SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A California judge has thrown out a $417 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiff claimed that she developed ovarian cancer after using J&J's talc-based products:
The ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson marked the latest setback facing women and family members who accuse J&J of not adequately warning consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products. The decision followed a jury's decision in August to hit J&J with the largest verdict to date in the litigation, awarding California resident Eva Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.
Nelson on Friday reversed the jury verdict and granted J&J's request for a new trial. Nelson said the August trial was underpinned by errors and insufficient evidence on both sides, culminating in excessive damages.
Mark Robinson, who represented the woman in her lawsuit, in a statement said he would file an appeal immediately. "We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product," he said.
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
(Score: 4, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday October 22 2017, @05:53PM (3 children)
Oh, there was evidence all right. The tobacco companies were suppressing it, as you note, but for longer than you suggest.
According to my math, 1954 is over 6 decades ago, which clearly counts as "a few short decades".
This article [bmj.com]lists suspicions of the link and actual research in the 1930 and 1940, with links shown in a study in 1943. Finally, an unequivocal conclusion from a study in 1954 that smoking leads to increased risk of lung cancer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday October 22 2017, @10:33PM
May I point out that Johnson's brand baby powder was brought to market in the 1890's[1], and the use of talcum as a powder dates further back[2], into pre-history.
All the lawsuits around talcum powder--filed not against prehistoric mother nature, but against a particularly large supplier--seem to come after the year two thousand and something[3].
Setting tobacco on fire and sucking on it turned out to cause cancer, which heavily suppressed science nonetheless discovered, and demonstrated conclusively, six decades ago.
Talcum powder, arguably in use for at least as long or longer, has no such history; not a peep about it until 20 years ago, and then, only as a plot device to sue someone...
[1][2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 23 2017, @06:08AM (1 child)
"According to my math, 1954 is over 6 decades ago, which clearly counts as "a few short decades"."
You'll want to be careful with that statement, in case my wife is listening. The tone of voice is important, and how you might emphasize the individual words. Her birthdate is 1/11/55, so be very, very careful about those "few short decades". You really don't want her to reach through the interwebs to pull your beating heart out of your chest. ;^)
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday October 23 2017, @03:49PM
Since I am very nearly as old as your wife, I feel that I am entitled to make that statement.