[HN Gopher] Johnson and Johnson to pay $6.5B to resolve talc ova...
___________________________________________________________________
Johnson and Johnson to pay $6.5B to resolve talc ovarian cancer
lawsuits in U.S.
Author : thelastgallon
Score : 107 points
Date : 2024-05-01 13:14 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| user90131313 wrote:
| people are dead but executives get away with just sharing some of
| their profit, not even all profit :) such an equal and wonderful
| world we make. lets blame some other thing
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I'm not sure what the answer is, but despite how much everyone
| loves bashing "big corporate executives", I don't think it's a
| plus in our system that someone can be found liable for something
| completely contrary to scientific evidence.
|
| The evidence that talc causes cancer is "limited at best" (I'll
| let people do their own searches and come to their own
| conclusions). But to me this seems similar to silicone breast
| implants, where billions were paid out and companies bankrupted
| despite the fact that there is essentially no scientific evidence
| that silicone breast implants cause cancer.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Talc deposits are often found around asbestos ore. From what I
| can tell the issue is cross contamination rather than talcum
| powder itself being carcinogenic.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc#Association_with_asbestos
| happytoexplain wrote:
| I'm not motivated to do _real_ research (reading entire
| source papers /testimony), but every time I look into this,
| the info is really frustrating and unclear. There seems to be
| a lot of noise (on one side, corporate self-preservation; and
| on the other, overly un-objective anti-corporate sentiment).
|
| As far as I can tell, talc can be contaminated with asbestos,
| but you can test for this and use processes that avoid/remedy
| the contamination, which J&J ostensibly did - meanwhile, the
| cases against them seem statistically meaningless _as
| described_ in all the articles. And then every time a
| scientific link to cancer is mentioned, it 's never made
| clear if the link is significant, and whether the link is
| from _mined talc that might be contaminated_ , _pure talc_ ,
| or _the J &J product on the shelves which might be
| contaminated_, only the latter two being meaningful. And
| regardless, J&J claims this link is junk science, and are
| confident enough to be suing to prove that, so I guess I look
| forward to seeing the result of that.
|
| The only case that seemed significant was that J&J was found
| to have covered up contamination, but they seem to continue
| to contest this and I can't find _any_ details on what the
| evidence was. E.g. is J &J claiming it wasn't contaminated,
| or are they claiming it was, but not to dangerous levels
| _even over decades of use_?
|
| Very annoying.
| whaleofatw2022 wrote:
| > The only case that seemed significant was that J&J was
| found to have covered up contamination, but they seem to
| continue to contest this and I can't find any details on
| what the evidence was. E.g. is J&J claiming it wasn't
| contaminated, or are they claiming it was, but not to
| dangerous levels even over decades of use?
|
| This article doesn't go into the details too deeply but
| however bad it was, sounds like it went on for a while...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/johnson-
| johnson-k...
| autoexec wrote:
| > As far as I can tell, talc can be contaminated with
| asbestos, but you can test for this and use processes that
| avoid/remedy the contamination, which J&J ostensibly did
|
| They tested, found asbestos, then lied to the FDA saying
| that there wasn't any when there had been, tried to get the
| FDA to allow certain amounts of asbestos in their products,
| and when faced with lawsuits repeatedly obstructed efforts
| to get their internal documentation/communication on the
| subject.
|
| > meanwhile, the cases against them seem statistically
| meaningless as described in all the articles.
|
| That's a bizarre metric. How many people who got cancer
| would have detected it, realized that it was from baby
| powder, had the time, strength, and money (while fighting
| cancer) to get lawyers and go to court over it?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I don't believe this is accurate. There are concerns that
| talc can be contaminated with asbestos, but (a) asbestos was
| largely removed from talc for sale in the US in the mid 70s
| as your Wikipedia link points out (and additional info in the
| link below), (b) the concern with asbestos contamination is
| largely related to inhalation and lung cancer - I haven't
| even seen much in the form of hypotheses that it is a factor
| in ovarian cancer, and (c) given a and b the concern is
| largely with talc _mining_ and the miners involved, not
| people who use talc-based baby powder.
|
| https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-
| prevention/chemicals/talc...
