• GunnarRunnar@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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!

      • GunnarRunnar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                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.

      • neekz0r
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.

      • some_guy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          LOL. I hear you.

          Someone had to know something to come up with an accusation like that. It wouldn’t be out of the scope of reality for researchers (usually the ones being paid by the product manufacturer) to omit some critical details of the study. Not saying that’s what happened here, but J&J knows something we don’t.

        • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lack of publishing null results is a problem in science. A lot of journals don’t like null results and the types of journals that are happy to publish such (like PLOS) often cost money (only ~$1k-2k per article) but also a ton of time that researchers don’t have for something that would do nothing to benefit their careers.

          I don’t think Showroom was saying which researchers did the study or implying any sort of ill intentions. Just scientists looking out for the careers, and spending a ton of time making a publishable article to say “we found nothing” isn’t exactly useful for them.

      • Raphael@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.