Sounds like pesudo-statistical lawyering. This woman has cancer and she used talc every day of her life, ergo the talc is to blame.
> Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. 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. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk.
For example, it's known that female reproductive cancers are associated with the levels of various female sex hormones. Female sex hormones also affect the vaginal lining and external genitalia (in particular, moisture levels). It might be that women who are prone to ovarian cancer due to hormone levels also have a vaginal/labial situation that makes them more likely to apply powder to keep the area dry. If that were the case, you'd see a correlation with no cause and effect relation whatsoever.
(just an illustration... I'm not claiming this is what's going on, but I'd probably try to argue something like that if I were a lawyer for J&J).
However, if the coverup of the correlation is as described in the article, that would be a bad, bad thing.
I don't think it's odd to question the toxicity of talcum powder. Talcum powder used to contain asbestos, but doesn't any longer. We have good evidence that the newer talc doesn't cause lung cancer.
So an obvious question is, if talc doesn't cause lung cancer, why would it cause ovarian cancer? Of course, different tissue, different effect, but it raises doubt.
Maybe talc does cause ovarian cancer by some as-yet-discovered mechanism, but I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking it either coincidental (lots of people get ovarian cancer who never use talc) or due to something else.