| autoexec wrote:
| > he concern with asbestos contamination is largely related
| to inhalation and lung cancer - I haven't even seen much in
| the form of hypotheses that it is a factor in ovarian
| cancer
|
| Someone above linked to this: Asbestos Exposure and Ovarian
| Cancer: A Meta-analysis (https://www.sciencedirect.com/scie
| nce/article/pii/S209379112...) which concludes: "This meta-
| analysis provides evidence of a significant association
| between asbestos exposure and ovarian cancer mortality."
|
| You might not be aware of any hypotheses that asbestos is a
| factor in ovarian cancer, but it seems others have for a
| very long time. In 2017 Germany considered ovarian cancer
| caused by asbestos to be an occupational disease. A link
| between talc and ovarian cancer was suggested back in the
| 1960s.
|
| Talc, as something that causes cancer, has been being
| researched for a very very long time.
| GJim wrote:
| > The evidence that talc causes cancer is "limited at best"
|
| Yet appears to have become an article of faith for many on
| here; a least judging by the downvoting and ridicule heaped on
| those who dared question the narrative (and questionable
| evidence) in earlier posts.
|
| Frankly, this appears to be a US thing, as nobody has heard of
| this supposed link in Blighty.
| InfiniteRand wrote:
| The bigger impact than the fine is I don't see people using baby
| powder any more. I lean toward the probably not side of the talc-
| cancer link, but I didn't use baby powder for my kids because
| it's purely a nice-to-have convenience product.
|
| Nice-to-have convenience products are very easy to drop at the
| slightest potential health risk, and that's what I've seen with
| baby powder (I'm not seeing much uptake on the alternatives
| because the talc-cancer link gives a vague maybe-need-to-be-
| cautious taint to the product category as a whole).
|
| I would be interested to hear if someone thinks that usage of
| baby powder is still popular and my anecdote-based sense of
| things is wrong.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| More context: https://www.asbestos.com/companies/johnson-johnson/
|
| The kicker: "Court documents have revealed that Johnson & Johnson
| knew its talc contained asbestos as early as the 1950s"
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| Asbestos.com is simply punishing success out of jealousy. They
| just wish they found that market edge first.
|
| Edit: /S
| 23B1 wrote:
| What an odd comment. How are you defining 'success' and
| 'market edge' in this scenario?
|
| EDIT: just saw the sarcasm tag, sorry
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| I think they're satirizing the kind of attacks used to
| dismiss those who document and complain about these safety
| issues. But I'm not sure.
| 23B1 wrote:
| me big dumb
| legitster wrote:
| I don't know why knowing the geological fact that talc contains
| trace amounts of asbestos is supposed to sound so guilty.
|
| My children's school district contains _way more_ than a trace
| amount of asbestos. The administrators there know it. They aren
| 't in federal court for failing to slap a warning label on the
| schools.
| calfuris wrote:
| I'm not going to weigh in on the J&J issue, but that's a bad
| comparison. Asbestos can't do any harm if it doesn't get
| inside your body. Powdered asbestos (as would be found in
| talcum powder) can very easily do that, but asbestos bound up
| in building materials can't do that if left undisturbed. Most
| things that could disturb asbestos are planned in advance,
| and as long as the presence of asbestos is known it can be
| worked around, so asbestos in building materials is not
| particularly hazardous.
| autoexec wrote:
| > My children's school district contains way more than a
| trace amount of asbestos.
|
| They should probably be warning people of the danger and if
| they are in violation of the laws concerning asbestos the
| school district should be taken to court.
|
| One thing is clear, don't grind up your children's school
| district and then rub it all over a baby's genitals.
| tombert wrote:
| I don't know anything about biology, so could someone explain the
| mechanism by which this powder could have caused ovarian cancer?
|
| (Genuine question, not rhetorical, not intending to make any
| point with it)
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| Asbestos fibers have been known for causing these cell changes
| for decades now.
