Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.7bn damages in talc cancer case

  1. #1

    Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.7bn damages in talc cancer case

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44816805

    Johnson & Johnson to pay $4.7bn damages in talc cancer case

    Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $4.7bn (£3.6bn) in damages to 22 women who alleged that its talc products caused them to develop ovarian cancer.

    A jury in the US state of Missouri initially awarded $550m in compensation and added $4.1bn in punitive damages.
    Pete (is sure there will be an appeal, but still impressive)

  2. #2
    put-put Put Master
    Jared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sitting in my corner
    Posts
    16,860
    They've got an uphill fight, given the evidence that J&J has known for decades that it is related to overian cancer, and they suppressed the data and marketed it directly at the affected population for use in the most high-risk application possible. It's almost like they were trying to give women ovarian cancer.
    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared View Post
    They've got an uphill fight, given the evidence that J&J has known for decades that it is related to overian cancer, and they suppressed the data and marketed it directly at the affected population for use in the most high-risk application possible. It's almost like they were trying to give women ovarian cancer.
    I'm not so sure. Talc doesn't give women ovarian cancer...asbestos does. According to the article, J&J produced tests showing their talc did not contain asbestos. I'd like to have a look at some of the evidence, but at least from the way this reads it looks like they had at very least a plausible belief that their product does not cause cancer.

    And punitives 9x the actual damages? That'll be tough to uphold on appeal. And there are only 22 plaintiffs. That's $213 million per plaintiff. That's insane!

    Pete (doesn't expect to see anywhere near that much paid)

  4. #4
    put-put Put Master
    Jared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sitting in my corner
    Posts
    16,860
    Here's a study that thinks there is a slight increase in risk of ovarian cancer: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/92/3/249/2965050
    and here's one that doesn't: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...nd-cancer.html
    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Database Error Put Master
    Jester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    crap, I know this one!
    Posts
    15,171
    Scientifically speaking, the jury is out -- but what is clear is that even if talcum powder is carcinogenic, it is an extremely rare adverse event.
    They speak in bulletpointese leftist nutjob drivel. It doesn't matter. Nothing is as great a motivator as the chance to truly be free.
    -Mr. Raceboy

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jester View Post
    Scientifically speaking, the jury is out -- but what is clear is that even if talcum powder is carcinogenic, it is an extremely rare adverse event.
    $210 million. Each!

    Pete (wonders if the jury screwed the plaintiffs by giving them so much money it's almost certainly going to get overturned)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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