I’m sure this won’t have any chilling effects amongst the researchers who keep us all safe.
Edit to add that Johnson & Johnson is/was also trying to use patent loopholes to make sure poor people die from tuberculosis; until the internet got mad.
The secondary patent particularly irked some advocates because the drug’s development was largely underwritten by public funds, according to a 2020 analysis. That study found public sector funds contributed $455 million to $747 million to getting bedaquiline to market, compared to $90 million to $240 million from J&J.
We pay for the development of the drug, they get the patent, then we pay for the drug. Socialize cost, privatize profits.
most of the hype about danger from talcum powder is quite fake. the link between cancer and the powder is hugely tenuous and the researchers are quite shameful. Poor J&J are being victimised when there are millions sufferring from the absence of their valuable and safe talcum powder,
The complaint is here. Start on page 23 for the specifics. Basically, they’re saying the patients in the study were actually plaintiffs in other litigation, and it came out in that litigation that many were known to have been exposed to asbestos fibers in homes, schools, or workplaces.
Holy crap that was a crazy read. LTL, the North Carolina shell company owned by J&J, tragically lost sales revenue and went bankrupt "because of their 2020 study". "To set the record straight" they are de-anonymizing the data to dox 5 of the participants and then going through those cancer patient's lives to say that they had contact with industrial asbestos at some point. Their main claim against the only patient they have positively identified, Lanzo because he tried to sue J&J, is that his middle school locker room and basement later had asbestos pipes removed. Their claim against #2 after matching her tumor stats is that her dad worked with pipes that had asbestos. The third, again matched by tumor measurements, had a husband who once told a UCLA doc on a visit that he was doing some demolition that might've had asbestos. The fourth, "matched" only by her age, smoked and sued Kent cigarettes which were proven to contain asbestos. The last is an age match to a cleaning lady who sued J&J previously and said in court she cleaned buildings and navy ships that "possibly had asbestos".
Their claim is that since at least one patient might've come into contact with asbestos from a source that wasn't baby powder the entire study is false. Basically, they dig through peoples lives and if they ever visited somewhere that has any asbestos on record or lived with someone who mentioned asbestos worries to a doctor they think you should be disqualified from being linked to Johnson and Johnson.
Except that there were over 20 participants in the study and J&J is trying to claim potential, possible exposures to asbestos that they could only come up for 6 of them means that nothing in the study is correct.
That is a significantly high number as it is six ‘proved’ cases. Some people wouldn’t even know if they were exposed by other sources and even if they knew, would it be documented? Chances are we have all been exposed to asbestos and other carcinogenic chemicals both natural and man-made. The correlation was very weak to begin and it seems some of the people that did this study did willfully ignore details that make is suspect. I like to think all scientists are working on our behalf but there is a monetary motive to attain certain positive results in this case. We shouldn’t automatically give them a pass.
They don't automatically get a pass. They get peer reviewed.
It's also not one study. They've done multiple over the years, with hundreds of participants. They've done studies where they include people with known environmental exposure, and they still find that exposure to talcum powder counts as part of cumulative exposure.
Is it possible they're just flagrantly lying about their research results? Of course. Tell good enough lies and it becomes up to reproduction studies to find contradicting results. But there's as much money, if not more, to be found in finding those contradicting results, and yet...
exactly. J&J are the victims in this situation. People do not realise it yet. Most of those int he legal community know the real fault lies in the stupid lawyers that J&J used first time round. Lousy and shoddy.
LTL said the researchers concealed the fact that some or all of the patients involved in their studies had been exposed to asbestos from other sources.
If that’s true, it doesn’t look good for the researchers.
But at the same time, J&J has to hold some responsibility for having their “asbestos-contaminated consumer talc products” on store shelves!
It really depends on the type of study it was, and what these sources of asbestos were supposed to have been.
If they were doing a comparison study, so long as the control group was exposed to asbestos in similar amounts and in similar environments, it's still a strong finding. J&J shouting "they were exposed to other asbestos!" would just be an empty attack on the researchers' characters, and an attempt to falsely discredit them to an uncritical and uneducated public.
Things do seem to be a bit more complicated than that, though, as these are post-hoc investigations with no control. That said, it looks like they tried to do their due diligence to filter out participants who had known environmental exposure to asbestos. If some of them lied or mis-remembered, then it's up to J&J to show that the researchers were negligent or operating in bad faith.