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| It's not just the asbestos angle. From
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talc
|
| > One of these, published in 1993, was a US National
| Toxicology Program report, which found that cosmetic grade
| talc containing no asbestos-like fibres was correlated with
| tumor formation in rats
| SigmundA wrote:
| "rats forced to inhale talc for 6 hours a day, five days a
| week over at least 113 weeks."
|
| Thats a lot different than applying it to your body. If I
| inhale sand for 6 hours a day for 113 weeks I would not be
| surprised to get tumors as well, I still go to the beach.
|
| Most things around us we touch could cause tumors if we
| inhaled them constantly over time.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Talc powder is what is used in baby powder.
|
| In nature, the majority of talc deposits also contain asbestos.
| Even worse, the form of asbestos in those deposits is the most
| cancerous form of it.
|
| So basically what was happening was that women were using baby
| powder as a absorbent to keep their lady parts feeling fresh,
| but were introducing a whole bunch of asbestos in the process.
| This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your hoo-
| haa to begin with.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| "This is on top of the dubious idea of putting talc on your
| hoo-haa to begin with"
|
| Not so uncommon where I live. BTW, baby girls ALSO have
| ovaries, and they use talc for prolonged periods of time.
|
| I also use talc in my groin. Not often, but still. Prostate
| cancer is not a concern for older males (we all develop it
| some time), but testicular cancer is a thing (mostly in
| children)
| Shank wrote:
| > Prostate cancer is not a concern for older males (we all
| develop it some time)
|
| I'm sorry? What?
|
| Prostate cancer is definitely a concern in males, and in
| no-way is it expected or an inevitability.
| joncrocks wrote:
| While it is a concern, I think all males 'get it' if they
| advance enough in years.
|
| I remember reading somewhere that if you biopsied those
| that died of 'old-age' then it would be present in some
| form. So it's not a question of if, but when, and when,
| whether it'll be the thing that gets you before something
| else gives out.
| tombert wrote:
| I think a lot of men get it but it progresses so slowly
| that you'll likely be dead from something else (likely
| another cancer) before the prostate cancer gets you.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Prostate cancer becomes more commonplace as men grow
| older, but also less virulent.
|
| An urologist whom I helped with typesetting of his PhD
| thesis (in LaTeX, funny guy) told me once that in
| patients over 70, basically everyone has some cancerous
| cells in his biopsy samples, but that these usually
| aren't actually dangerous to the patients.
| catlikesshrimp wrote:
| I am more concerned about the surgery to unblock the
| urethra, which is often needed, becauseof the urinary
| incontinence that might result from it.
|
| Prostate cancer, as others have mentioned, is guaranteed,
| like death. But it is not something that affects most
| men's life beyond the worry of getting it.
|
| Going offtopic: Colorectal cancer is a more pressing
| matter for older adults. Correct Screening saves lives.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The talc they were sourcing was riddled with asbestos, which
| they covered up for years. Asbestos's carcinogenic nature is
| unique in that the physical shape of the fibers is what causes
| the cancers. So many of the cancers implicated here were due to
| the typical path of women breathing the powder in while
| applying to their babies, etc, but the ovarian ones were likely
| caused by women applying talc to their perineum following birth
| or surgery - the asbestos fibers would be introduced into the
| vagina and 'burrow' into the cells where they cause similar
| cancers to mesothelioma or actually interfere with mitosis due
| to being similarly sized to chromosomes.
|
| It's not too far fetched since the uterus and lungs are both
| lined with similar types of epithelial and mucosal cells.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| > were sourcing was riddled with asbestos
|
| It was allegedly contaminated beyond a couple of confirmed
| samples that contained very low levels. It was never
| demonstrated that the issue was widespread or that any
| plaintiff had ever purchased a contaminated product.
|
| That isn't to say that there isn't/wasn't a problem, but
| "sourcing was riddled with asbestos" is a gross
| overstatement.
| legitster wrote:
| But the literature on this is incredibly light. The idea that
| asbestos messes with chromosomes is wild! And not at all
| similar to what happens in the lungs.
|
| And the correlation here is really weak - all women who
| developed ovarian cancer and also happened to use talc at
| some point in their lives.
| contravariant wrote:
| The most obvious would be asbestos contamination. There was for
| example a Reuters investigation in 2018 that claims J&J were
| aware of test showing asbestos in some of their talc.
|
| Looks like there are also suspicions towards talc itself, but
| it might be hard to prove that J&J was negligent in that
| regard. Unless there's been some cover-up that I/we don't know
| about.
| SigmundA wrote:
| Exactly I can't find any explanation how abestos could migrate
| from external application up to the ovaries, this seems like an
| obvious issue.
|
| Abestos is not harmful just by touching it, you get cancer from
| it by breathing it in significant quantities over time (or
| ingesting it).
