Incredible investigative reporting, Gerald. Poignant and insightful. Thank you for posting such a thoughtful argument supported with the Dalkon Shield and OxyContin case histories.
Will lawmakers heed your call for bankruptcy reform? One can only hope.
If the Supreme Court rejects the J&J appeal, there will be little impetus in Congress to take action. It seems our government is usually reactive and if the ‘problem’ goes away for the moment, many in Congress will be happy unfortunately to focus on something else
Having a hard time understanding the link between asbestos and ovarian cancer. "Asbestos" is not a toxin, it's an irritant and that's how it causes cancer. When inhaled, it irritates the membrane in lungs and trachea. The term does not describe any particular mineral, it describes a crystal habit that is fibrous. The more proper term is "asbestiform". Asbestos is a marketing term. So, how do trace asbestiform particles get to the ovaries?
Not surprised that the plaintiffs’ litigators push the envelope
From the American Cancer Society:
“Ovarian cancer
It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovaries.
Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase.
Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person’s memory of talc use many years earlier.
Prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have generally not found a significant increase in ovarian cancer risk overall. However, some have suggested possible increased risks in certain groups of women (for example, in women who still have an intact reproductive tract) or in certain types of ovarian cancer.
One of the problems with studying this issue is that ovarian cancer isn’t common. Because of this, even the largest studies done so far might not have been big enough to detect a very small increase in risk, if it exists.
Researchers have tried to address this by combining the results of different studies (known as a meta-analysis), but even this type of research has had mixed results. For example, in an analysis combining the results of the major cohort studies there was no overall increased risk of ovarian cancer, while in an analysis of both case-control and cohort studies, frequent talcum powder use (defined as at least twice a week) was linked with an increased risk.
For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues.”
It does make sense although I find very little published info or studies that are useful. This is from ChatGPT, for what it’s worth: “For men, there is limited research on the risk of cancer from using talcum powder. Some studies have suggested a possible association between talc usage and prostate cancer, but the evidence is not strong or consistent. In general, more research is needed to clarify whether there is a definitive link between talcum powder use in men and an increased risk of cancer.”
Agreed
Incredible investigative reporting, Gerald. Poignant and insightful. Thank you for posting such a thoughtful argument supported with the Dalkon Shield and OxyContin case histories.
Will lawmakers heed your call for bankruptcy reform? One can only hope.
If the Supreme Court rejects the J&J appeal, there will be little impetus in Congress to take action. It seems our government is usually reactive and if the ‘problem’ goes away for the moment, many in Congress will be happy unfortunately to focus on something else
Thanks, again, for that. The research seems to be more in hypothesis stage.
Great post on the abuse of the bankruptcy laws. Big Biz is alive and well and covid made it even bigger
Having a hard time understanding the link between asbestos and ovarian cancer. "Asbestos" is not a toxin, it's an irritant and that's how it causes cancer. When inhaled, it irritates the membrane in lungs and trachea. The term does not describe any particular mineral, it describes a crystal habit that is fibrous. The more proper term is "asbestiform". Asbestos is a marketing term. So, how do trace asbestiform particles get to the ovaries?
Not surprised that the plaintiffs’ litigators push the envelope
From the American Cancer Society:
“Ovarian cancer
It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovaries.
Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase.
Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person’s memory of talc use many years earlier.
Prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have generally not found a significant increase in ovarian cancer risk overall. However, some have suggested possible increased risks in certain groups of women (for example, in women who still have an intact reproductive tract) or in certain types of ovarian cancer.
One of the problems with studying this issue is that ovarian cancer isn’t common. Because of this, even the largest studies done so far might not have been big enough to detect a very small increase in risk, if it exists.
Researchers have tried to address this by combining the results of different studies (known as a meta-analysis), but even this type of research has had mixed results. For example, in an analysis combining the results of the major cohort studies there was no overall increased risk of ovarian cancer, while in an analysis of both case-control and cohort studies, frequent talcum powder use (defined as at least twice a week) was linked with an increased risk.
For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues.”
Great reply and thank you.
Does it make sense that there may be a similar response with men who use talcum powder on a frequent basis?
It does make sense although I find very little published info or studies that are useful. This is from ChatGPT, for what it’s worth: “For men, there is limited research on the risk of cancer from using talcum powder. Some studies have suggested a possible association between talc usage and prostate cancer, but the evidence is not strong or consistent. In general, more research is needed to clarify whether there is a definitive link between talcum powder use in men and an increased risk of cancer.”