On the one hand sure, that's an issue. On the other hand, who hasn't been in contact with asbestos in one way or the other. Asbestos has been banned for many use cases but it is still widely in circulation. It's a bit like asking for people who have never been exposed to smoking.

[–] GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (10 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.

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

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (9 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.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)