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| How can they get a fine this small for a dangerous product they
| pushed onto markets _globally_ for _several decades_? There
| really should be retroactive punishment and fines for past
| executives and clawing back of money from them and past
| shareholders.
|
| Also am I reading this right? J&J formed a subsidiary that'll
| absorb these liabilities? How is that legal? What happens if that
| subsidiary disappears? Couldn't any company conceivably let go of
| their liabilities by putting it in some other company?
| alt227 wrote:
| The courts seem to have some power here, see this quote from
| the article:
|
| >The company tried filing LTL in bankruptcy twice before -- and
| both times the case was rejected as courts ruled the parent
| company was financially capable of paying the claims without
| bankruptcy protection.
| surfingdino wrote:
| The subsidiary will pay out the settlement and go bankrupt
| without affecting the parent company's stock price.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Where does the subsidiary get $6.5B from?
| surfingdino wrote:
| The parent company.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Surely investors value parent company less if the company
| has $6.5B less than they would if the same company had
| $6.5B more.
| carbotaniuman wrote:
| Yes, but compared to the alternative where the parent
| company is responsible for an unknown amount of
| liabilities, capping ones liabilities at 6.5 billion
| might be better for shareholders.
| davisr wrote:
| This was their plan. I encourage you, and everyone who is a US
| citizen, to write/call your representatives. Tell them you want
| corporate heads to have personal liability for these issues.
| Tell them to dispose of Citizens United.
| hiatus wrote:
| > Also am I reading this right? J&J formed a subsidiary that'll
| absorb these liabilities? How is that legal? What happens if
| that subsidiary disappears? Couldn't any company conceivably
| let go of their liabilities by putting it in some other
| company?
|
| Also know as the Texas two-step.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What happens if that subsidiary disappears? Couldn't any
| company conceivably let go of their liabilities by putting it
| in some other company?_
|
| No, that's fraud. This is a way to use bankruptcy to pay out
| claims versus reduce them--the parent company guarantees the
| subsidiary's liabilities.
| legitster wrote:
| I'm still of the belief that the judgement was wrong. The link
| between asbestos and ovarian cancer is incredibly weak, let alone
| enough to indicate causality.
|
| The amount of asbestos actually found in the powder was
| ridiculously low.
|
| The only smoking gun was some internal emails where executives
| had some higher than baseline _internal_ tests and they argued
| about the accuracy /reliability of them.
|
| Based on everything I have read, I would not be concerned in the
| slightest about using Talc powder.
|
| Asbestos was bad, but people have been conditioned to overrate
| it's danger to casual exposure because of the lifelong exposure
| to mesothelioma litigation where lawyers had a field day.
| eganist wrote:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230399/
|
| Have you seen anything newer that resoundingly disputes this
| and the studies cited herein?
|
| More recent, and accounting for more recent studies:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209379112...
| legitster wrote:
| First of all this was a study of women who _worked with
| asbestos in an industrial setting_. Not casual trace
| exposure.
|
| Secondly, this only establishes a correlation (and a
| relatively weak one at that). But there are lots of other
| plausible links between choosing to work in a low income
| asbestos industry and ovarian cancer.
| text0404 wrote:
| and the people suing used J&J baby powder their entire
| lives and put it on their infants. J&J also hid its
| findings from federal regulators, which doesn't make them
| seem as innocent as you're making them out to be.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| I could be wrong, but the report seems to be that some
| mines contained asbestos, but that it was manageable, so
| the only _relevant_ finding was that their end product
| "sometimes tested positive" for "small amounts" of
| asbestos during a 30-something-year period. Did the
| amount/frequency represent a legal responsibility to
| report it? Did it represent a moral responsibility, based
| on known science? I haven't seen much about that, and I'd
| love to hear from some source that at least appears to be
| attempting objectivity.
| legitster wrote:
| That's the thing - billions of people use talc products
| regularly. Millions develop ovarian cancer naturally. A
| small group of talc users suing
|
| I'm not saying J&J did nothing wrong, but if you read the
| documents their testing scheme actually far exceeded the
| federal requirements and they regularly changed suppliers
| if they felt there was a risk of asbestos. Them throwing
| out outlier test data is only suspicious with the post-
| hoc assumption they were guilty of hiding something.
| cm2012 wrote:
| Yep. J&J seems like they didn't do anything wrong.
| throwitaway222 wrote:
| Corn starch is a better baby powder.
|
| Talc is a rock. Rocks co-mingle with many minerals. As a
| rockhound, this is super evident. Tiger's eye is basically
| sealed in Asbestos. If you cut it with a tile saw you'll get
| very unhealthy tiny knives in your cells.
|
| Rock powders are generally very harmful for people.
| Tile/countertop cutters get sick after working about 5-10
| years, and that's with PPE.
| criddell wrote:
| Which judgement are you talking about?
