251–260 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.
If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it. I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you feel qualified to offer medical advice like this? Are you a medical doctor?
Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence than anyone else. Especially when it comes to population epidemiology. Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics. [1] https://ww…
It's about understanding and processing this evidence in the broader context of their medical training. You're trying to generalize the results of a study with many shortcomings to say everyone may be better off dealing with increasing their odds of developing malignant melanoma and dealing with its associated mortality risks.
My issues with using this study to give the above advice:
1. The study was Conducted in Sweden, a place with "limited sunshine and a low UV index" which would naturally preclude its population having lower vitamin D levels.
2. The study was also lacking in the ability to "distinguish between the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle and of avoidance of sun exposure"
3. The study had no data on vitamin D supplementation/levels
Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the parent comment's link: > A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to di…
> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.
Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders [1]. Combined with Neutrogena being more or less _very high_ in benezine content and J&J having a very deep suite of cancer treatment drugs [2]... This seems like a horrific story of a self-fulfilling product pipeline. I know they're a giant organization and suggesting conspiracy is a bit insane but I can'…
Ironically Neutrogena received best rating when measuring their SPF (according to Consumer NZ). It’s my favourite too as it actually works, while zinc ones my partner touts are pain to apply and don’t really work that well in extreme sun. From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.
I'd be surprised if their detector confused sodium benzoate for benzene, because sodium benzoate is so common that that would make it a pretty useless detector!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its simply the right thing to do for everybody long term, including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby care products, because current bonuses take priority above everything else. Evil comes in many…
agreed on all points, except the assumption of evil. There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
They likely did not choose to put benzene in there but they have to think "nobody ever got in trouble for buying IBM" or in this case "nobody ever got in trouble for choosing the cheapest sweatshop (with some credentials to appear almost ethical) in China".
There is no evil Doctor laughing in a castle planning to add benzene to things however it is pretty evil to dismiss QA and client safety in a way as reckless as they have.
At the end of the day they can always say " I was just following orders" or " I was only trying to maximize profit"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a good book called bottle of lies that talks about how overwhelmed the FDA is and how often many products slip through the cracks, including generic medicines.
In 2019, the FDA budget was 0.86% of the DOD budget. As in, not within two orders of magnitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this because the US is so insanely litigious? Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases, especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice. Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical analysis.
It's enough to put people to death, so it should be enough for everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes. Had a bit of a scare: living in Puerto Rico, I regularly use Walgreens SPF50, Neutrogena sunblock and After Sun gel. The closest UPC was the After Sun, but mine was a couple of digits off. Makes you think what stuff you're putting on that you don't know about!
How are things in PR these days? I can't imagine what it must be like to deal with a pandemic while simultaneously trying to rebuild basic infrastructure. Have you been able to get back to some semblance of normalcy yet?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-ends-nightly...
Infrastructure-wise, frankly... I don't see any construction work, whatsoever. Biden released 1bn funds for Puerto Rico 2 months ago, so I'd suppose that money is now being readied for spending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply. The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointi…
>The US links sited state no evidence for causing cancer. It's benzine. It's a known carcinogen, no need for empiricism here.