficiently pure and not mixed with other minerals that are found together with it, like asbestos.

When very pure talc is desired, it is made artificially, by chemical synthesis, using pure magnesium carbonate and pure silicon dioxide. This is much more expensive than natural mined talc.

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

#122

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

teraflop wrote: post #89
FireBeyond wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

J&J isn't dissolving. It's still throwing off a billion dollars a month in shareholder dividends, freed from the shackles of any liability.

As the Levine article explained, and as has been reiterated several times in this comment thread: J&J is not "freed from the shackles of any liability", because it is still liable to its own subsidiary for the talc lawsuit claims, up to the full value of J&J itself (the parent company).

Sorry, it's a game of three-card monte. Glad Matt is confident he can play and win, always the optimist.

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

#123

Post by xkcd1963 »

blitzar wrote: post #111
codelord wrote: post #103

As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statist…

We need a Journal of Medicore Results, or a Journal of Tried it and it Didn't Work. As with social media and society in general, only the most inflated of headlines gets attention causing the gold rush of hyped up results. Nothing can be published without the hype and hyperbole, which then sets the benchmark for the next round of hype.

You say it as if that is something that should be accepted.

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

#124

Post by mandmandam »

10g1k wrote: post #22

Corporations = no personal liabilities. Scientists = personal liabilities. Even the threat of losing one's credibility and career for daring to publish science which might possibly harm corporate profits is a horrible thing.

I was happy to see someone making this point, eventually.

If the scientists formed their own spin-off limited liability company, declared bankruptcy days later, then gave ~$350 to J&J; that would make the playing field a bit more even.

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

#125

Post by scotty79 »

jjallen wrote: post #52
FireBeyond wrote: post #5

Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days. The Texas two-step, as it's called. > In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management u…

Do you really think companies can just avoid all of their liabilities two days before something bad happens and protect all of their assets? Bankruptcy law is hundreds of years old and is designed to protect creditors actually. That’s why there is a separate court to handle things and involved independent outsiders and judges that oversee things. It works and is used every time there is a financial crisis and thousan…

It's all very nice but companies had hundreds of years to develop strategies how to circumvent these laws.

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

#126

Post by DrScientist »

codelord wrote: post #103

As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statist…

When you become a world expert in a very narrow area of a field - like when you do a PhD - I found you discover that around 50% of papers are either pointless, misleading or wrong.

Let me be clear - the largest proportion of those are the pointless ones ( the reader already knew what's in the paper ).

Some of this is because research is hard, a lot of it is because of the immense pressure to publish and the strong bias for positive messages ( this approach is better, we discovered X ) to be published, rather than stuff that says - we tried this but it didn't work etc.

> I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research.

Same pressure, same human factors.

There is of course an additional factor in cases like this - if your research hints at a link between talc and cancer - is it ethical not to publish while you wait another 5 years for a longer study?

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

#127

Post by scotty79 »

themitigating wrote: post #115
kevinventullo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that J&J wants to make things right and pay these claimants what they’re owed, or do you think J&J is trying to minimize what they pay out by any means necessary? Note that J&J shareholders likely interpret the latter as their fiduciary duty.

Here's the problem. Who? The CEO and eveyone near him is rich, they company going out of business won't affect them. I'm sure they'll be able to get high paying jobs. In fact the negative association with this case would have me wanting to move on

Owners. Behind all of the corporate management theatre are always some owners that will squeeze everyone in any way possible to protect their money.

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

#128

Post by archo »

DrScientist wrote: post #126
codelord wrote: post #103

As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statist…

When you become a world expert in a very narrow area of a field - like when you do a PhD - I found you discover that around 50% of papers are either pointless, misleading or wrong. Let me be clear - the largest proportion of those are the pointless ones ( the reader already knew what's in the paper ). Some of this is because research is hard, a lot of it is because of the immense pressure to publish and the strong bi…

'Publish or Perish' : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish

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

#129

Post by scotty79 »

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…

Why specifically ovarian cancer and not other cancers? I would expecf lung cancer or skin cancer before that.

Did they confirm the link? Did they find asbestos in ovarian tumors?

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

#130

Post by scotty79 »

jey wrote: post #4
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #3

In some ways the talc controversy does seem similar to the silicone breast implant controversy in the 1990’s. An overview is at https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206

Isn't the mechanism for the talc -> {ovarian cancer, mesothelioma} connection much clearer and stronger though? That talc co-occurs with asbestos, which is known to be highly carcinogenic and to cause the types of cancers being encountered here. The asbestos fibers were also (allegedly) found in laboratory analysis of samples of the commercial talc powder product.

> The asbestos fibers were also (allegedly) found in laboratory analysis of samples of the commercial talc powder product.

Were they found in ovarian cancers? What's the clear link?

Post reply on HN