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| I've been following this litigation for a long time, and
| everything in this post is right. The scientific evidence of a
| causal link between talc usage and ovarian cancer simply
| doesn't exist.
|
| What does exist: extremely sympathetic cancer patients that
| used talc, a faceless multinational corporation as defendant, a
| few documents in what was a huge amount of discovery that
| suggest disagreement over quality controls approaches and
| confidence in results, a bunch of plaintiff's attorneys on
| contingency-fees.
|
| Add in a significant dose of innuendo and hand-waving and
| you're eventually going to find a jury that'll give you a
| billion dollar verdict, and so it happened.
| languagehacker wrote:
| I really enjoyed this podcast about the issue:
| https://www.stitcherstudios.com/shows/verified-dust-up.
|
| They've known about this issue for a long, long time and decided
| to just change who they sell it to from wealthy, "discerning"
| people to groups of lower socioeconomic status. This will be a
| tarnish on J&J's reputation for a very long time.
| jrsdav wrote:
| As a hobby ceramicist, I must acknowledge a certain amount of
| grumpiness borne from what the talc allegations have done to our
| niche community.
|
| Talc is used extensively in low-mid fire clay bodies as well as
| an additive to increase plasticity (makes clay easier to work
| with), and is an excellent source of MgO for fluxing glazes. In
| short, it's a great material to have in our cabinet [1]. But now
| there are essentially no more talc sources in the US and the
| ripple effect seen in our suppliers and manufactures has been a
| big shock (we are ever at the mercy of big industry!).
|
| But I honestly just don't get the link to ovarian cancer. Chronic
| exposure to asbestos causing lung cancer, sure, if it were
| present in talc in high amounts (which is somewhat dubious in the
| case of talcum powder). Ultimately I have to conclude that J&J,
| with all of its billions of dollars and army of lawyers, couldn't
| find a way out of this. So either the research is dated and needs
| to be reviewed because there is something going on with talc that
| we don't understand (unlikely, imho), or I'm left speculating
| that there is something else motivating them to avoid closer
| scrutiny of their products.
|
| - [1]: https://digitalfire.com/material/talc
| ryandrake wrote:
| Tire talc is still used on light aircraft tire tubes. I stocked
| up on a bunch, but it still seems to be widely available. Maybe
| it's fundamentally a different product than the J&J baby
| stuff...?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It likely has a bunch of asbestos in it, as industrial talc
| tends to have to most asbestos in it. I would wear a mask
| when using it.
| gen3 wrote:
| If it helps, talc and asbestos deposits occur naturally in
| close proximity. Enough so that regular testing for asbestos is
| required.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| You could buy it in Mexico I guess?
| bsder wrote:
| > Ultimately I have to conclude, that J&J with all of its
| billions of dollars and army of lawyers, couldn't find a way
| out of this.
|
| As I understand it, J&J executives moved to bury data rather
| than investigating. In addition, J&J _specifically_ targeted
| minorities proclaiming dubious "benefits" at the same time
| they were burying anything to the contrary.
|
| Consequently, it doesn't really matter whether there is or
| isn't a link. The optics are so terrible that J&J is going to
| lose badly if brought to trial.
|
| This is the whole "silicone breast implants" thing all over. In
| the end, the silicone implants were not at fault, but the
| behavior of the responsible company was sufficiently
| reprehensible that they were going to lose no matter what.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > But I honestly just don't get the link to ovarian cancer.
|
| What does that mean and what does it signify? Do you know
| enough about cancer, microbiology, the female reproductive
| system, etc. that you would 'get' it and that you trust your
| intuition?
|
| I don't 'get' much of advanced mathematics, but that doesn't at
| all invalidate it in my mind, or represent evidence to others.
|
| Is your post more than, 'I kinda wish I didn't know the facts
| here' - a human reaction to bad news.
