Kayleigh said:
Are there gold flakes in it for $75.00?
I call the original talc Johnson's baby powder white gold since it now has to be imported from overseas for an exorbitant cost.
PrettyLilPrincess said:
Put simply, it’s been known to cause cancer
To be frank, this is not true. First, we have to separate asbestos-containing talc and asbestos-free talc. Baby powder and talc cosmetic products are made from the latter. In the event of trace contamination, it is highly unlikely that trace amounts will make a statistically significant change in health outcomes.
With respect to ovarian cancer (what the women in the JnJ lawsuits were suing over), the research is inconclusive, meaning some studies show increased risk and others don't. If it were conclusive, we would expect
every study to show increased risk. Additionally, for the studies that show increased risk, there are alternative explanations such as small sample size or unrealistically high dose.
For lung cancer, there has been
zero evidence linking talc cosmetic products to it. Even for miners and millers of talc who are exposed to it day in and day out, the studies are inconclusive.
The reason why the lawsuits are a thing is due to how the American justice system works. Someone suffering a rare cancer out of the blue for seemingly no reason will grasp at straws for a reason, any reason, as to, "Why me?" ...Hey, big, bad company might be at fault plus a lawyer who stands to make a lot of money from a class action lawsuit (A third of a multimillion dollar settlement is a lot of money.) equals a lot of perverse incentives to pursue lawsuits. (Obviously not all lawsuits are like this.)
In a civil lawsuit, all the lawyers for the women have to do is convince a jury that on the balance of probabilities, they're more likely to be right than their opponent (i.e. at least 51% sure). They don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal trial (i.e 100% sure). Given that the jury is made up of laypeople, any verdict is more likely to be based on the theatrical performance of the lawyers than on solid scientific evidence which is what happened here. One side-women suffering horrible, rare cancer. Other side-"big, bad corporation." Who's side do you think the jury's going to fall on?
JnJ pulled their talc baby powders from the US and Canada due to the lawsuits because of a PR problem, not because of any conclusive evidence that their baby powders cause cancer. All other talc baby powder companies followed suit in the US. Johnson's talc baby powder is still on sale in other countries around the world including in the EU which has stricter safety standards.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now as far as Rearz selling baby powder, I don't really see the point since I can buy real baby powder and for a lot less.
rearz.ca