That's going to be a pretty big hurdle to climb. I don't believe they actually intend to climb it.
The fact that the researchers asked about environmental during recruitment, plus the fact that J&J is only claiming that a small handful of people involved in the study were exposed to other sources of asbestos, really shows this for what it is: An attempt to scare researchers away from doing research, and especially from agreeing to be provide expert testimony in lawsuits.
One of the defendants here even has a new paper out this past January that includes patients with known environmental exposure to asbestos, and they show that cumulative exposure from all sources matters. Including exposure from talc:
Conclusion
For individuals with exposure to asbestos through cosmetic talc usage and additional alternate sources, all exposures contribute to the development of mesothelioma. Published case reports and case series have identified over 100 individuals whose sole exposure to asbestos was through cosmetic talcum powder usage.
This finding basically cuts J&J's apparent argument off at the knees, and was published months before they ever filed suit. They'd have been aware of it at the time of filing. They don't seem to have anything here. Just the opportunity to try and make their detractors look as dirty as they are in the eyes of people who haven't read any of the research.
The wording is that “researchers concealed”, which is what they need to prove.
Keep in mind, it was that same research that cost them billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lawsuits, so anything to invalidate the original papers is going to benefit them.
This finding basically cuts J&J’s apparent argument off at the knees
It might be quite the opposite! The study itself concludes that “for individuals with mixed exposures to asbestos, all exposures should be considered”.
If J&J is saying what I think they are saying, then the researchers made these products look more harmful than they were, and included people who would have been harmed by other exposure to asbestos but concealed that fact in the study.
Either way, J&J did a horrible thing by having asbestos-laden products in the market. I’m not on their side at all, but I also don’t like bad science, so the outcome of this lawsuit will interest me regardless of who wins.
It might be quite the opposite! The study itself concludes that “for individuals with mixed exposures to asbestos, all exposures should be considered”.
Yes, but the study still shows that people with no environmental exposure still got cancer. It's still explicitly stating that talc exposure is asbestos exposure. If J&J's argument is that these researchers made their product look more dangerous than it is by including people with environmental asbestos exposure in their studies -- whether by accident, or for nefarious purposes -- and therefore creating a false link between talc and cancer, this paper side-steps that issue entirely by including people with and without known exposure, and showing that talc exposure is equivalent to environmental exposure.
If J&J is saying what I think they are saying, then the researchers made these products look more harmful than they were, and included people who would have been harmed by other exposure to asbestos but concealed that fact in the study.
Proving that they concealed this information would be difficult, I think, though it would be devastating not only to their bank accounts, but to their careers more generally. Emory, Maddox, and Kradin's study explicitly states:
One hundred forty subjects with documented exposures to cosmetic talc were initially reviewed. Exposures were identified through sworn deposition testimonies and answers to sworn interrogatories provided from subjects, parents, and spouses. Sixty-five subjects were excluded due to recalled occupational or paraoccupational exposures to other sources of asbestos.
So, that wouldn't even be a lie of omission. It would be straight academic malpractice. Their academic careers would be over.
Yes, but the study still shows that people with no environmental exposure still got cancer.
There’s no denying that asbestos in talc products cause cancer, but the argument is “to what extent”?
For instance, why doesn’t the study have a control group (i.e. no talc and no other exposure to asbestos)? That would at least give some idea of the risks from using talc compared to no talc use.
The way the study is set up, it’s like comparing smokers who had a pack a day vs those who had 1.5 packs a day. Where are the non-smokers?
It seems that the loser in this case would come out severely damaged: on one hand, you’ve got shareholders and a possible countersuit for defamation, and on the other hand you have a career ending outcome. I would hate to be either party!
It's true, the results are weaker than if they had done a comparison study, but a lot of medical research is just post-facto observation reports. Like, to do a proper double blind study here, you'd have to start with healthy people and then knowingly expose some of them to something you suspect may be a carcinogen.
That's not going to pass the ethics board.
You can look at people who have already gotten cancer and try to lump them into those who have used talc-based products and those who haven't, but then how do you actually measure the impact of the talc there? Do you look at the number of patients who did use talc-based products vs those who didn't? Those might just reflect the rate at which those products are used among different subsets of the population.
