has the first one been appealed?
Posted on 05/03/2016 3:26:28 PM PDT by bkopto
Twice in the past three months, juries have awarded tens millions of dollars to ovarian cancer victims who blamed Johnson & Johnson talcum powder for their illness — among the first verdicts in a gathering courtroom assault by law firms that are aggressively recruiting clients through TV ads and the Internet.
While the link between ovarian cancer and talc is a matter of scientific dispute, a St. Louis jury Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. In February, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer.
They are among several hundred lawsuits claiming that regularly applying products like Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower to the genitals can cause the often-lethal cancer.
Both cases were handled by the Onder Law Firm, based in suburban St. Louis, one of the firms with ads running nationwide that urge cancer victims to come forward.
Attorney Jim Onder said Johnson & Johnson's marketing targeted overweight women, blacks and Hispanics, "knowing that those groups were most at-risk for talc-related ovarian cancer," he said. "It's horrible."
SNIP
The medical community hasn't reached a consensus on talc as a possible carcinogen.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use as "possibly carcinogenic." The National Toxicology Program, made up of parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, has not fully reviewed talc.
(Excerpt) Read more at bnd.com ...
Time to drive Johnson's baby powder off the market.
It is my opinion that if something is of scientific dispute, NOT proven as a cause of concern to the health of human beings there should be no case until it is proven one way or the other.
Those are obscene amounts. They pick the most ignorant people to be on juries.
This looks like a trend to try to drive America into a rubber room.
Yes it might BE that talc use could be a risk factor to susceptible people by causing another common condition, inflammation, which in turn lends itself to greater cancer susceptibility. Many would-be cancers never get a foothold because the body rejects them soon enough, and it’s possible that inflammation could interfere with this.
But don’t pretty much all cosmetics today have a warning to the effect that if there is inflammation, discontinue use and see a doctor? Which ought to be common sense anyhow?
This kind of jackpotting is odious.
Doesn't sound like a good business model to target your customers for death. I'm thinking they didn't intentionally do this. I didn't read the whole article, though.
I use the stuff once in a while.
Helps to keep you dry in places you don’t want to talk about.
In hot summer months it’s a big help.
has the first one been appealed?
Who else can afford to sit on a jury?? I sure can’t, when I get a Jury notice, I show up on that day and that day ONLY, I NEVER CALL IN like they ask. I am self employed and will probably never sit on a Jury, Welfare scum and Government Workers for the most part are who do Jury Duty.
They said they are appealing both.
At this rate, they will put Dunkin’ Donuts out of business because they are consumed the most by overeaters who then die from heart attacks.
There’s nothing wrong with qualifying truly hidden risks, but this is another reason why we have to have someone like the FDA as a big nanny. The kindergartners will never get along otherwise. Real freedom? It’s diminished in tandem with real personal responsibility.
Johnson and Johnson should IMMEDIATELY HALT ALL SALES to New Jersey and Missouri. When the STORES and the PEOPLE complain, hand out this Lawyers Card.
By the way — how did the plaintiffs ever prove that the product was used? Why not a generic talc?
More insanity.
People still believe in witchcraft and spectral evidence. We just like to think we’re oh-so-much-more-enlightened than they were in the 1600’s.
[[It is my opinion that if something is of scientific dispute, NOT proven as a cause of concern to the health of human beings there should be no case until it is proven one way or the other.]]
While that is the way it definitely should happen, that is, as we’ve seen with many things, even ‘man-caused global warming’ proof is no longer needed- just an allegation
So- anyone can sue anyone at any time claiming ‘their breath gave me tumors in my nose’, and apparently can win multimillion dollar lawsuits without ever having to prove it-
Don’t like someone? Sue them for millions - you won’t have to prove anything- Easy Money- Money in the bank- Ka-Ching!
It sounds like a more generic risk anyhow. Irritation to external genitals could lead to ovarian cancer in women because of the proximity. Not just talc, but a large array of things could be in a rogues gallery here, including laundry products that leave residues. I think the gun was jumped on the talc.
Those are probably more easily proven than this talc blamery.
put out contracts on the lawyers and the practice will dissapate
Wouldn’t you hate to be on trial for your life only to have your fate in the hands of twelve people who were not savvy enough to get out of jury duty?
That’s why I serve when I get called and I’ve been called twice. Both times on DUI trials and on one of them we acquitted the defendant because the prosecutor suppressed the blood alcohol test (which was 0.0 when we found out about it after the trial).
And, the post hoc fallacy.
Could it be that those who thought they needed talc the most, already were suffering inflammation?
Even if it is a PITA I don’t try and get out of jury duty. Frankly I think any trial should have at least one juror with an IQ above room temperature. I have yet to make it past Voir Dire.
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.