It's frustrating that people substitute civil trials for science. Because the fact is there is no scientific evidence that J&J baby powder causes cancer.

A civil trial does not have the burden of proof that science does.

"By no means should anybody take that to mean that it's now been demonstrated that those things cause cancer. That's not what a court is designed to do,"

In civil litigation, jurors are told to weigh the evidence differently than a scientist would. They don't even have to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" as they would have to do in a criminal case.

Having the jury decide science is like having Jenny McCarthy decide science:

Did the exposure cause the plaintiff's cancer?  "I'm not sure, but I think so" is the answer one of the groundskeeper's lawyers, Brent Wisner, toldjurors they needed to reach in the glyphosate case. "That's really the standard here," he told them.

If you believe that Johnson&Johnson baby powder causes cancer you are the equivalent of an anti-vaxxer:

• Did the vaccine cause the plaintiffs autism?
• I'm not sure, but I think so.

Don't confuse the results of a trial with science.

• Science has a high bar to meet
• believing Johnson's & Johnson's baby powder is causes cancer is simply wrong

---

But back to the facts. All talcum powder contains trace amounts of asbestos. In the same way the air you're breathing contains trace amounts of plutonium. And the water you're drinking contains trace amounts of uranium.

The question isn't whether it contains asbestos. The question is whether it contains an amount of asbestos that is dangerous.

I'm not sure. But I think so?

No. Absolutely not.

I was trying to explain this a few months ago when the trial verdict came in. And there was a redditor who had zero tolerance for asbestos. He couldn't understand the concept of Trace amounts. Meanwhile they're perfectly happy to eat of radioactive banana.