User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Justices reject Johnson & Johnson appeal of $2B talc verdict

  1. #11

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 479,836, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    201393
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    53,486
    Points
    479,836
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,200
    Thanked 46,663x in 25,183 Posts
    Mentioned
    893 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    Is tossing it "under Daubert" like throwing it under the bus?
    NO. In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard


    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see scam written all over it. There's not even any proof the women who had ovarian cancer even used talc--we have to take their word for it, and seeing as though ads have appeared on TV encouraging women with ovarian cancer to "reach out" and get "what they deserve," it's no surprise they suddenly remembered packing their panties with talc. But, that's just my jaded side coming out.
    As a crotchety old defense lawyer, I am always suspicious. I just know the pain and effort that the federal court puts on making sure that there's science behind it.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (06-03-2021)

  3. #12
    Points: 145,114, Level: 91
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 1,536
    Overall activity: 66.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    44154
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    58,055
    Points
    145,114
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,527
    Thanked 44,159x in 28,540 Posts
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can't address the medical claim but the culprit is not the talc. It is the asbestos contaminate. So these are really asbestos law suits.

    Asbestos is everywhere so it becomes a level of contamination. It is in feldspar(s) that are still used every day as anti-caking agents in any number of dry powders that are used in products for your home and industry. It is also in almost every mineral ore on earth and gets released in crushing and milling the product to controlled size.

    Talcum powder is actually the mineral Talc blended with Cornstarch. Talc as the drying/anti-cake agent and Cornstarch as the lubricant for comfort.

    Talc (hydrous magnesium silicate) is now mined and tested per batch and asbestos free talc means that it fell below federal standards not that it is asbestos free.

    I think they picked Talcum Powder because the image of sprinkling dust was easy to visualize but the woman were also smearing it on their face in makeup.
    Asbestos is in their walls, countertops, roof, tile floor and the cement board under it...
    Talc is used in foods as an anti-caking agent.

  4. #13
    Points: 79,353, Level: 68
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 697
    Overall activity: 35.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Abby08's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    72827
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Arizona and New Mexico
    Posts
    35,995
    Points
    79,353
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    30,646
    Thanked 30,342x in 18,869 Posts
    Mentioned
    133 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Look at how long this baby powder has been in use, used by millions of women on themselves and, their girl babies, over several decades, yet just 22 women are claiming their ovarian cancer was caused by the powder.

    I don't see how they can make a correlation between ovarian cancer and, talc based baby powder, with only 22 women who used it, getting cancer.

  5. #14
    Points: 145,114, Level: 91
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 1,536
    Overall activity: 66.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    44154
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    58,055
    Points
    145,114
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,527
    Thanked 44,159x in 28,540 Posts
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And don't forget Dow and Silicone Breast implants that the courts got totally wrong based on bad science.

    In 1995 they were found to cause cancer. In 2006 the FDA said, no they don't. To late for Dow.
    Last edited by carolina73; 06-03-2021 at 09:15 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts