Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    You know this is the 4-5th successful lawsuit about this. And there are 1000's more in the works.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc
    One sets presidence for the others.
    Yeah it seems like a trend to sue over this that's only a year old. I still question the validity of this. Why is talcom powder what they think caused it? These women seem to all be of the approximately same age. Could there be nothing else in common?

  2. #42
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    One sets presidence for the others.
    Yeah it seems like a trend to sue over this that's only a year old. I still question the validity of this. Why is talcom powder what they think caused it? These women seem to all be of the approximately same age. Could there be nothing else in common?


    Because testing is showing a link between talc powder and ovarian cancer and J&J did nothing to warn users of a possible link. They even had their own internal documents that said there may be a link and just ignored it.

  3. #43
    Hold on, these internal documents showed that J&J knew that this baby powder contained a cancer risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conor McGregor View Post
    i got Johnson&Johnson shampoo it my eyes. i felt some discomfort.

    you think i have a case?
    Dot dot dot?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  4. #44
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    "small tiny particles in your genitals and lungs totally isn't bad for you, this is just stupidity!"
    So this what's been found in them? They all have these particles inside them?

    I must admit, it seems a bit strange to want to rub your vagina with a powder to dry it out like this. A womans genitals differ in that regard, as you gotta be careful with what you put on or in it. Now drying out your vagina and the insides of it sounds to me like a terrible idea. If the company gave this area of use as an advice to women, then I can understand this better. But seriously, why would you even do that even if they did tell you? Don't dry up your genitals.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Because testing is showing a link between talc powder and ovarian cancer and J&J did nothing to warn users of a possible link. They even had their own internal documents that said there may be a link and just ignored it.
    There's a link between red meat and cancer too, but meat isn't labeled.

  5. #45
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    22,950
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    There's a link between red meat and cancer too, but meat isn't labeled.

    Would have to say it probably isn't a high enough risk for it to warrant a warning like talc powder.

  6. #46
    Do people in this thread realize that talcum is mined from the same place as asbestos? Talc is interwoven with asbestos fibers. Even if they can commercially separate the two to make talc "safe," why anyone would put that inside their vagina is beyond me.

    I'm just an idiot, but putting a clay mineral from a mine inside your body just seems like it would cause issues. Talcum powder wasn't even required to have asbestos removed until the 1970s. This definitely seems like something you should put inside your body to dry it out.
    Last edited by Oftenwrongsoong; 2017-08-23 at 01:00 AM.

  7. #47
    I think it has to actually do with the lack of correct labeling and health concerns.

    Like J&J baby powder is nearly harmless according to the label: Reality umm loltalc is bad stupids!
    Disarm now correctly removes the targets’ arms.

  8. #48
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Would have to say it probably isn't a high enough risk for it to warrant a warning like talc powder.
    Alcohol is one as well and doesn't have any such labels to my knowledge.
    THough I do think they shouldn't recommend using talc powder on your vagina, it seems like a bad move no matter how one looks at it. Especially if there's a related risk.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    It was shown in court. Feel free to look it up if you want.

    There is also,
    https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...nd-cancer.html

    And

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc
    Just gonna take a few lines from the links here:

    Research published in 1995 and 2000 concluded that it was plausible that talc could cause ovarian cancer, but no conclusive evidence was shown.
    Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase. Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person’s memory of talc use many years earlier. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk.
    Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a chance. I'm saying that there is no conclusive evidence. And relying on the judicial system is absolutely absurd in establishing a basis for conclusive evidence.
    Last edited by medievalman1; 2017-08-23 at 01:43 AM.

  10. #50
    If you're a woman, there's a good chance you've used Johnson's Baby Powder at some point. It smells good, and it can keep you dry.

    But is it dangerous?

    Dr. Daniel Cramer says yes. He's a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. He says talc — the mineral in talcum powder — can cause ovarian cancer.

    "Overall, women may increase their risk in general by about 33 percent by using talc in their hygiene," Cramer says.

    On Monday, a California jury awarded Eva Echeverria $417 million in a case against Johnson & Johnson. Echeverria, who is suffering from terminal ovarian cancer, claimed it was caused by Johnson's Baby Powder, which she used on her perineum for decades.

    Hers wasn't the first jury award against the company. And thousands more cases are pending.

    It has opened a long-simmering question about whether talcum powder used in the genital area can cause cancer.

    Cramer, who has served as a paid consultant on several ovarian cancer cases against Johnson & Johnson, published one of the first studies noting an association between talc and ovarian cancer in 1982.

    "This story goes back a long, long way, back into the '70s when people noted that ovarian cancer had many similarities to asbestos exposure," he says. "Meanwhile another group in England found talc that was deeply embedded in ovaries and said there might be a story here."

    In fact, talc is a mineral that is sometimes mined alongside asbestos. And asbestos, a known carcinogen, was found in the past in some talc products.

    After his first study on the talc-cancer association, Cramer followed up with an article in 1985 calling on companies like Johnson & Johnson to put warning labels on their talcum powder products.

    Johnson & Johnson declined to be interviewed for this story. The company said in a statement that it plans to appeal the California verdict.

    "We are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder," wrote company spokeswoman Carol Goodrich in a statement. "In April, the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query Editorial Board wrote, 'The weight of evidence does not support an association between perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.' We are preparing for additional trials in the U.S., and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder."

    Some researchers agree that the link between talc and ovarian cancer isn't all that clear.

    The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in 2010 called talc a possible carcinogen.

    "It's not proof positive," says Joellen Schildkraut, a professor of public health at the University of Virginia. "These studies are suggestive. They support the idea."