| legitster wrote:
| Mesothelioma is not a "real" cancer in the traditional sense.
|
| Your body has no way to expel fine asbestos fibers, and so
| they collect in your lungs and shred up the insides. When
| your body tries to respond by healing, it instead forms
| growths that constantly re-cut and heal themselves. So it's a
| type of cancer, but it's unique in that it's not based on
| malformed DNA.
|
| So the idea that just being in the _presence_ of asbestos is
| enough to form self-propagating cancers like it 's some sort
| of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense. Asbestos on
| it's own is completely inert.
|
| It's an improbably claim that requires extraordinary
| evidence.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| My old friend with no history of asbestos exposure, a
| sysadmin no less, died of mesothelioma last year. I only
| learnt that yesterday. (We grew apart...)
|
| I spent an hour reading about that cancer. It seems that
| mesotheliomas without previous known asbestos exposure do
| occur.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Maybe he worked with fiberglass? I've heard a lot of
| things are similar to asbestos, they just need a higher
| exposure to do the same damage.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > the idea that just being in the presence of asbestos is
| enough to form self-propagating cancers like it's some sort
| of radioactive isotope... doesn't make any sense.
|
| It doesn't make sense to you and therefore is worth
| exploring. At the same time, unless one is an expert then
| the fact that they don't understand isn't much evidence
| that it's untrue.
|
| Most people don't understand much about my field of
| expertise; their lack of knowledge doesn't invalidate most
| of my field.
| riahi wrote:
| Talc is used medically as a treatment for recurrent pleural
| effusions. It is introduced into the pleural space and
| triggers an intensely inflammatory reaction which more or
| less fuses the pleura together to prevent the accumulation
| of fluid (pleurodesis).
|
| When a patient who has had a pleurodesis gets an FDG PETCT,
| they will have intense accumulation of radiotracer for
| _years_. It is very inflammatory. Even more so than
| asbestos.
|
| I wouldn't want talc anywhere inside my reproductive tract
| or anywhere inside my body if I could avoid it.
|
| If you buy the chronic inflammation leads to cancer
| hypothesis, talc leading to cancer is not so far fetched.
| coryrc wrote:
| Also a common filler for epoxy. When I sanded boat fillets I'd
| get the smell of baby powder.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| J&J is winning virtually all of the suits that go to trial;
| it's just the ones they are losing end up with multi-billion
| dollar jury awards. A jury trial is not a quest for scientific
| truth, and a jury doesn't need to explain itself - the
| plaintiff lawyers (search your junk mail folder for the word
| "talc" to see what a great bunch they are) are going to keep
| rolling the dice in search of a sympathetic jury.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| This is such a weird topic. People should be skeptical as hell of
| corporations when it comes to safety and honesty, but everything
| about this one seems so tenuous. Not to say there is _no_ fault,
| but the rulings just don 't seem right as reported. Even the
| normally level-headed HN crowd are using verbiage like typical
| un-objective headline writers:
|
| "riddled with asbestos"
|
| "introducing a whole bunch of asbestos [while using baby powder]"
|
| "[asbestos is] known for causing [cancer] for decades" (this is
| implicitly referring to inhalation - the link to ovarian cancer
| via genital contact is way, way less solid, isn't it?)
| ryandrake wrote:
| You have an entity (the corporation) that:
|
| - is amoral
|
| - is required and heavily incentivized by shareholders to
| maximize business value/output/growth at all costs
|
| - is lead by people who cannot be held responsible for bad
| behavior (prison time)
|
| You have to expect the worst. You have to assume they are going
| to do the absolute worst behavior they can get away with, that
| they will operate up to a millimeter away from the law, and
| sometimes go over the line if they think they can. The entire
| system is set up such that they would be foolish not to. IMO we
| should presume guilt instead of innocence when it comes to
| corporations--there is no reason to think they would
| voluntarily uphold some ethical or moral code if it meant lower
| profits.
| mvkel wrote:
| 1. What makes them amoral? That they're seeking profit?
|
| 2. They're a publicly traded company. Shareholders are we.
|
| 3. This sounds like the "if you're not religious, what's
| stopping you from killing people all the time?" logic
| Spivak wrote:
| I don't think your points lead to your conclusion. They're a
| lawful neutral amalgam made up of mostly lawful good people,
| they're not lawful evil.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Except that people in groups mostly aren't good. They just
| go along with what everybody else is doing and don't give
| any thought to the legal or ethical consequences. Of course
| there are exceptions, whistle-blowers for example, and they
| are often reviled by the "good" people.
