Replies to post #222789 on Biotech Values

[dangerM]

JNJ / what is new & litigation specifics - increased risk of punitive damages?

So I wonder what is the news? Is it their knowledge of not only the possibility, but of test results of asbestos in their product?

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsonandjohnson-cancer/

FDA considered asbestos limits in 1976, but "J&J assured "no asbestos was detected in any sample ... between December 1972 and October 1973", still "at least three tests by three different labs from 1972 to 1975 had found asbestos in its talc".

Moreover, I have absolutely no idea about mining and testing standards, but how even/uneven is asbestos distributed within an ore streak & would this combination of samples be ok?

www.factsabouttalc.com/en-litigation.html

In the 1970s and 1980s, we gathered samples every hour from our talc processing facilities so that we could test it for asbestos. Samples of ground talc ore were combined and tested at least every month. Samples of this talc that was ready to be packaged were combined and tested at least every other week. And as an additional audit, every quarter, those samples were also tested again. Today, we require every one of our suppliers to certify that each shipment of talc has been tested using standards exceeding what the FDA recommends and that no asbestos is detected.

Somewhat the above sounds a little weasely to me (hourly sampling, but testing once a fortnight/month. Juxtaposition of past testing procedures vs. todays requirement of no asbestos being detected).

Martin Shkreli on his blog thinks the market reaction to be excessive and justifies this with a comparison to MRK/Vioxx. Still, is this comparison correct? I wonder whether the news is ~ "proof of willingly release a product with asbestos" instead of negligence and whether this could mean punitive damages (which to my superficial search have not systematically been awarded in the Vioxx case?)?

Any comments?