Apropos of anything else, J&J's handling of this has been despicable. Creating an entity specifically to pick up all of the related liabilities, picking up those liabilities and then (exact count may be wrong, but it's very close) literally filing for bankruptcy within the space of three days.<p>The Texas two-step, as it's called.<p>> In 2021, the company spun off its liabilities into a new entity called LTL Management under a strategy called the “Texas two-step.” That legal but controversial approach allows a solvent parent company to protect its assets by creating a subsidiary to hold its liabilities — and then having the new company declare bankruptcy, as LTL did just days after incorporating. Critics complain it’s an abuse of the bankruptcy system and allows companies facing massive litigation to dodge corporate responsibility.<p>> The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia dismissed the bankruptcy filing in January, finding LTL was not in financial distress and had “no valid bankruptcy purpose.”<p>> But hours after that case was formally dismissed in April, LTL filed for bankruptcy protection again, this time with a higher settlement proposal of $8.9 billion.<p>The fact that this is legal is such a mockery of consumer protection law.
As someone who did a PhD and published and read many papers (in ML) I believe vast majority of papers in ML are misleading. If in fact every paper that claims a better performance over state of the art was true we would have solved AI by now. You see all sorts of problems when you dig deeper into the technical details of peer reviewed publications (even in top tier conferences) including misleading baselines, statistical insignificance of improvements, overfitting to test data, and in some cases just flat-out fabrication of results.<p>I hope this is not as bad in medicine and health related research. But just thinking that some paper can be used against you in court to claim billions of dollars in damages makes me uneasy. Peer reviewed paper != science. Peer review is a crude filter on research that can both accept bad work and reject good work. There must be a higher bar for something that can be used in the court of law. Some sort of scientific consensus must be needed at least.<p>It's easy to dismiss this because screw J&J. But I think we are all paying for these lawsuits through our insurances and taxes and higher drug prices.<p>Not saying these lawsuits don't have merits, but I think there must be a higher bar for what is presented as evidence.
If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? As we've seen in a number of other recent cases research is by no means free of malfeasance. Even research performed to some statistical standard may fall far short of truly indicating a casual link.<p>These researchers have gained materially from the output of their research (expert witnesses do not testify for free). Of course if the lawsuit is baseless then it is an evil distraction but the mere act of suing researchers is not, on its face, a problem.
Scratching the surface on talc, it's difficult to determine what should/should-not be done.<p>Cancer.org has a page on talc[0] and from it:<p>> Studies of personal use of talcum powder have had mixed results, although there is some suggestion of a possible increase in ovarian cancer risk. There is very little evidence at this time that any other forms of cancer are linked with consumer use of talcum powder.<p>> Until more information is available, people who are concerned about possible links between talcum powder and cancer may choose to avoid or limit their use of consumer products that contain it.<p>Seems like more studies are needed for the consumer level.<p>[0] <a href="https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...</a>
This agency <a href="https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talcum-powder-and-cancer.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/talc...</a> seems to downplay the risk of cancer.<p>Is it possible Johnson and Johnson have been maligned? I'm not an advocate, I'd be interested in seeing significant evidence that their product causes cancer. However, I'd like to see a firm distinction between talc and talc contaminated with asbestos. The link with asbestos and cancer is clear. I'm not convinced of the problem with talc powder.
This will be an interesting one to follow. J&J may have a case but could also just be a case of supressing bad news.<p>The original study had a very small sample size (33 people), which one could argue would be small enough to dismiss. Are there any larger follow up studies?
Corporations = no personal liabilities.<p>Scientists = personal liabilities.<p>Even the threat of losing one's credibility and career for daring to publish science which might possibly harm corporate profits is a horrible thing.
When you have a substance that is labeled "For External Use Only" and it's used in a way that manages to pack large quantities, asbestos or not, deeply into internal organs, then perhaps adverse effects can be expected.<p>"Junk science" is a charitable description of what was perpetrated in those studies.
:/<p>- J&J made useful products that may have been problematic according to cutting edge research. Now they are broke and fighting tons of litigation. And they are acting shady in court (thx to their lawyers/management, not their researchers no doubt).<p>- Researchers did cutting edge work on a relevant topic. Now they are getting sued.<p>- a load of people are suing J&J after choosing to buy their products. I’m sure some of the plaintiffs have real tough situations and some are motivated by greed/pushy lawyers. These people might get paid.<p>- the lawyers who did no cutting edge work and made no useful products are getting paid<p>- regular folk might have to pay more for j&j products<p>Few winners, and not the winners I would have wanted
External-use-only products based on talc have been yanked from all shelves in every pharmacy and grocery store nationwide, while ironically, talc still remains on the shelves in pill form: alli® is an OTC weight-loss medication. <a href="https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/myalli/products/alli%20120%20ct%20product%20label%20drug%20facts.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.myalli.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/my...</a><p>I don't really want to think about the mechanism by which talc induces weight loss along with the active ingredient.
The use of a bankruptcy court, to a layman like me, looks suspicious, even after reading all the comments explaining it. Is this not what class-action suits are for? Combining similar cases into one to save court resources? This seems like a backwards way to go about that which affords J&J lawyers more surface area from which to litigate about technicalities, loop-holes, etc.<p>My assumption is they determined this first $65 billion will be enough to make the problem go away. Claimants will get a big check, but not big enough to launch further litigation to get more out of the company.<p>IMO, this is solving a problem that does not exist. If one or two initial claimants were to clean out the whole company then subsequent claimants could sue them for their share, or the courts could step in and enforce a class-action.
What’s the story on the actual research? Is it legit? I find it hard to believe talc causes cancer. Apparently the research is on asbestos-containing talc, and J&J claims their talc never contained asbestos? What am I missing?
Talc isn’t really used in sufficient quantities to cause cancer. So maybe this suit is justified? It’s kind of like those California cancer warning labels you find on everything but in practice the cancer risk is near zero, all it does is spook the masses.
Here's the article that Reuters published in 2018 about their investigation into J&J's knowledge of asbestos contamination in their talc products: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...</a>
In some ways the talc controversy does seem similar to the silicone breast implant controversy in the 1990’s.<p>An overview is at<p><a href="https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.206</a>
I'm just so amazed!<p>I thought Johnson & Johnson was one of the good corporations and would accept and honour its obligations.<p>And that science has the truth to tell us what right or wrong, not a court.<p>And that the law system would deliver justice.<p>I'm just so amazed.
Hard one to decide though the researchers did profit nicely and they are not naming their patients name. Are they real patients and if so J&J does should have the right to research their health records.<p>Overall Where there's money to be made there usually is shenanigans. That's goes for both sides.