SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Johnson & Johnson's stock slammed after report it knew of asbestos in baby powder
Shares of Johnson & Johnson tumbled Friday, after a Reuters report that the drug and consumer-products company knew for decades that its baby talcum powder was contaminated with asbestos, a known carcinogen, that is alleged to have caused cancer in thousands of its customers.
The stock ended 10% lower on Friday, marking its largest one-day percentage decline in 16 years and lowest close in nearly four months, according to FactSet data. It led decliners on the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 on the day, and accounted for about 101 points of the Dow's 497-point loss.
[...] Reuters said an examination of internal company memos and other documents found the New Jersey–based company was aware of the presence of small amounts of asbestos in its products from as early as 1971 but failed to disclose that fact to regulators or to the general public.
Reuters stands by J&J report, says it was based 'entirely' on Johnson & Johnson documents
Reuters reporter Lisa Girion stands by her report that Johnson & Johnson knew for decades that asbestos was in its baby powder. "Our report on the fact that J&J was aware of small amounts of asbestos in its talc, in its baby power, in the ore that it mined in Vermont to make baby power, is based entirely on their documents," Girion told CNBC's "Power Lunch" on Friday.
The Reuters story sent J&J shares down 9 percent on Friday and prompted a response from the health-care company that called the article "one-sided, false and inflammatory." "Simply put, the Reuters story is an absurd conspiracy theory, in that it apparently has spanned over 40 years, orchestrated among generations of global regulators, the world's foremost scientists and universities, leading independent labs, and J&J employees themselves," the company said in a statement.
See also: Asbestos Opens New Legal Front in Battle Over Johnson's Baby Powder
Those J&J Baby-Powder Lawsuits Aren't Going Away
Johnson & Johnson loses $39.8 billion in market value in one day after report claims it knew about asbestos in its baby powder
Previously: The Baby Powder Trials: How Courts Deal with Inconclusive Science
Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $417m in Latest Talc Cancer Case
$417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Tossed Out
Johnson & Johnson Loses New Jersey Talc Cancer Case
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:00AM (19 children)
If perception is the problem, then perceive differently. Odds are fair that this will drift away and then baby powder (and perception of it) will be back where it was.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:21AM (18 children)
Not your perception, not my perception, the perception of all the people who matter. If you can change that, reality doesn't matter.
Good luck changing the perception of the general public regarding asbestos on and around their babies.
You're right, though, attention spans are generally short and this might blow over.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @02:50AM (11 children)
You just said it was about perception. Those people don't matter to me.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:13PM (10 children)
Nor do you matter to them, or the greater course of events in the world.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:55PM (9 children)
Uh huh. Sounds like you lost another SN argument again. But please tell me again how futile and irrelevant your own arguments are in the greater course of events in the world.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:50PM (8 children)
Not doing this for internet points, I wish you all the happiness you can muster from "winning SN arguments" in your own mind.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:59PM (7 children)
Too bad. That really cuts down on the value of your ramblings.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:10AM (6 children)
You underestimate how much I enjoy the sound of my own typing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 19 2018, @03:33PM (5 children)
I disagree. The babble endgame is unfortunately a common outcome, but it's a long struggle to get to that point. You put too much effort in for it to be merely that. Primal things like the need to express yourself are important, but they're not everything. The higher level details matter.
As to some of the behavior in this thread, spoiled grapes nihilism is a common response when one can't rebut criticism of their ideas. "My idea is wrong, but it doesn't matter. The public/powers-that-be/scientific community/etc will perceive things my way." The obvious rebuttal to that is that they can perceive things other ways that aren't so wrong. Discussion in places like SN is one way to help change that perception. I don't believe SN speech will move mountains by itself, but then I'm not trying that hard either. The results are good for the effort I put in.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 20 2018, @01:46AM (4 children)
Correct on two counts, your idea is wrong, and it does not matter.
I do not find that you have in any way, shape or form demonstrated anything I have said to be "wrong," incorrect, or anything but incompatible with your personal world view. Thank you for sharing that view, and chalk this particular exchange up as yet another point in your favor on your personal scorecard if that makes you feel better.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 20 2018, @01:53AM (3 children)
First time you've expressed that particular narrative. I like it much better than the rest because it expresses something relevant to our conversation. So what do you think supports your contention here?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 20 2018, @07:17PM (1 child)
Sorry, now you're looking for argument and I've already told you: this is abuse.
For argument, find somebody who cares.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 21 2018, @03:17AM
It's not very good abuse. I've had much better.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 20 2018, @07:20PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDjCqjzbvJY [youtube.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:03AM (5 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 18 2018, @01:15PM (4 children)
You're looking for consistency? This isn't consistency, this is abuse - for consistency please refer to the information desk. Best of luck.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @03:57PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 18 2018, @08:53PM (2 children)
If the acuity of your perception were less obtuse, you might actually connect the three threads and see how they weave into a cohesive narrative. I am not paid to write cogent articles for your pleasure and I seriously doubt anyone else on the planet reads into our deep threads, so it is left as an exercise to the reader to find their own enjoyment in the content presented herein.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 18 2018, @09:04PM (1 child)
Sorry, I didn't smoke enough weed for that. We all have our failings.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday December 19 2018, @12:15AM
To continue the arsenic in wood preservative thread, that guy smoked plenty of weed, but not so much that he didn't know what the blowback would be from his study. And he was very right, arsenic was banned as a wood preservative, at least in Florida, within a very short time after they published the playground soil findings. Anybody who stopped and thought about it for a second would have considered it obvious that wood preservative would leach out into surrounding soils, but "obvious" and "scientifically demonstrated and published in the peer reviewed literature" have very different effects on public perception and the actions that legislators take in response.
🌻🌻 [google.com]