|
Post by cjm on Oct 29, 2016 8:06:55 GMT
Does baby powder cause cancer? Another jury says yesTRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- For the third time, Johnson & Johnson has been hit with a multimillion-dollar jury verdict over whether the talc in its iconic baby powder causes ovarian cancer when applied regularly for feminine hygiene. ... But in J&J's home state of New Jersey a judge recently threw out two other cases, ruling there wasn't reliable evidence talc causes ovarian cancer, a relatively rare disease. Johnson & Johnson says its product is safe, and it is appealing all three losses. And investors don't seem worried that J&J is in financial trouble, even though the company faces an estimated 2,000 similar lawsuits. J&J shares fell 0.3 percent Friday, about the same as the broader stock market, to close at $115.33. ...
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Oct 29, 2016 9:34:50 GMT
O bullshit. Talcum powder is just about the most biologically inert chemical substance in existence. How can a court of law even agree to hear such a case? And even if it does, how does a jury figure in the decision? It is a scientific question - you don't ask a jury if gravity exists. Anyway, the onus of proof of the assertion must surely be with the person bringing the claim. I wish her good luck to demonstrate causality.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Oct 29, 2016 15:38:10 GMT
O bullshit. Talcum powder is just about the most biologically inert chemical substance in existence. How on earth did you know that??? :read: The use to which the powder is put by the women, also seems not to be what it is intended for.
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Oct 31, 2016 19:16:31 GMT
How on earth did you know that??? :read: It is difficult to be a rock. Rocks endure for billions of years. They can only do this if they are chemically totally impervious to the environment they find themselves in. To be biologically inert is a much more relaxed requirement than to be chemically inert. Everything that is chemically inert is also biologically inert. Talcum powder is essentially made from a kind of rock. I know, in the way that it is possible to know anything at all, that any interaction between talcum powder and a human body must be negligible. In the way that I know that the Paarl Rock will not affect your prostate. It is true that there exists conditions such as silicosis and asbestosis. These are the result of the physical properties of these substances, rather than any chemical interaction. It is also the result of extreme exposure to these substances over a substantial period of time. Everybody is exposed to silicone and even to asbestos - it requires special circumstances to have any physical effect on your body. We are asked to believe that this woman applying talcum powder to her panties had it migrating up her fanny, through her cervix, womb and fallopian tubes into her ovaries, where it caused cancer, a journey of at least 30 cm where everything is rigged to go the other way. Bullshit! I cry.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Oct 31, 2016 21:44:18 GMT
It is difficult to be a rock. Rocks endure for billions of years. They can only do this if they are chemically totally impervious to the environment they find themselves in. To be biologically inert is a much more relaxed requirement than to be chemically inert. Everything that is chemically inert is also biologically inert. Talcum powder is essentially made from a kind of rock. I know, in the way that it is possible to know anything at all, that any interaction between talcum powder and a human body must be negligible. In the way that I know that the Paarl Rock will not affect your prostate. It is true that there exists conditions such as silicosis and asbestosis. These are the result of the physical properties of these substances, rather than any chemical interaction. It is also the result of extreme exposure to these substances over a substantial period of time. Everybody is exposed to silicone and even to asbestos - it requires special circumstances to have any physical effect on your body. We are asked to believe that this woman applying talcum powder to her panties had it migrating up her fanny, through her cervix, womb and fallopian tubes into her ovaries, where it caused cancer, a journey of at least 30 cm where everything is rigged to go the other way. Bullshit! I cry. I was just surprised by the idea of inertness associated with talcum power. Never really crossed my mind. Not really relevant but the asbestos scare amuses me in that I have had much exposure to asbestos being cut etc. Our household water is still supplied by asbestos pipes. I may still die of it but survived a good many years. Long enough to cast doubt on the lethal nature of it. Originally the story was that once captured in a cement, the asbestos was inert. Later this version was placed in doubt. At the moment asbestos products are virtually (if not actually) banned in SA and the mines have been closed. We now get supplies from Zim where it is still mined.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Aug 22, 2017 11:22:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Aug 22, 2017 11:26:10 GMT
Oh God! Deliver me from fools and morons!
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Aug 22, 2017 11:31:28 GMT
Oh God! Deliver me from fools and morons!
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Oct 21, 2017 7:43:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Apr 9, 2018 17:54:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jul 13, 2018 6:42:20 GMT
Now it is the asbestos in the powder.
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jul 13, 2018 7:34:53 GMT
Now it is the asbestos in the powder.
This is clearly a situation that needs fixing, and not just in the US. Maybe introduce a mechanism for the punitive prosecution of malicious lawsuits? As in to send the perps to jail? It should also be possible to argue that a jury does not have the specialist knowledge and intelligence to make informed and rational decisions, and that a case should be heard before a judge and technical assessors. Then the judge merely has to reject with costs in order to discourage spurious lawsuits.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jul 13, 2018 7:46:40 GMT
Now it is the asbestos in the powder.
This is clearly a situation that needs fixing, and not just in the US. Maybe introduce a mechanism for the punitive prosecution of malicious lawsuits? As in to send the perps to jail? It should also be possible to argue that a jury does not have the specialist knowledge and intelligence to make informed and rational decisions, and that a case should be heard before a judge and technical assessors. Then the judge merely has to reject with costs in order to discourage spurious lawsuits. It is possible in SA law to have someone declared a frivolous litigator (the technical terminology now escapes me). Clearly the law will have to be "developed" to make it take care of a certain sort of claim, but it provides a starting point. Not sure though what the US situation is.
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jul 19, 2018 5:20:07 GMT
Now it is the asbestos in the powder.
This is clearly a situation that needs fixing, and not just in the US. Maybe introduce a mechanism for the punitive prosecution of malicious lawsuits? As in to send the perps to jail? It should also be possible to argue that a jury does not have the specialist knowledge and intelligence to make informed and rational decisions, and that a case should be heard before a judge and technical assessors. Then the judge merely has to reject with costs in order to discourage spurious lawsuits. An example of an US attempt to stop malicious lawsuits
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jul 19, 2018 6:59:43 GMT
An example of an US attempt to stop malicious lawsuits Breitbart's readers don't seem to like it much. Could they really believe that the hotel should be held liable for the shooting? Must come from having grown up in the USA.
|
|