    Her research shows there's a stronger link between talc and ovarian cancer among African-American women than there is among white women. But to her, even that link isn't proof.

    "I would not call this conclusive. It's consistent with other reports in the past. It's suggestive of a stronger association, but it is not conclusive," she says.

    There are theories about how talcum powder could cause cancer. If women put it on their underwear or on feminine products, it could get into their reproductive system. Then, talc particles could make their way to the ovaries — research has already shown that can happen, and talc has been found in ovarian tumors. The talc could then cause irritation and inflammation that, over time, could lead to cancer.

    "We can say that it is associated with an increased risk [of cancer]," says Shelley Tworoger, a cancer epidemiologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla. "And there are biologic mechanisms by which we think that talc could actually impact ovarian cancer. But I would stop short of saying that it necessarily causes ovarian cancer."

    But she says there's certainly enough information out there to guide women.

    "Why use it?" she says. "I don't know if I should say this or not, but ... why not just be safe and not use it?"




    Something that was on NPR today

    http://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...wder-to-cancer
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    So this what's been found in them? They all have these particles inside them?

    I must admit, it seems a bit strange to want to rub your vagina with a powder to dry it out like this. A womans genitals differ in that regard, as you gotta be careful with what you put on or in it. Now drying out your vagina and the insides of it sounds to me like a terrible idea. If the company gave this area of use as an advice to women, then I can understand this better. But seriously, why would you even do that even if they did tell you? Don't dry up your genitals.

    - - - Updated - - -



    There's a link between red meat and cancer too, but meat isn't labeled.
    Thats exactly what they did... it was recommended for years.

  12. #52
    Titan
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    11,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Thats exactly what they did... it was recommended for years.
    They shouldn't have. Just as women shouldn't have put it on their vaginas, for 40+ years.
    The former is negligent, the latter is idiotic.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by medievalman1 View Post
    Just gonna take a few lines from the links here:





    Look, I'm not saying that there isn't a chance. I'm saying that there is no conclusive evidence. And relying on the judicial system is absolutely absurd in establishing a basis for conclusive evidence.
    The jury didn't rule on those merits. It ruled based on 30 years of internal documents from J&J showing that they believed there was a risk and yet continued to market the baby powder. Only $68m of the awarded sum was in compensatory damages, the rest were punitive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  14. #54
    Damn, I had talc powder put on my lung...

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    They shouldn't have. Just as women shouldn't have put it on their vaginas, for 40+ years.
    The former is negligent, the latter is idiotic.
    If they had a problem with being too moist down there and talc solved the problem and everyone told them "oh it is safe" when it isn't... it's not idiotic.. they were ignorant, and led astray.

    It's like calling people who worked with asbestos ignorant.

  16. #56
    if you were using it for 66 years, and it took 57 years before they diagnosed you with cancer, its probably a safe bet it wasn't the talc

  17. #57
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    Why would you want to make your dick drier when you jerk it? You're gonna hurt yourself. You want to lube it up not dry it out.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Hell, is she a smoker maybe...? Why is baby powder the correlation here? It could be anything else these women have in common.
    Fetishes mostly.

  18. #58
    Brewmaster Fat Mac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Paddy's Pub
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Hold on, these internal documents showed that J&J knew that this baby powder contained a cancer risk?



    Dot dot dot?
    -... ..- ... .... / -.. .. -.. / ----. -..-. .---- .----

    - - - Updated - - -

    MMA legend and Scientist here.

    The science behind this talc powder cancer claim is somewhat nebulous.

    A long time ago, talc contained some asbestos. Asbestos is bad because it causes cancer. If talc is highly refined in modern facilities, it should contain no asbestos.
    There have been a few articles that show a minimal correlation but essentially the numbers simply don't really show much either way.
    IIRC, one of the claims is that J&J did not mark their product "For External Use Only". Talc is fine for external use, but you should not inhale, eat, breathe, or insert it. Some people use talc too much, and put it too close to their body openings where it could potentially go inside. It's bad to put anything inside your body that doesn't really belong.
    Even if the talc powder used is pure talc and doesn't have any asbestos, it could be an irritant to the special skin inside your body (epithelium). That's because under a microscope, talc is made of very sharp crystals of rock. The jury is still out if this causes cancer or not. That said, it's probably best to avoid it and not put it inside your body.

    Talc has been used for such a long time that it is not considered a drug by the US government - it's a cosmetic. Cosmetics do not need to be tested and approved by the FDA the same way that drugs are.

    So anyhow, whether you are a lady or a guy or someone in between, you can use talc on your outside parts but don't put it inside you.

  19. #59
    I tend to think it's only fair to hold a company responsible for damages if it could reasonably be expected that the company should have known that the product would cause harm, OR the company did in fact discover that the product caused harm, and chose to cover up that fact rather than inform the public. In this case, I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect J&J to have known that talcum powder would cause ovarian cancer, especially since scientists are still divided on the issue themselves. There is also no evidence that J&J participated in a cover up of any kind.

    That said, my personal choice is to stay away from aerosolized talcum powder because it could potentially cause damage to lung tissue, and my lungs are particularly sensitive to irritants and pollution.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor McGregor View Post
    -... ..- ... .... / -.. .. -.. / ----. -..-. .---- .----
    .. / - .... .. -. -.- / -.-- --- ..- / -- . .- -. - / - --- / ... .- -.-- / -.--.- -.--.- -.--.- -... ..- ... .... -.--.- -.--.- -.--.- .-.-.-
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •