Cheebye tio Cancer Via Johnson Baby Powder

[LauCheeBye]

Dunch pray pray put on your Lancheow. Also will tio Cancer on Lancheow!



Johnson & Johnson hit with $72m damages in talc cancer case

Johnson & Johnson said the safety of talc was supported by decades of scientific evidence
A jury in the US state of Missouri has ordered Johnson & Johnson (J&J) to pay $72m (£51m) to the family of a woman who claimed her death was linked to use of the company's Baby Powder talc.
Jackie Fox from Birmingham, Alabama died of ovarian cancer last year, aged 62, having used the talc for decades.

Her family argued that the firm knew of talc risks and failed to warn users.

J&J denied the claim and is said to be considering an appeal. Researchers say links with ovarian cancer are unproven.

A company spokeswoman said: "We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial.

"We sympathise with the plaintiff's family but firmly believe the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence."

Other cases pending

The verdict at the end of the three-week trial was the first time damages have been awarded by a US jury over talc claims.

More than 1,000 similar cases are pending nationwide and lawyers said thousands more could now be filed.

Analysis: James Gallagher, health editor, BBC news website

Is talc safe?

There have been concerns for years that using talcum powder, particularly on the genitals, may increase the risk of ovarian cancer.

But the evidence is not conclusive. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies talc used on the genitals as "possibly carcinogenic" because of the mixed evidence.

Why is there any debate?

The mineral talc in its natural form does contain asbestos and does cause cancer, however, asbestos-free talc has been used in baby powder and other cosmetics since the 1970s. But the studies on asbestos-free talc give contradictory results.

It has been linked to a cancer risk in some studies, but there are concerns that the research may be biased as they often rely on people remembering how much talc they used years ago. Other studies have argued there is no link at all and there is no link between talc in contraceptives such as diaphragms and condoms (which would be close to the ovaries) and cancer.

Also there does not seem to be a "dose-response" for talc, unlike with known carcinogens like tobacco where the more you smoke, the greater the risk of lung cancer.

What should women do?

The charity Ovacome says there is no definitive evidence and that the worst-case scenario is that using talc increases the risk of cancer by a third.

But it adds: "Ovarian cancer is a rare disease, and increasing a small risk by a third still gives a small risk. So even if talc does increase the risk slightly, very few women who use talc will ever get ovarian cancer."

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Apply talc to an open wound and it will heal but become an ugly growth

 

[eatshitndie]

hair dye, fingernail polish, deodorant, anti-perspirant, lubricated condoms, scented fragrance, lipstick, eyeliners, etc....all contributing to cancer. lawsuits all over the place in the u.s. lawyers in great demand.

 

[johnny333]

hair dye, fingernail polish, deodorant, anti-perspirant, lubricated condoms, scented fragrance, lipstick, eyeliners, etc....all contributing to cancer. lawsuits all over the place in the u.s. lawyers in great demand.

Corporate america is responsible for creating a toxic environment. Johnnson & Jonson is no different.
What is worst is that some of their products are targeted at the babies & infants.

Even their shampoos are dangerous.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/why-johnson-johnson-baby-shampoo-is-not-for-babies/

Why Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo is Not for Babies

An infant is the purest thing in this world, wouldn’t you agree? Still as yet untouched by the chemicals and environment of a world we are trying to quickly destroy, a newborn baby ought to be kept clear of those products and ingredients which may lead to harm in the body sometime later in life. You would think everyone shares this sentiment. After-all, most people go to great lengths in order to use clean blankets and towels for their newborn as well as washing hands before holding them, limiting number of hands contacting their skin in the first month at least, as well as other ‘protective guidelines.’ You would assume that a company who makes a ‘baby shampoo’ has the baby’s best interest in mind. You would also assume that baby shampoo was free of toxic chemicals, I mean – who would formulate an infant shampoo using harmful substances? Here we will look at just a few reasons why Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo is not for babies – at all. In fact, why no one should use this toxic soup of ingredients for anything other than pest control.

For more than a century, Johnson & Johnson has promoted themselves as carrying ‘the gentlest baby shampoo’ on the market. Their website states: “For more than a hundred years, new mothers have trusted JOHNSON’S® Baby products to provide the purest, gentlest and mildest care for their babies—from the first morning cuddle to the last bedtime kiss.” Yes, mothers have trusted them, but have they valued that trust and really provided the safest, gentlest, mildest products possible for babies?

Let’s take a look at the ingredients. After water, the first ingredient listed is called Cocamidopropyl Betaine, voted allergen of the year in 2004 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society. An interesting way to start an infant formula meant to go on a brand new scalp, but okay, moving on. Ingredient number three is PEG-80 Sorbitan Laurate – anyone have a clue what that is? I didn’t know upon first glance, which is an immediate red flag for me. Upon looking it up, the first match I found was for the Environmental Working Group which lists this ingredient, on a scale of ‘over-all hazards’ as ‘moderate.’ Not mild, but moderate. It also says there is strong evidence that this ingredient is a human skin allergen.

The next one on the list, Sodium Trideceth Sulfate. Again, not sure what this is right off, so after looking it up I find this ingredient can also be a skin allergen and is used mainly in adult formulas. Here’s a clincher – the ingredient 1,4-dioxane is a commonly used skin care ingredient that does not have to be listed because it is considered a contaminant produced during manufacturing, though it has been found in 57% of baby soaps according to The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Is it in Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo, many believe so. When this ingredient is combined with Quaternium-15, which is the ninth item listed on Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo, formaldehyde is produced. Tetrasodium EDTA, which is listed just before Quaternium-15 is a preservative created from formaldehyde. Why are we using formaldehyde on babies?

We can go on to finish the ingredient list with several reportedly harmless dyes, though not food-sourced. So, why is Johnson & Johnson creating a baby shampoo that is not sensitive in the least for newborn babies when there are so many possible safe, gentle ingredients out there? It appears that the ingredients of choice for the past 100 years gaining time-honored respect from mothers everywhere are really just toxins and toxic by-products of other toxic ingredients. Yes, they make bubbles, and sure do smell good – or do they? We have so long associated that ‘clean baby smell’ with the ingredients of said product, even though they in and of themselves are not so clean.

Today, you can go into nearly any good grocers and find pure castile soap, a genuinely clean option for soap, shampoo and over-all cleaner safe enough for anyone, including babies. There is no need to go to all the trouble of combining toxic substances and coloring them with fake dye in order to please the mothers of the world. In fact, mothers everywhere should be outraged at this shampoo which has been freely given to them over the years as the number one choice for baby soaps this century. Something must change. Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo is definitely not for babies, so why not make a healthier choice that is – and stop overloading our wee ones with unneeded burdens early on?

Written by: Stasia Bliss

 

[fupikee]

hair dye, fingernail polish, deodorant, anti-perspirant, lubricated condoms, scented fragrance, lipstick, eyeliners, etc....all contributing to cancer. lawsuits all over the place in the u.s. lawyers in great demand.

That's how all these leech lawyers earn their money...they just create a law suit out of any product, the possibilities are endless.

Let's see if some smart alecky lawsuit can come out with one regarding ...sex causes cancer (all kinds) or drinking tap water causes cancer (all kinds)...

It is not the true facts that mater ...it is how much drama, product experts, etc they can hire, how much dirt they can dig out of companies and their products and present them as 'evidence' for product liabilities for cancer. Out of the so many cases that they present, it just takes one dumfuck 'cooperative' judge to rule that some product causes cancer and the flood gates will be open for 'class' action suits against the particular product. Good bye to the product, the companies producing them and all the hard work the management and employees work throughout the years to establish. What a fxxing sham these ang mos are, just to earn their money...