Baby Powder Causes Cancer?

C

Cancel 2018.2

Oh, hi
A Missouri jury ordered health products giant Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $110 million to a Virginia woman for allegedly failing to disclose the cancer risk from its baby powder and another product.

Lois Slemp, 62, prevailed in the case after suing the company when she was diagnosed in 2012 with ovarian cancer. She alleged that J&J concealed the possibility that talc in its baby powder and Shower to Shower products can cause cancer.

The case deepens J&J's legal crisis connected to talc. The company has already lost several similar cases, including verdicts of $72 million, $70 million and $55 million. And it faces multiple federal class-action suits in the matter, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

After three weeks of testimony in Slemp's case, a 12-person jury deliberated for 10 hours before delivering the verdict against J&J.

Amid concerns, why do we even have baby powder anymore?
“They chose to put profits over people, spending millions in efforts to manipulate scientific and regulatory scrutiny," said Ted Meadows, a Beasley Allen lawyer representing Stemp and other similar plaintiffs, in a statement. "I hope this verdict prompts J&J to acknowledge the facts and help educate the medical community and the public about the proper use of their products."

J&J, which has repeatedly denied the connection between talc and cancer and rejected the suggestion that it should have warned consumers, said in a statement that "we deeply sympathize" with anyone affected by ovarian cancer.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/05/johnson-johnson-talc-verdict/101320524/

This is the first I've heard of this. How is that even possible? If so, perhaps Jarod could bring a class action for JPP members. :palm:
 
Yaya said:
A Missouri jury ordered health products giant Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $110 million to a Virginia woman for allegedly failing to disclose the cancer risk from its baby powder and another product.

Lois Slemp, 62, prevailed in the case after suing the company when she was diagnosed in 2012 with ovarian cancer. She alleged that J&J concealed the possibility that talc in its baby powder and Shower to Shower products can cause cancer.

The case deepens J&J's legal crisis connected to talc. The company has already lost several similar cases, including verdicts of $72 million, $70 million and $55 million. And it faces multiple federal class-action suits in the matter, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

After three weeks of testimony in Slemp's case, a 12-person jury deliberated for 10 hours before delivering the verdict against J&J.

Amid concerns, why do we even have baby powder anymore?
“They chose to put profits over people, spending millions in efforts to manipulate scientific and regulatory scrutiny," said Ted Meadows, a Beasley Allen lawyer representing Stemp and other similar plaintiffs, in a statement. "I hope this verdict prompts J&J to acknowledge the facts and help educate the medical community and the public about the proper use of their products."

J&J, which has repeatedly denied the connection between talc and cancer and rejected the suggestion that it should have warned consumers, said in a statement that "we deeply sympathize" with anyone affected by ovarian cancer.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/05/05/johnson-johnson-talc-verdict/101320524/

This is the first I've heard of this. How is that even possible? If so, perhaps Jarod could bring a class action for JPP members. :palm:
Click to expand...
It's bullshit but your court system and ambulance chasers are totally out of control.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Yaya said:
What? I just read it today. How is it old news? And the verdict is not old, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Gee, a verdict came out. How long then do you think that this has been known? I have known 4evr. Stop using it.

If you want your finger on the pulse like me, subscribe to classaction360. :cool:
 
I'm sure many otherwise benign products can cause cancer if you put them in your vagina. This is a thing now. Many women use baby powder after a shower, especially in hot weather. I think the jury is still out (no pun) on whether it's from talc, but litigation is always expensive.
 
Micawber said:
Gee, a verdict came out. How long then do you think that this has been known? I have known 4evr. Stop using it.

If you want your finger on the pulse like me, subscribe to classaction360. :cool:
Click to expand...

You claim to be a lawyer, if you knew about this, why didn't you bring suit?

How long have you known about this? If you knew for a fact it causes cancer and did nothing, then you are as guilty as the company. Assuming this is even true.
 
The first talcum powder cancer lawsuit verdict was decided in February 2016, when a Missouri jury awarded $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer in 2015, who claimed that she used Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for 35 years for feminine hygiene.

Other lawsuits linking talcum powder and cancer are now being filed against companies for failing to warn about this baby powder danger.
Baby Powder Danger: Does Talc Cause Cancer?

