
Johnson and Johnson hit with $55M damages in talc cancer case - powera
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36191495
======
rayiner
Bloomberg has a long article with details:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-
la...](http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baby-powder-cancer-lawsuits).

Relevant quote:

> In the 1990s a toxicologist named Alfred Wehner worked as an outside
> consultant for J&J. His official role was to help evaluate the research on
> ovarian cancer and talc and advise the company on its response.
> Unofficially, he was its scold. Wehner was on J&J’s side, but he was
> concerned that a cosmetics trade group (partly funded by the company) was
> mischaracterizing the scientific case for talc. “A true friend is not he who
> beguiles you with flattery but he who discloses to you your mistakes before
> your enemies discover them,” Wehner began a 1997 letter to Michael
> Chudkowski, J&J’s manager of preclinical toxicology. Wehner described
> statements on talc research from the group as inept, misleading, and
> outright false. Referring to a statement a few years earlier, he wrote: “At
> that time there had been about 9 studies (more by now) published in the open
> literature that did show a statistically significant association between
> hygienic talc use and ovarian cancer. Anybody who denies this risks that the
> talc industry will be perceived by the public like it perceives the
> cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the
> contrary.” He wanted the trade group to argue that the studies’ biological
> significance was questionable.

------
nkurz
The UK National Health Service has a recent overview of the study that was
used as evidence associating talc with ovarian cancer. They come to the
conclusion that while there is some evidence of an association, there is as
yet no firm evidence proving causation:
[http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/03March/Pages/Talc-and-
ovarian-c...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/03March/Pages/Talc-and-ovarian-
cancer-what-the-most-recent-evidence-shows.aspx)

That article helpfully links the paper itself, which is happily is available
to read in full:
[http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Citation/2016/05000/The_Assoc...](http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Citation/2016/05000/The_Association_Between_Talc_Use_and_Ovarian.6.aspx)

Glancing at it, it seems like a very professional writeup, with many
appropriate disclaimers about possible confounders. The key statistic that I
have not been able to find in the paper (although I presume it's in there
somewhere) is the incidence rate of ovarian cancer among the 1000 control
subjects. SEER says
([http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html](http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html))
that 1.3% of women will be diagnosed with ovary cancer during their lives.

Since the control subjects haven't lived their entire lives, and since
diagnosis is mostly in older women (age 63), I'd guess that they'd have only
something like fewer than 10 subjects on the control side with ovarian cancer.
I think this means that if by chance there happened to 2 or 3 more subjects
with cancer on the control side, the 1.3 increase in risk would be reversed,
and thus the evidence is extremely weak! Or am I wrong, and there is some way
of determining the odds ratio without knowing the true incidence rate among
the controls?

------
powera
My personal take: a demonstration that the burden of proof in a scientific (or
technological) sense is very different from the burden of proof in a legal
sense.

~~~
mtgx
Maybe the US should do what the EU does and ban such substances the moment
there is _some_ proof that they may do harm, and the burden should be on the
industry to prove without a doubt that they don't cause harm.

Instead, the US government is trying to do the opposite by repealing such
policies in the EU and making them more like in the US where anything is
accepted until millions get cancer from it.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> the burden should be on the industry to prove without a doubt that they
> don't cause harm

This is incoherent. There are no substances like this.

~~~
deelowe
Exactly. This doesn't make any sense. Sunlight causes cancer. Maybe we should
start there?

------
trhway
i wonder what such high punitive damages (10x actual assigned) are for. It
implies that J&J knowingly did something wrong like a tobacco company.

~~~
rdtsc
> such high punitive damages

J&J's annual revenue is $70B so $55M is what, 0.07% or something like that?
They probably spend more on refilling their vending machines.

Or let's put it another way. Say you are making $100K, it would be like paying
one $70 fine for giving someone cancer. A speeding violation will be more than
that in most states.

~~~
refurb
Revenue is not profit.

~~~
beemoe
Neither is base salary.

------
kelvintran
Why are there so many separate actions? Seems somewhat inefficient and the
exact scenario for which the class action was designed

~~~
homero
Other countries don't have class actions like America. That amount is also
very low. America's class action will be in the billions

------
sabujp
umm use the one made from cornstarch not talc.

~~~
gcb0
and ask how much antibacterial and antifungal it requires to have a energy
rich food in the warm and moisty ambient of your foot.

