Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Johnson and Johnson Wins Baby Powder Cancer Case

  1. #1

    Default Johnson and Johnson Wins Baby Powder Cancer Case

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-jo...-idUSKBN16A2J4

    Well there you have it, doesn't matter the cited article indicated there was no correlation: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/articl...Ovarian-Cancer

    Now that the justice system has cleared baby powder we can all go back to using it without worrying about cancer.

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by thealchemist View Post
    [...]
    Now that the justice system has cleared baby powder we can all go back to using it without worrying about cancer.
    I don't know about that... whether Talcum powder causes cancer or not... I think that we should often remain a bit weary about cancer... even if, we don't have ovaries...

    Now, how long will it take to get the corn-starch version, indicted... between GMO and pesticides/herbicides... *oh-snap!*

    What they didn't tell you is... 'baby-powder' (fortunately not, desiccated, ground-up babies)... is probably what creates either or both - AB/DL'ism...

    -Things that make you go - hmmm-

    Just me,
    -Marka

  3. #3

    Default

    I don't think I would rely on the justice system for scientific or medical facts.

    For what it's worth, it would seem that talc and other sorts of mineral based products probably shouldn't be used around mucus membranes just on general principle. Anything that's an irritant can potentially cause cancer if used often enough, long enough.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I don't think I would rely on the justice system for scientific or medical facts.
    ...or any facts at all for that matter. Just keep ALL dust out of your lungs, period.

  5. #5

    Default

    Methinks he was being a bit ironic....

    If I were a woman I would not use it based on that study. Why expose yourself to something that might be harmful, given there are alternatives.

    Like climate change, very hard prove such connections exist.

    And yes, don't breathe the stuff.

  6. #6

    Default

    This whole case is pure BS.

    If a company willingly and knowingly markets a product that is dangerous without warnings or hides the dangers and lies about the dangers once they become known it's one thing. But back in the 70s no one, including J&J knew that asbestos could makes it's way into talc at the mines. See Johns Manville for example. they produces asbestos for insultation and continued to produce and market it AFTER there was compelling evidence that asbestos was extremely dangerous. They lied about it, covered it up, and still pushed their products. Contrast that with Johnson and Johnson: There is literally NO proof that talc causes cancer when the talc is asbestos-free. No study has proven otherwise and no cancer authority warns that talc is carcinogenic. Why SHOULD J&J warn people their product may cause cancer?? What kind of insane logic is that: Our product is safe, never linked definitively to cancer, not a known carcinogen but we must warn people that it may cause cancer.

    All talc sold in the US since the 70's has had no asbestos in it. Asbestos-free talc is not carcinogenic. No scientific authority on cancer deems asbestos-free talc as a carcinogen. No study ever has conclusively demonstrated a link. Some studies have had mixed results with some showing very slight risk elevations but those are mostly due to faulty methodologies.

    This lawsuit is nothing but greedy lawyers seizing on the emotions of cancer patients and trying to score a pay day.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Isle View Post
    If I were a woman I would not use it based on that study. Why expose yourself to something that might be harmful, given there are alternatives.

    Well I am glad you said that!

    I also feel it is important that I alert you to this https://www.thelocal.fr/20161025/fre...-carcinogenics

    Apparently diapers are also carcinogenic, now the study does indicate that it only might be harmful, but why expose yourself to something that might be harmful given that there are alternatives to disposables.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by thealchemist View Post
    Well I am glad you said that!

    I also feel it is important that I alert you to this https://www.thelocal.fr/20161025/fre...-carcinogenics

    Apparently diapers are also carcinogenic, now the study does indicate that it only might be harmful, but why expose yourself to something that might be harmful given that there are alternatives to disposables.
    The opinion of 12 people, non scientifically trained, are nothing more than opinions. 3 other trials came up with different opinions. I am not making a case that talc is carcinogenic, only that we each make our choices based on available evidence. The air is carcinogenic, so its not like we are aren't constantly exposed. And we will all die.

    Women use talc to keep dry, there are other choices for that. It is a very vulnerable environment as toxic shock syndrome attests. If talc is your kink, you are free to make that choice, that's correct.

    I also agree the evidence is not very convincing. I was reacting more from an attitude that if there is a small risk, why take it. And as I am not a women I will withdraw my opinion.




    Some studies have had mixed results with some showing very slight risk elevations but those are mostly due to faulty methodologies.
    Again, I am not trying to make a case here, but you have inserted an opinion that is not in the study. Perhaps it is in another one, I don't know.

  9. #9

    Default

    Everything will kill you eventually, not saying that someone who puts out a dangerous product knowingly should take responsibility for it, I'm just saying that there are so many lawsuits were people are sick and they want to blame products they used because they needed to be warned of the dangers. If its man made, its probabaly dangerous.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Isle View Post
    The opinion of 12 people, non scientifically trained, are nothing more than opinions. 3 other trials came up with different opinions. I am not making a case that talc is carcinogenic, only that we each make our choices based on available evidence. The air is carcinogenic, so its not like we are aren't constantly exposed. And we will all die.

    Women use talc to keep dry, there are other choices for that. It is a very vulnerable environment as toxic shock syndrome attests. If talc is your kink, you are free to make that choice, that's correct.

    I also agree the evidence is not very convincing. I was reacting more from an attitude that if there is a small risk, why take it. And as I am not a women I will withdraw my opinion.

    Again, I am not trying to make a case here, but you have inserted an opinion that is not in the study. Perhaps it is in another one, I don't know.

    Did you read the study? If you didn't I don't blame you it took me a while to understand their standardization methodology, and it is rather dubious.
    Even with their method they found no relationship for Mucinous and Endometrioid cancers, but found one for "serious invasive cancers."

    (I do love how they arranged the words for this one, as they were probably referring to Serous cystadenocarcinoma I wonder why they did that.)

    Now in regards to their actual findings for "serious invasive cancers." They found with 1.0 being the reference standard for having this cancer and not having used talc, and 1.40 as when you do use talc and get said cancer.

    But when we look at the raw data we see that when not using talc 84 people had this cancer, and when using talc 76 people had this cancer.

    But wait you might say based on that number using talc actually reduced the number of cancer cases so why did they claim it "may cause a modest increase in risk."
    Well all they did was implement an interesting correction factor first converting the number of cases to "person-years" then adjusting for BMI, tube-ligation, age, use of oral contraceptives etc. but never really explain their calculation method.

    So in sort this is an example of some group cooking their books through dubious methods to get a result they wanted, and once again don't trust people just because they are "scientists" you should always do your own research.
    Last edited by thealchemist; 27-Jun-2017 at 03:33.

Similar Threads

  1. Johnson and Johnson loses baby powder case
    By BrandonHoward2016 in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-Nov-2016, 07:09
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-Aug-2016, 05:56
  3. Johnson and Johnson Helping the world
    By Tyger in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 24-Oct-2014, 08:07
  4. baby powder causes cancer in females
    By TheWestCharter in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2013, 02:55
  5. Why Gary Johnson should be president
    By MrSun in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 17-Oct-2012, 23:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.