Asbestos, talc, and The Lancet's 1977 publication
thelancet.com
thelancet.com
Not much of a shock, but - what’s the logic in this argument? “There’s no asbestos now, so there’s no need to regulate?” How does that make sense? Without regulation, how can you verify that there’s no asbestos now, and how can you ensure there will continue to be no asbestos in the future?
Like who would buy an ‘argument’ like that?
The original argument (it's linked is that):
* The major manufacturers are already restricting asbestos
* That asbestos contamination is detrimental to cosmetic quality, and therefore manufacturers have a self-interested motivation to meet their claimed safety specifications
* In any case, the most likely sources of contamination are those which were not yet determined to be cancer causing
* Oh, and we should regulate medicinal talc first before cosmetics
What it in fact says: "In summary, there is no reason to believe that normal consumer exposure to cosmetic talc has in the past led either to cancer at any site or to measurable loss of lung function. It seems unlikely that future exposure to cosmetic talc of the specifications now agreed to by major manufacturers will present a health hazard."
It has been known since the 60s, but it took until 2023 (and 30k lawsuits) for J&J to finally come to the conclusion that killing people this way is now no longer lucrative.
(Also be sure to check your doubt-diodes periodically; it's quite possible for both sides to be wrong, lying, shading the truth, or just full of it.)