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: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Sunday October 22 2017, @04:43PM (8 children)
There is certainly plenty of muddy water and obfuscation. But a hundred loops of { "Yeah, but what about so and so?"; "It's interesting, but does not demonstrate any cancer risk from baby powder"; } leaves you back where you started.
What there isn't is any evidence-based scientific conclusion that baby powder so used is a cause of increased cancer risk.
If there is such an increased risk, I would hope that the evidence would overwhelmingly demonstrate it. It doesn't.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday October 22 2017, @04:58PM (7 children)
That sounds reasonable enough. Except, a few short decades ago, there was no evidence that smoking caused cancer. Over the course of a couple decades, the tobacco companies were finding that evidence, and suppressing it. Are you old enough to remember the commercials touting tobacco's health BENEFITS? They suppressed all anti-tobacco evidence, and lied to the public about it's fake benefits.
So - what do we have today? I'm not sure, but just maybe, we have a corporation with very deep pockets working hard to suppress evidence that their product causes cancer.
I'll keep an open mind here. I'm not siding with the women yet, but I'm certainly not going to consigne the women to the looney bin.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday October 22 2017, @05:42PM
Well stated. That's my position as well.
(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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday October 22 2017, @06:04PM
To further muddy the water, the theory was that asbestos fibers contaminating the talc were responsible for the cancer risk. But cosmetic talc hasn't had any asbestos fiber in it since the '70s.
As far as I know, nobody has yet claimed that the industry knew of a danger and suppressed the evidence, much less presented evidence of that.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Sunday October 22 2017, @06:25PM
However, the idea of paying a single victim enough money to build an entire hospital or two*, based on such weak evidence, suggests that someone involved needs to have their head examined and that any semblance of justice has long since left the building.
Its one thing compensating victims for their realistic losses, but handing out hundreds of millions just creates an incentive for (a) industry cover-ups (b) opportunistic lawsuits and (c) appeals that drag on until both victim and hypothetical villains are long gone.
(* OK, dramatic license - cost of hospitals may vary and I'm sure that figure will look a lot smaller once the lawyers have been paid for 10 years of appeals)