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 that it afflicted mostly men who had inhaled asbestos dust in mines and industries such as shipbuilding that used the carcinogen before its risks were understood.
Everyone has known this for DECADES.
but lawyers lie, and the courts LOVE lawyers
who lie. THEY LOVE LYING LAWYERS.
The FDA did a study in 2009 of various cosmetic talc brands. They said no asbestos was found.
Regardless, it looks like the personal injury lawyers are going to be heading to this case like flies on shyte
Oh, and sell your J&J stock. This isn’t going away soon.
The headline is accurate but misleading. It implies that, for decades, the powder has been tainted.
But in fact, the powder was only rarely tainted during a 3 year period from 1972 to 1975.
What the headline MEANS is that, for the last 3 decades, JNJ has known that there were tests on the powder in 1972-1975 that showed asbestos, and they never told anybody about it.
So this wasn’t about continuing a risk to the public, but appears to be a big big deal relative to the asbestos settlements.
I don’t buy this. NBC is known for their lying. Women and Men get cancer all the time. They only went after Johnson and Johnson for big money!!! Back in the 1980’s NBC for one of their so called hit pieces. Had this Chevy truck t boned with saddle tanks. The tanks were suppose to explode they didn’t so NBC redid their video and put a explosive charge in the pickup!
It is evil incarnate.
It is all about destroying large companies, their employees, and their contribution to society, to make a few lawyers rich.
If you look at the actual evidence, evidence of harm is extremely small, circumstantial, and unconvincing.
But put pictures of a sick baby to the Jury, and tell them someone needs to pay...
and Voila lawyers get rich and society gets poorer.
OK, so if J&J had the powder market cornered to the extent that it outsold all other brands combined, that would roughly mean that over 50% of all the babies born during that period would be affected.
Then wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that 50% of those in later life would get cancer related to asbestos? My point is there should be many, many more cases thus making the media and lawyers happier yet.
In that era asbestos was literally all over the place, especially in plumbing and HVAC applications. I recall my Dad had two asbestos blankets he used as welding shields. When shaken to remove welding slag one could see all the fibers floating in the sun light. Once we realized the danger, probably in the 80’s, they were thrown away.
In the mid-eighties when our daughter was a baby we used cornstarch instead of talcum powder. Worked great and was as benign as you could get. Also had no scent. Which is very important in our household.
here is a site created by J&J to defend the safety of their product......
www.factsabouttalc.com
it appears to be very comprehensive and very transparent as it provides over 5000 company documents used in litigation and facts / sources.
I worked in the NYC courts, and I heard about the evils of baby powder in a case I was working when my daughter was maybe six, born in 1971. I threw it all out, never used the stuff again. I had younger kids, too. I tried to warn friends, but they thought I was nuts. Look how many years it took for this info to finally hit the mainstream. I also worked a case where GM decided that it wasn’t worth a 25 cent part to keep kids safer in the back of station wagons. Manufacturers weigh the risks and decide they’d rather pay the claims. Really sad.