The key bit here is that the kind of cancer they're looking at -- mesothelioma -- is known to be caused by asbestos. It's also known that talcum powder contains asbestos. So, the observational link here is seeing whether people with mesothelioma have had known significant exposure to environmental asbestos and how much exposure they've had to talc-based products. And if you can see in your observations that higher or more prolonged exposure to talc is correlated with increased mesothelioma rates, and can assume that these people -- based on their own memories -- have not been exposed to environmental asbestos at a rate higher than any other average person, then environmental exposure becomes an independent factor and you can assert the correlation between talc exposure and cancer rates.
It’s a pretty wild allegation. They would have to have known about the other sources of exposure and deliberately withheld that information. Even if the patients had had some other exposure, it’s even less likely that the doctors would have known about it, and their study will have been designed as well as practicable to find out.
My favourite example of this is when McDonalds sued Irish burger chain SuperMac’s for trademark infringement, only to lose their entire trademark for Big Mac’s across all of Europe.
This needs to happen to Monster Energy drink (who is suing everyone who uses the term “monster”) and Bethesda (who got lawsuit shot with the term “scroll”).
On the one hand sure, that’s an issue. On the other hand, who hasn’t been in contact with asbestos in one way or the other. Asbestos has been banned for many use cases but it is still widely in circulation. It’s a bit like asking for people who have never been exposed to smoking.
My old school had it in the walls, my father's workshop had it in the rooftop, in the chimney insulation, etc. I'm pretty sure I haven't been in danger as I haven't built or torn anything of those down, but I for sure have been in contact.
I’m glad it hasn’t affected you and yours.
But the fact is that it does affect people.
Just to give anecdotes some empirical backing. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
And it should be pretty easy to get a group of people with same level of asbestos exposure who haven't used J&J's talc and compare the cancer % between the groups. That's where J&J should be focusing if they knew they were in the right.
But surprise, this is probably just throwing everything to discredit science.
And it should be pretty easy to get a group of people with same level of asbestos exposure who haven’t used J&J’s talc and compare the cancer % between the groups. That’s where J&J should be focusing if they knew they were in the right.
Yes, that’s how I’d do it.
Perhaps researchers did do this, and found that there was no difference, but decided not to publish that.
Who knows? But it sounds like J&J is confident that they can prove that researchers were hiding facts, or else that’s an incredibly pointed accusation!
I say this as someone who hates corn starch based powder and goes out of his way to ensure his family jewels only receive the most succulent of asbestos/talc powders.
I hope J&J are right. But I am extremely skeptical. I also don’t like the chilling effect, as others have pointed out. Finally, they could be just trying to win in the court of public opinion. Never forget McDonalds hot coffee case.
Not a lawyer but do they have anything to lose with this suit?
If they make the accusation and lose, it would also be pretty bad for them. First, they would likely need to compensate the researchers for defamation, and second, they would look even worse to shareholders.
It's an incredible show but I can see it not being everyone's cup of tea. It's a bit depressing or absolute joy if you enjoy seeing the 0.1% squirm but either way it's interesting, unique and doesn't waste your time. And there's a comical relief but it doesn't offset the drama.
Materialistic conditions, we’ve been mentioning those words for 150 years.
If you were in a position where “I’d do it”, that means you’d be a high officer at J&J, you’d be a billionaire, or someone who loses their job if they don’t obey the billionaire. If you’re the employee you care about your job, or you get fired and someone else obeys them anyway, if you’re the billionaire you only care about your money
In the context of a researcher, “that’s how I’d do it” is basically for scientific integrity and due diligence in the methodology and design of the study.
I’d also add a control group who has never been exposed to talc or other known sources of asbestos to really be thorough.
But I get what you’re saying, and it’s sad that anyone would be in a position where making good choices would get them in trouble.
Perhaps researchers did do this, and found that there was no difference, but decided not to publish that.
Well hey if we are just gonna play “what if everything is a conspiracy” then maybe researchers found that Johnson and Johnson talc powder was actually sourced from Proxima Centauri but decided not to publish that little trade secret.
Lack of publishing null results is a problem in science. A lot of journals don't like null results and the types of journals that are happy to publish such (like PLOS) often cost money (only ~$1k-2k per article) but also a ton of time that researchers don't have for something that would do nothing to benefit their careers.
I don't think Showroom was saying which researchers did the study or implying any sort of ill intentions. Just scientists looking out for the careers, and spending a ton of time making a publishable article to say "we found nothing" isn't exactly useful for them.