| hammock wrote:
| Isn't all that true of the Covid vaccines, and they're makers
| (including J&J)? I took them and was fine. So something is
| wrong in your logic
| calculatte wrote:
| You're alive is the most you can say. Would you say the
| same if you develop cancer in 5 years? There is and was no
| long term testing, so enjoy being the experiment. You can't
| pretend those makers are all perfect. Who was it that was
| hit with the largest criminal fine in US history? And for
| what? "marketing the drug with the intent to deceive and
| mislead the public" weird.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| As someone who got all three shots, and has no regrets:
| There's nothing wrong with their logic, it's just that my
| risk tolerances change based on the context. If I'm
| escaping from, say, a war; I'm not going to complain if the
| last flight out of the country is a Boeing 737 MAX - at
| least not until I'm in a safe country and can switch
| planes. Likewise, the risk tolerances for vaccines are
| extremely low normally[1], but I'm willing to accept a
| slightly riskier one if it means not getting infected with
| an extremely risky novel coronavirus with very well
| documented negative effects.
|
| Furthermore, the extremely politicized nature of the
| vaccine development process[0] constrains corporate
| misbehavior. In other words, the CEOs knew they had eyes on
| themselves and had to restrain themselves. Corporate
| misbehavior is far more likely when the public stops caring
| and corporations can start capturing regulatory agencies.
| In other words, their evil is very _boring_. "Company
| invents new vaccine that kills people" is an unusually sexy
| kind of evil, which means it gets unusually scrutinized.
| "Company neglects higher-than-average asbestos in talcum
| powder" is so boring nobody cares even after they get nasty
| cancer.
|
| [0] Which, oddly enough, resulted in Trump getting booed
| for taking credit for the vaccine he funded.
|
| [1] As far as I'm aware, these risks have not borne out
| into increased harm from the vaccines. I feel like there
| would have been a conservative media shitstorm if it had.
| hammock wrote:
| If a company invented a drug that kills people, I don't
| think "extreme politicization" would be necessary for
| that company to have eyes and scrutiny on it. That would
| happen naturally.
|
| But in this case weren't the makers actually indemnified?
| Here's a CNBC article from 2020 called "You can't sue
| Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side
| effects. The government likely won't compensate you for
| damages." https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-
| side-effects-c...
|
| Side note you mentioned you took "all" the vaccines but
| if you haven't gotten a dose since at least mid-Sept
| 2023, you are recommended to get another one:
| https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-
| up-t...
| jonhohle wrote:
| Which were marketed as safe and effective and are now shown
| to be much less safe than disclosed and the manufacturers
| knew it (myocarditis and now a possible link to specific
| cancers[0]), and may or may not be effective depending on
| which study, cohort, and other factors.
|
| Many people took them and were fine, but that doesn't mean
| all people who took them were fine.[1]
|
| 0 - https://www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-
| adjuste...
|
| 1 - https://abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/Food/panera-bread-
| issues-new-...
| prewett wrote:
| Johnson and Johnson is very explicit NOT amoral. They have
| guiding principles that basically put the needs of their
| customers first, then employees, communities, and finally
| shareholders. [1]
|
| These old companies were founded in a society that had clear
| values, and many of those companies reflect those values.
| Even modern companies frequently have moral values, for
| instance, Zappos. As a society, though, we have jettisoned
| those old, constraining Christian/Protestant values, and the
| prevailing value, to the extent I can identify it, is a
| Marxist, everything is just the use power to oppress. If we
| take that as our value system, then that is what we'll
| become. So if you don't like companies living out that value,
| then it behooves you to promote the kind of values that
| benefit society and bring people together.
|
| [1] https://www.jnj.com/our-credo
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Well for the last point, the method of action with asbestos is
| that it physically damages tissue and isn't broken down by the
| body right? So any internal exposure would be cumulative. The
| question then is can small fibers migrate up to the ovaries.
| The prevalence of microplastics in the placenta suggests it's
| at least plausible that small particles can migrate in
| unexpected ways. It seems to me, that daily use of something
| with a small amount of asbestos near any orifice would be
| dangerous.
