And it should be pretty easy to get a group of people with same level of asbestos exposure who haven't used J&J's talc and compare the cancer % between the groups. That's where J&J should be focusing if they knew they were in the right.

But surprise, this is probably just throwing everything to discredit science.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And it should be pretty easy to get a group of people with same level of asbestos exposure who haven’t used J&J’s talc and compare the cancer % between the groups. That’s where J&J should be focusing if they knew they were in the right.

Yes, that's how I'd do it.

Perhaps researchers did do this, and found that there was no difference, but decided not to publish that.

Who knows? But it sounds like J&J is confident that they can prove that researchers were hiding facts, or else that's an incredibly pointed accusation!

[–] neekz0r@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I say this as someone who hates corn starch based powder and goes out of his way to ensure his family jewels only receive the most succulent of asbestos/talc powders.

I hope J&J are right. But I am extremely skeptical. I also don't like the chilling effect, as others have pointed out. Finally, they could be just trying to win in the court of public opinion. Never forget McDonalds hot coffee case.

[–] Raphael@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, that’s how I’d do it.

Materialistic conditions, we've been mentioning those words for 150 years.

If you were in a position where "I'd do it", that means you'd be a high officer at J&J, you'd be a billionaire, or someone who loses their job if they don't obey the billionaire. If you're the employee you care about your job, or you get fired and someone else obeys them anyway, if you're the billionaire you only care about your money

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

In the context of a researcher, “that's how I'd do it” is basically for scientific integrity and due diligence in the methodology and design of the study.

I'd also add a control group who has never been exposed to talc or other known sources of asbestos to really be thorough.

But I get what you're saying, and it's sad that anyone would be in a position where making good choices would get them in trouble.

[–] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not a lawyer but do they have anything to lose with this suit? (Other than money spent in the lawsuit that is.)

Because these headlines might change few minds, that J&J isn't that bad. Maybe it's worth it as a marketing cost, idk.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not a lawyer but do they have anything to lose with this suit?

If they make the accusation and lose, it would also be pretty bad for them. First, they would likely need to compensate the researchers for defamation, and second, they would look even worse to shareholders.

I don't know, but it's an interesting lawsuit.

[–] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah maybe I've been watching too much Succession so I think this is just the play here lol.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Off-topic, but is it a good show? I'm looking to add another show to my evening wind down. LOL

[–] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

It's an incredible show but I can see it not being everyone's cup of tea. It's a bit depressing or absolute joy if you enjoy seeing the 0.1% squirm but either way it's interesting, unique and doesn't waste your time. And there's a comical relief but it doesn't offset the drama.

[–] some_guy@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

Perhaps researchers did do this, and found that there was no difference, but decided not to publish that.

Well hey if we are just gonna play “what if everything is a conspiracy” then maybe researchers found that Johnson and Johnson talc powder was actually sourced from Proxima Centauri but decided not to publish that little trade secret.