Those TV lawsuits lawyers

This is more for the females it seems, but heck who knew that "talc" caused cancer as common knowledge. This morning they reported that talc used in commercial uses, the talc companies stated that it could cause cancer for employees handling it. NOT the typical home user.

Then there is the non-functioning airbags of cars. As they state, "even if not your fault" just being in an accident where they didn't deploy. This goes on and on, just wonder if something new comes out, if you can even try to install whatever w/o a lawyer clamoring yrs. later. ------Willy

Still a rock, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn the finely-powdered form can damage vaginal tissues e.g. To cause cervical cancer it would be further in, and in contact with probably more vulnerable tissues. As a somewhat informed layman, I think there is a natural expulsion action going on that would act as a preventive. BTW all the above is similar to asbestos, which is 1) much nastier, 2) was known to be so, 3) was lied about for decades, like tobacco.
The product in question was presented for cosmetic/vanity use I believe. Not necessary for a woman who takes care of herself, but should still be made as safe as possible. IMO again, but I think there was no practical way for J&J to foresee the problem. That opinion may be demolished by further research.
My wife is a CC survivor FWIW. All she got out of it was her life, no $$.

That's why I mentioned the siege mentality of manufacturers. Their own lawyers urge them not to be reasonable and forthcoming, so the plaintiffs must resort to the courts.
Cervical cancer is not trivial or frivolous, and if it could be found to have a specific cause in a case, I would be in favor of a suit to recover (at least) the cost of the treatment. Most of the products I cited are similar.
The hair loss I treated separately because the cancer was in place when the actionable outcome happened, and was not as serious as the disease. I should have added also that it is almost always MUCH more serious to a female; understandable and not trivial. Still, free wigs and cancer-free is a good deal. Could even be called sensible, but it won't happen.

to show a connection with the use of a product and some disease? Should J & J have done a proper scientific study over several decades before releasing a product and should it also be able to predict what other humans might do with it as a matter of creativity? Is it possible that a product that's now been found to cause serious issues also prevented even more of them? Questions to be asked and answered, I suppose, but are lawyers the best ones to do this?

I believe there must be some extrapolation involved. In a three-part product, say, if one of the parts is known to be safe, then focus testing on the other two. The gov't agencies allow this, I think. (Babies have been doused with talcum powder for decades.) But what if one of the other two exacerbates a slight, undiscovered problem? Who knew? How much time should be allowed or mandated to find out, as you note?
The news about the talc factory workers is part of it. They get much more exposure than the most vanity-fearful diva. Back to asbestos, which is much nastier on its workers, and required decades of lying in high places to do its worst.
Full disclosure: The gov't I support will end this problem, and the Mexicans won't be made to pay for it.

Sued God.