Skip to comments.There Was Asbestos Was In Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder
Posted on 12/16/2018 5:27:30 AM PST by gaggs
Johnson & Johnson reportedly has known about asbestos in Baby Powder since the early 1970s.
Darlene Coker knew she was dying. She just wanted to know why.
She knew that her cancer, mesothelioma, arose in the delicate membrane surrounding her lungs and other organs. She knew it was as rare as it was deadly, a signature of exposure to asbestos. And she knew it afflicted mostly men who inhaled asbestos dust in mines and industries such as shipbuilding that used the carcinogen before its risks were understood.
Coker, 52 years old, had raised two daughters and was running a massage school in Lumberton, a small town in eastern Texas. How had she been exposed to asbestos? She wanted answers, her daughter Cady Evans said.
Fighting for every breath and in crippling pain, Coker hired Herschel Hobson, a personal-injury lawyer. He homed in on a suspect: the Johnsons Baby Powder that Coker had used on her infant children and sprinkled on herself all her life. Hobson knew that talc and asbestos often occurred together in the earth, and that mined talc could be contaminated with the carcinogen. Coker sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging that poisonous talc in the companys beloved product was her killer.
J&J didnt tell the FDA that at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc in one case at levels reported as rather high.
>>Wiping baby powder on butt is not going to get you mesothelioma, youd have to inhale it. Any silicate you inhale would be a contributor to that and similar pulmonary problems.
She had a massage school so maybe she was using powder on the clients.
Perhaps her clients should levy a class action lawsuit against her for cancer risks.
Asbestos is just one of many substances which when aerosolized and inhaled can cause nasty problems in the lungs.
J&J provides access to 5000 documents used in the litigation. worth a look.
The seeming eagerness by the MSM (with its liberal elitists who imagine a world using 100% recycled products and no furs, with all expenses paid for by the government as a form of social justice, legally smoking bongs, and in which much traditional morality and Biblical principles is scorned), to report industry as being guilty of hidden crime cannot be divorced from its overall ideological agenda.
My take: The MSM overall is driven by a lust for power and prestige, presenting itself as the saviors of the oppressed, who are told they deserve what otherwise is obtained by merit, and thus the MSM can have a basic animus against capitalist industry, which it sees as its competitor for recognition and representing the alternative to its self-serving socialist agenda. And thus it portrays capitalist industry as oppressors, and itself as advocates of those who its longs to show are victimized by it.
Finding some real or fabricated fault with capitalist industry is thus in their self-interest, while fear of them by corporate America is partly what promotes their costly embrace of the homosexual agenda. Strange bed-fellows.
Asbestos is also found out doors in nature.
When the wind is out of the northwest, blowing across Lake Ontario from the cliffs in Canada along the north shore, the level of asbestos in the outdoor air in the Adirondacks exceeds NYS standards for asbestos levels for indoor air.
It's a rock that occurs in nature and can be encountered even in the outdoors.
Isn’t Reuters going out of business.. or at least reducing their offerings in the news arena? I guess they figured they’d take a few others with them.
A number of years ago I testified for the auto industry before the California Air Resources Board concerning the elimination of asbestos in automobile brakes. I pointed out that asbestos used in brakes was not the dangerous type and, even so, was mostly turned into Forsterite, not asbestos when exposed to the high temperatures at the braking interface. Only one percent of the original asbestos remained, and none of it was fibrous. It thus caused only 0.0001 percent of the airborne Asbestos in California. There was much debate whether it was 0.01 percent, or 0.0001 percent, depending on whether the original material, or the transformed material was conunted. Meanwhile, another presenter described a single gravel road in California made of asbestos rocks, that caused 30% of the airborne asbestos in the state.
I finally suggested that we should stop debating about the exact percentage of a trivial quantity, and just all get together and pave the offending road, and quickly eliminate 30% of the airborne asbestos in California.
The lead CARB negotiator turned to me with a scowl, and said loudly: "Because I have the authority to CONTROL you, that's why."
We lost, and automobiles contain no asbestos, but the road is still there.
And that’s what it’s all about.
They don’t really care about the facts or the people.
My Goddaughter is in Lumberton Texas
I must say having been raising kids from 1988 on
That we always knew baby powder was not good
And we only used corn starch
Baby powder is for stinky boots and shoes
Mannitol was much better
I never saw cocaine cut with baby powder unless it was a rip
Like buying coke in Washington Square
The people working the mines and processing equipment for production of the talc powder would be exposed to dust. What is their medical history?
Where is the proof of what Reuters claims in this article?
A long time ago, I read a study that exposure to gupsum had an increased the likelihood of getting lung cancer is 10% If a person smokes, lung cancer is about 8%.
A person who works in a gypsum manufacturing plant and smokes has an 80% greater risk of lung cancer.
Thats why plants that use gypsum will not hire smokers.
Key factors are the amount & toxicity of a contaminant, susceptibility of the sufferers of the disease (that may be caused by the contaminant), duration of exposure, size of at-risk population, interaction with other risk factors, etc. It can grow to a very long list.
Numbers are vitally important when one wishes to draw conclusions about the cause or causes of any disease.
But numbers are notable by their almost complete absence from this story: just a few passing mentions of percentage amounts of asbestos present in talc, as mined from various locations. Even the writers admit that “asbestos” is not one but six known substances - very specific forms of very specific minerals, at that.
Statistical correlation is so weak as to be all but nonexistent. And (as statisticians warn us endlessly) correlation is not causation. What Johnson & Johnson attorneys, scientists, and corporate officials did or didn’t do is irrelevant. “Gee, that looks suspicious” means nothing. It means less than nothing when voiced by a nosey, officious, moronic reporter.
And the tone of the Reuters piece is boringly predictable: disease victims, plaintiff attorneys, journalists, activist reformers, crusading scientists, regulatory agencies good, for-profit corporations bad (right along with their corrupt scientists, shady trade organizations, legal shills, and lobbyists).
Life is full or risks. Some can be discovered, and some of them can be reduced (at times), but it’s never possible to eliminate all risk entirely. To live is to have enemies.
“Contradiction and correction will be appreciated.”
Though I do not have any evidence, I would find that highly unlikely.
Sheer numbers would dictate otherwise. That would be like saying every miner/ship welder/ roofing person/ repairman who died of asbestos was a smoker.
Not likely. Not likely at all...
“Love of my L died from Ovarian C and she used powder all the time.”
Makes me wonder about the increased rates of Ovarian Cysts.
Back to back Ovarian Cysts resulted in my having to have an emergency hyst at 27 after previous surgeries. Had a Tubal done, partial Hyst and then just had the rest of the playpen pulled. Couldn’t keep up with the pain.
I grew up with J&J Talc Powder and used it on my boys.
“And we only used corn starch”
Though I was raised when J&J Talc Powder was the Gold Standard, and used it on my boys, as I mentioned in an earlier post....
I switched to Corn Starch in my early 40s. It was suggested I use Corn Starch by a nurse during a doctor’s visit. Cannot recall how it came up in the discussion... I know I took her advice and have found Corn Starch to work just great.
When I suggest it to ladies, they look at me sideways. LOL
makes great scrambled eggs too,try it sprinkle some in
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.