Someone had to know something to come up with an accusation like that. It wouldn’t be out of the scope of reality for researchers (usually the ones being paid by the product manufacturer) to omit some critical details of the study. Not saying that’s what happened here, but J&J knows something we don’t.
So wait, J&J have already put aside 9 billion dollars for potential liability for the talc baby powder cancer claims and have stopped selling talc baby powder in North America, but yet they are suing researchers who made the issue known and constantly parroting that they aren’t admitting any wrongdoing. Nice.
JJ. But they also released some very specific details such as the name of people exposed and proof of exposure from other sources than talcum powder that was ignored. JJ would be quite liable if they even get a single detail intentionally wrong. I would tend to believe they released accurate details.
This is not the only shitty thing J&J has done, not by a longshot.
All you need to know is how they pushed opioids on a generation of young people for nearly a decade without repercussions. How can you expect an entity like that to ever tell the truth against their own self interests?
Yeh, sure. Let’s trust the corporation that is discontinuing the sale of talc based baby powder world wide, and is wanting to settle for $9 billion.
Either JNJ are actually doing the right thing here… or they are cutting losses, protecting themselves, looking after shareholders, whatever.
Maybe it’s cheaper than trying to recover from such a PR disaster.
Maybe turns out that cornstarch is cheaper/easier for baby powder, and $9b gets rid of a problem, solves marketing issues of cornstarch, and has long-term savings.
Maybe I’m wrong and paranoid.
But I don’t trust JNJ
To put that in perspective for folks, if money was seconds, 9000 seconds is ~2.5 hours , 9 million seconds is ~104 days, 9 billion seconds is ~285 years.
We desperately, above all other issues, need to resolve the fact that big companies can win in court simply by paying until the other guy can't afford to keep dealing with the legal system.
We desperately, above all other issues, need to resolve the fact that big companies can win in court simply by paying
In the Soviet Union, capital punishment was carried out by various methods, including firing squads, hanging, and later, the use of a single gunshot to the back of the head. These methods were employed for different periods throughout the Soviet Union’s history, depending on the prevailing laws and policies.
I'll take our current system over the Soviet one every day of the week. Not starving and not living under an evil dictatorship beats an unfair court system.
The inefficiencies created by the Soviet system will lead to yet another round of famine and other problems that will make those stats in your infographic look cute.
Go try your perfect world economic system propaganda on someone else who is dumb enough to buy it.
Dinosaurs existed in the past. Their policies resulted in no shelter from asteroids. Therefore we need all available effort to go towards asteroid protection now. Forget that hunger and famine only exists in the now because we let it to justify capitalism. We need to worry about what happened in the past.
Above is obviously sarcasm
Using your own rhetoric I could argue that the United States had famines in the past so therefore it will have them again.
Dinosaurs existed in the past. Their policies resulted in no shelter from asteroids.
Wat.
Using your own rhetoric I could argue that the United States had famines in the past so therefore it will have them again.
Hah.
You could, if there was a history of famines in America's past. The closest we really got was the dust bowl, and that was never really a famine.
Of course, the possibility is always open with global warming becoming a thing that we could experience some form of famine in the future. However, when it happens it's almost certainly going to be because of global warming cannot because of asinine communist economic decision making that dis encourages people from producing any sort of surplus by imposing state quotas on them.
Forget that hunger and famine only exists in the now because we let it to justify capitalism
In the world? Hunger and famine largely exists because people live in regions with really corrupt governments and no way to produce food locally, it's geopolitical more than economic and there really is no fixing it.
In the United States?
You guys have to use a chart that shows statistics on food insecurity instead of actual lack of access to food because lots of food programs exist and lots of people actually are able to get meals even when they are poor. Actual starvation is very rare in the United States, thanks to things like the snap programs.
The United States has problems to fix, but we seriously have a bigger epidemic of obesity among the poor than starvation.
It’s really not hard to understand you’re not as prophetic as you think you are.
However, when it happens it’s almost certainly going to be because of global warming cannot because of asinine communist economic decision making that dis encourages people from producing any sort of surplus by imposing state quotas on them.
Gee I wonder what economic system is causing global warming.
In the world? Hunger and famine largely exists because people live in regions with really corrupt governments and no way to produce food locally, it’s geopolitical more than economic and there really is no fixing it.
The context was in the US. Why shift the goal post to where you can blame something other than the American oligarchy.
You guys have to use a chart that shows statistics on food insecurity instead of actual lack of access to food because lots of food programs exist and lots of people actually are able to get meals even when they are poor. Actual starvation is very rare in the United States, thanks to things like the snap programs.