| legitster wrote:
| Well, in these cases it would be pretty easy to test for the
| presence of asbestos in these cancers. If it works like
| mesothelioma, it would still be present in the tissue.
|
| However, it doesn't sound like anyone has actually done any
| testing like this.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| But there's really not any evidence that talc for personal
| use actually contained any asbestos, other than some
| extremely vague indirect discussion of quality control
| parameters and testing quality confidence.
|
| Even assuming that there was indeed a microscopic amount of
| asbestos in talc, you should be aware that you're breathing
| in probably ~5,000 asbestos fibers every day - that's about
| the ambient level from naturally occurring asbestos in air.
| If you do yard work, or you drive off-road, then you're
| probably getting more than that.
| langsoul-com wrote:
| Pretty sus how they could shift all liabilities onto a
| subsidiary, call bankruptcy and then call if a day.
|
| Isn't this just abusing the system?
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Yes. But it doesn't always work.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil
| dannyw wrote:
| Yes, one that was rejected by court twice.
| triceratops wrote:
| Matt Levine steelmanned this approach in a column.
|
| What J&J tried to do was fund the subsidiary with however much
| they thought they'd be liable for and treat claimants as
| creditors to the bankrupt subsidiary. Bankruptcy law is
| designed to deal fairly with all creditors. The alternative is
| that a couple of gigantic judgments against J&J right at the
| beginning would leave no money for people who sued later.
|
| The courts rejected this approach, not because of unfairness
| specifically, but because J&J had provided funding to the
| subsidiary. If the subsidiary has money, it can't be bankrupt
| yet.
|
| If the subsidiary ultimately pays all claims to everyone who is
| entitled (a big if), it isn't necessarily wrong. [1] The one
| downside is claimants can't go after all of J&J's assets in the
| event of a huge victory.
|
| I'm recounting all this from columns I read while back, so
| someone please correct me if I got details wrong.
|
| 1. https://www.investopedia.com/texas-two-step-bankruptcy-
| defin...
| legitster wrote:
| Levine's write up about the situation was great: https://www.
| bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-31/matt-l...
|
| >"So you might want to file for bankruptcy to pay off all
| your victims fairly and, perhaps, cheaply, even if their
| claims will not really "bankrupt" you in the traditional
| sense. But in fact that is kind of a drastic step, expensive
| and disruptive and risky and probably bad for shareholders.
| No chief executive officer of a big company wants to file for
| bankruptcy if it is not strictly necessary.
|
| > There is a neater approach:
|
| > -You put the liabilities in a box. You create a new
| subsidiary, you put the product-that-kills-people business in
| that subsidiary, and you transfer the liabilities related to
| that product to the subsidiary. This is, in general, hard to
| do, but in fact Texas has a weird merger law that allows it:
| You can "merge" your company into two companies, one with the
| liabilities and one with the rest of the business.
|
| > -You have the box -- the new subsidiary with all the
| product liabilities -- file for bankruptcy. You get fair and
| consistent adjudication of the product claims, inside the
| box, and the rest of the company just goes along relatively
| normally.
|
| > This is called the "Texas two-step." In its extreme form it
| sounds like very bad cheating: You can't really put all the
| liabilities and none of the money in the box; that is just a
| way to defraud victims, and surely they'd find a way to do
| something about it. But a milder form of the Texas Two-Step
| is that you put the liabilities in the box, put the box in
| bankruptcy, but have the parent company guarantee its product
| liabilities. (Perhaps up to some reasonable number, perhaps
| not.) Then you can say "no, we are not doing this to get out
| of paying our liabilities; we are doing it to pay them in a
| fairer and more consistent way."
| mvkel wrote:
| Regardless of the defenses used, a company trying every possible
| defense they can is simply good corporate counsel.
|
| Like when you're paying taxes, an accountant using every possible
| tactic they can to reduce your tax burden is simply good
| accounting.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| What is required for punishments to significantly deter and
| otherwise affect corporate behavior? Is there research on that
| question?
|
| I assume part of the answer is some ratio of corporate assets or
| revenue, as well as how the fines are implemented.
| evereverever wrote:
| But this is only for ovarian cancer. I have a friend that is
| dying of mesothelioma and her case is still pending. She'll
| probably die before any judgement is made.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-02 23:01 UTC)