New Study Finds Talcum Powder Not Likely A Risk For Ovarian Cancer

[Nomad]

Looks like a big, greedy money grab has hit a stumbling block.

Good news for Johnson & Johnson.

Study Finds Talcum Powder Not Likely A Risk For Ovarian Cancer

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ovarian-cancer

In recent years, women have taken talcum powder manufacturers to court over concerns that the use of the product in the genital area could cause ovarian cancer. Now, a new study finds no meaningful association between using talc-based or other powders and ovarian cancer.

Researchers from NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute conducted the largest study to date of genital powder use and ovarian cancer. The study, published Tuesday in JAMA, used data from 252,745 women who answered questions about whether they used powder on their genitals. This was a pooled analysis of four large studies gathering data about the frequency and length of time women used the powder.

According to epidemiologist Katie O'Brien who headed the study, women report applying the powder either directly on their genital area or on sanitary napkins, tampons, underwear or diaphragms. O'Brien doesn't know exactly which type of powder women used. It could have been talcum powder alone, cornstarch alone or a combination of both.

The research finds that women who had ever used powder had an 8% increased risk of ovarian cancer compared to those who never used it. "That is not a statistically significant increase" says O'Brien. And she adds that this increase needs to be understood in context. Ovarian cancer is very rare and the lifetime risk of getting it is 1.3% so an increase of 8% to that is "small." O'Brien says it represents an estimated 0.09% increase in risk by age 70.

But among the subset of women who had their uterus and fallopian tubes intact, their increased risk of ovarian cancer from using powder in their genital area was 13% — which is an estimated 0.15% increase in risk by age 70 and is still considered a very small increase.

Unlike most other studies of talc and ovarian cancer, which focused on women already diagnosed with cancer, this study was prospective, and asked about powder use before study subjects had developed ovarian cancer. This means the study is free from recall bias, says O'Brien. It removes the likelihood that study subjects "search for reasons why they have ovarian cancer, and may over-report certain things they have heard may be associated with it."

Rates of powder use have declined over the last 50 years, yet it remains a routine practice for some women, says Dr. Dana Gossett, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco. She wrote an editorial accompanying the study but was not involved in the study itself.

"Women have used powders for genital hygiene for decades to absorb odor and moisture," she says.

Earlier investigations of an association between the use of talc-containing powders for genital hygiene and epithelial ovarian cancer risks have provided inconsistent results, says Gossett and have resulted in an "ongoing controversy." Concerns have been raised about possible contamination of mineral talc with asbestos, a known cancer risk. Most powder products include some mineral talc.

Researchers say it's been hypothesized that the powder could induce an inflammatory response by irritating epithelial ovarian tissue or fallopian tubes directly which, in turn, could set off a cascade of increased oxidative stress levels, DNA damage and cell division, all of which could contribute to carcinogenesis.

Gossett says the new study finding "doesn't really support any association [of powder use with ovarian cancer]."

"No study can ever say definitively what the cause of cancer is, but this study at least shows there's not a substantial increase in ovarian cancer risk," she says.

The study has several limitations. Researchers were not able to document how frequently or how long women used powder nor were they able to identify exactly what ingredients were in the powder. It also included mostly white women. Anecdotally, black women are more likely to use baby powder.

Obstetrician Gossett says the study findings should be "reassuring to women that if they are choosing to use powders on their genitals that they're not doing something horrendous."

Gossett also notes that due to the very small number of cancer cases in the data, the study was "underpowered." She suggests that future analyses would be strengthened by focusing on women with intact reproductive tracts, with particular attention to timing and duration of exposure to powder in the genital area.

In the meantime, since there's no medical reason to use talcum powder, researcher O'Brien suggests women weigh perceived benefit with possible risk. Study participants will continue to be followed to track ovarian cancer development in the future, she says.

I wonder if any of the bogus multi-million dollar jury awards have been paid and if so, will Johnson & Johnson sue to get their money back?

If nothing else, this should bolster their chances for successfully appealing the insane verdicts.

"Johnson & Johnson remains confident that its products do not contain asbestos and do not cause ovarian cancer and intends to pursue all available appellate remedies," spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said.

"Every verdict against Johnson & Johnson in this court that has gone through the appeals process has been reversed and the multiple errors present in this trial were worse than those in the prior trials which have been reversed," she said.

According to MarketWatch, "Punitive damages, especially those many times higher than the compensatory damages, are often reduced by the trial judge or reversed on appeal. The company has been fighting more than 9,000 talcum-powder lawsuits with mixed success. It says its signature powder has always been safe and asbestos-free."

The New York Times adds, "The company has said concerns about talc's being linked to cancer are based on inconclusive research. ... And according to the National Cancer Institute, claims that talc used for feminine hygiene purposes can be absorbed by the reproductive system and cause inflammation in the ovaries are not supported by 'the weight of evidence.' "

Last year, a judge threw out a similar case against Johnson & Johnson involving a $417 million jury award. At the time, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson granted the company a new trial, saying there were errors and jury misconduct in the original trial.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/62868...um-powder-suit

I hope all the lawyers and law firms involved in this sham end up having wasted huge amounts of time, manpower and money when this is all said and done, and no plaintiff ever sees a dime.

[cancel2 2022]

.

Always thought it was yet another example of US avaricious legal scumbags pursuing yet another 'issue' in the hope of hitting the motherlode.

[Bobb]

Women are one of the dumber genders. They're given to insane abuses of chemicals, whether drinking several 2-liter bottles of Diet Dr Pepper every day, to drowning their kids in DEET ever time they're sent off to school, to coating their snatch daily with massive quantities of talcum powder.