Who is “you guys” you even say yourself that obesity is a problem and obesity is a result of food deserts and terrible food programs in the US that stem from subsidized corn.
You’re either trolling or unwilling to actually communicate on these topics at this point.
Gee I wonder what economic system is causing global warming.
Oh yes, the Soviet Union, wonderful bastion of green technology and environment.
You blame capitalism for shit that would be happening and would be even worse under other systems. The status quo is Not the fault of capitalism and you can't simply blame the status quo on capitalism without showing that some new system would actually perform better.
Historically, non-capitalist systems are less efficient and pollute more.
Why shift the goal post
Yes, was shifting goalpost by responding to the two possible interpretations of your comment.
you even say yourself that obesity is a problem and obesity is a result of food deserts and terrible food programs in the US that stem from subsidized corn.
Yes.
This isn't.... What do you think you're making a point here for? We should end subsidies on corn in the United States and allow the market to make that decision of what to produce.
That would be more capitalism.
You’re either trolling or unwilling to actually communicate on these topics at this point.
And you're engaging in the age old internet tradition of accusing everyone who disagrees with you as a troll.
And famine is just the start. If you think any government is competent enough to handle the orchestration of a system is large and complicated as a modern economy you are hilariously mistaken.
I wouldn't even know where to start. Basically every single item in your house runs through some sort of supply chain that would get fucked up if we tried to manage them all through some central planned economy.
During collectivization, the peasantry was required to relinquish their farm animals to government authorities. Many chose to slaughter their livestock rather than give them up to collective farms. In the first two months of 1930, kulaks killed millions of cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and goats, with the meat and hides being consumed and bartered. In 1934, the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) reported that 26.6 million head of cattle and 63.4 million sheep had been lost.[68] In response to the widespread slaughter, the Sovnarkom issued decrees to prosecute “the malicious slaughtering of livestock” (Russian: хищнический убой скота).[69]
Resistance
Thousands of Kazakhs violently resisted the collectivization campaign with weapons left over by the white army with 8 rebellions occurring in 1930 alone. [97] In the Mangyshlak Peninsula 15,000 rebels resisted between 1929 and 1931.
Also
Some kulaks responded by carrying out acts of sabotage such as killing livestock and destroying crops intended for consumption by factory workers
They fought against collectivization thinking something would happen. They unleashed a famine upon themselves.
EDIT: This part is so ridiculous I need to repeat it:
reported that 26.6 million head of cattle and 63.4 million sheep had been lost.
So much milk lost, could have fed so many people, you can bet there were millions of chickens too, millions of eggs that were never laid, kill the cattle, kill the natural cycle of reproduction, tonnes and tonnes of meat that were never born.
Some reactionaries BURNED FARMS to oppose communism, no wonder they starved.
The cattle part could could cause shortages, but at the end of the day when you don't have cattle you can still feed people perfectly fine.
You won't get to eat nearly as much meat, but you can still eat.
I'm mainly referring to the fact that you're trying to blame the rebellion from the evil rich people for the cause of the famine instead of the very real economic misincentices created by the Soviet Union
Mao’s famine was caused by killing birds, because he did not listen to science. We must always listen to science. That thing could’ve happened if China were a Christian Theocracy. There have been countless famines in history but you only care about communist ones.
Mao’s famine was caused by killing birds, because he did not listen to science.
You're missing about 10 other bad decisions in there, and you'll never guess what those 10 decisions were related to.
Millions of… millions of cattle killed.
Again. If we killed all the animals right now in every country in the world we would have....
More food.
Animals eat food. They provide less than they eat, so if you took all the food that would have gone towards cattle and instead put them towards humans, you'd see people eating more, not less.
I'm not totally going to say that that wasn't a factor, but at the end of the day the famine in the Soviet Union still had a root cause.
What does that have to do with the conversation being had here?
Also, not that any of this is relevant to the actual topic at hand, but that’s different from the United States… How?
Just this year Idaho approved the firing squad as a means of execution. It joined 4 other states.
We now use the lethal injection, but research is showing that it isn’t painless, it just looks like it is. We used the electric chair for decades, and hanging before that.
They’re trying to bundle their bad pr while it seems like it can’t get any worse. They’re under fire from John and Hank Green and their fans for extending a patent in a way that is estimated to kill 6 million people.
Add comment