Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Health

hlthe2b

(106,574 posts)

6. It was an exposure that needed to be differentiated from talc. Since it was not, its presence

Reply to Mosby (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 8, 2020, 11:56 AM

Jan 2020

confounded (i.e., masked, likely diluted) the relationship with talc and might well have masked any TRUE association between asbestos-contaminated talc and adverse health effects

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Study Finds Talcum Powder Not Likely A Risk For Ovarian Cancer [View all] appalachiablue Jan 2020 OP

I'm going to have to pull that study, but if corn starch use was not differentiated from talc, then hlthe2b Jan 2020 #1

It's not the talc that's the issue Mosby Jan 2020 #3

No. Talc is the proxy for the presence of asbestos. Not cornstarch. hlthe2b Jan 2020 #4

I see what your saying I think Mosby Jan 2020 #5

It was an exposure that needed to be differentiated from talc. Since it was not, its presence hlthe2b Jan 2020 #6

i might be wrong, but haven't billions of women used talcum powder rampartc Jan 2020 #2