• Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Except that there were over 20 participants in the study and J&J is trying to claim potential, possible exposures to asbestos that they could only come up for 6 of them means that nothing in the study is correct.

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

      That is a significantly high number as it is six ‘proved’ cases. Some people wouldn’t even know if they were exposed by other sources and even if they knew, would it be documented? Chances are we have all been exposed to asbestos and other carcinogenic chemicals both natural and man-made. The correlation was very weak to begin and it seems some of the people that did this study did willfully ignore details that make is suspect. I like to think all scientists are working on our behalf but there is a monetary motive to attain certain positive results in this case. We shouldn’t automatically give them a pass.

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

        They don’t automatically get a pass. They get peer reviewed.

        It’s also not one study. They’ve done multiple over the years, with hundreds of participants. They’ve done studies where they include people with known environmental exposure, and they still find that exposure to talcum powder counts as part of cumulative exposure.

        Is it possible they’re just flagrantly lying about their research results? Of course. Tell good enough lies and it becomes up to reproduction studies to find contradicting results. But there’s as much money, if not more, to be found in finding those contradicting results, and yet…