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2014, about 21,980 new cases of ovarian cancer will be diagnosed and 14,270 women will die of ovarian cancer in the United States alone. The exact number of these ovarian cancer cases that are linked to talcum baby powder use is unknown, but

The exact number of these ovarian cancer cases that are linked to talcum powder use is unknown, but meta-analysis of data pooled from eight separate studies found that out of 8,525 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer, nearly a quarter used baby powder after bathing or showering.

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...er-shower-class-action-lawsuit-investigation/
 
Yaya said:
You claim to be a lawyer, if you knew about this, why didn't you bring suit?

How long have you known about this? If you knew for a fact it causes cancer and did nothing, then you are as guilty as the company. Assuming this is even true.
Click to expand...

Because I don't use the product and don't have ovaries much less cancer on them, nobrains.
 
Micawber said:
Because I don't use the product and don't have ovaries much less cancer on them, nobrains.
Click to expand...

You actually claim to be a lawyer and made the above statement. Wow. Tell me, does a lawyer have to experience the pain and suffering of his or her client in order to bring suit?
 
Yaya said:
I do not consider February 2016 old news, but I appreciate the information.

It seems bizarre.
Click to expand...

I wasn't bullshitting, the story has been around for a while and I had known because I follow that shit, just like I follow ASR hip, Zimmer Cup, FDCPA class suits, Duron Cup, Avandia, Hydroxycut litigation to name a few.
 
Yaya said:
I do not consider February 2016 old news, but I appreciate the information.

It seems bizarre.
Click to expand...
It could be something as simple as any powdery substance affecting the moisture/ph, etc inside the vagina. Years ago, there was an issue with tampons and toxic shock. The above referenced figures don't really lend any credence to an argument against talc, as 75% of patients did NOT use baby powder. It could be a combination of the powder coupled with sex, which might introduce foreign substances further into the vagina. At some level, these settlements might be more about public perception/opinion.
 
Micawber said:
I wasn't bullshitting, the story has been around for a while and I had known because I follow that shit, just like I follow ASR hip, Zimmer Cup, FDCPA class suits, Duron Cup, Avandia, Hydroxycut litigation to name a few.
Click to expand...
Many women...my GF included...stopped using powder of any kind after a shower when this first became public.
 
Althea said:
It could be something as simple as any powdery substance affecting the moisture/ph, etc inside the vagina. Years ago, there was an issue with tampons and toxic shock. The above referenced figures don't really lend any credence to an argument against talc, as 75% of patients did NOT use baby powder. It could be a combination of the powder coupled with sex, which might introduce foreign substances further into the vagina. At some level, these settlements might be more about public perception/opinion.
Click to expand...

I disagree. That percentage increase in ovarian cancer is yuge. It requires a warning at a minimum, perhaps even a recall. All the lawsuits of this nature couple a failure to warn with a defective product unreasonably dangerous allegation. Basically, its class action PI tort stuff, but the warning deficiency sounds more in contract. Massive bucks DB plus grievous harm to thousands equals Kaching, and a just resolution. In addition it will save countless lives in the future. They will go back to the drawing board and make a safer product. It's how the system works, and it's a good one.
 
Micawber said:
I disagree. That percentage increase in ovarian cancer is yuge. It requires a warning at a minimum, perhaps even a recall. All the lawsuits of this nature couple a failure to warn with a defective product unreasonably dangerous allegation. Basically, its class action PI tort stuff, but the warning deficiency sounds more in contract. Massive bucks DB plus grievous harm to thousands equals Kaching, and a just resolution. In addition it will save countless lives in the future. They will go back to the drawing board and make a safer product. It's how the system works, and it's a good one.
Click to expand...
Simply citing a small percentage of patients who used powder doesn't seem to be enough to declare a positive connection. Especially without taking family history, environment, etc into account. I can see the lack of proper warning as a case for the courts, assuming of course, that there was reason to believe that decades of use on babies didn't render any waves of cancer.

I haven't looked at the actual studies, but this could be just as much about methods of birth control as it is talc. Especially given that this is ovarian cancer, and not vaginal/cervical, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top