The secondary patent particularly irked some advocates because the drug’s development was largely underwritten by public funds, according to a 2020 analysis. That study found public sector funds contributed $455 million to $747 million to getting bedaquiline to market, compared to $90 million to $240 million from J&J.

We pay for the development of the drug, they get the patent, then we pay for the drug. Socialize cost, privatize profits.

On the one hand sure, that's an issue. On the other hand, who hasn't been in contact with asbestos in one way or the other. Asbestos has been banned for many use cases but it is still widely in circulation. It's a bit like asking for people who have never been exposed to smoking.

It really depends on the type of study it was, and what these sources of asbestos were supposed to have been.

If they were doing a comparison study, so long as the control group was exposed to asbestos in similar amounts and in similar environments, it's still a strong finding. J&J shouting "they were exposed to other asbestos!" would just be an empty attack on the researchers' characters, and an attempt to falsely discredit them to an uncritical and uneducated public.

Things do seem to be a bit more complicated than that, though, as these are post-hoc investigations with no control. That said, it looks like they tried to do their due diligence to filter out participants who had known environmental exposure to asbestos. If some of them lied or mis-remembered, then it's up to J&J to show that the researchers were negligent or operating in bad faith.

That's going to be a pretty big hurdle to climb. I don't believe they actually intend to climb it.

The fact that the researchers asked about environmental during recruitment, plus the fact that J&J is only claiming that a small handful of people involved in the study were exposed to other sources of asbestos, really shows this for what it is: An attempt to scare researchers away from doing research, and especially from agreeing to be provide expert testimony in lawsuits.

One of the defendants here even has a new paper out this past January that includes patients with known environmental exposure to asbestos, and they show that cumulative exposure from all sources matters. Including exposure from talc:

Conclusion
For individuals with exposure to asbestos through cosmetic talc usage and additional alternate sources, all exposures contribute to the development of mesothelioma. Published case reports and case series have identified over 100 individuals whose sole exposure to asbestos was through cosmetic talcum powder usage.

This finding basically cuts J&J's apparent argument off at the knees, and was published months before they ever filed suit. They'd have been aware of it at the time of filing. They don't seem to have anything here. Just the opportunity to try and make their detractors look as dirty as they are in the eyes of people who haven't read any of the research.

It's a pretty wild allegation. They would have to have known about the other sources of exposure and deliberately withheld that information. Even if the patients had had some other exposure, it's even less likely that the doctors would have known about it, and their study will have been designed as well as practicable to find out.

I’m betting one dude in the study renovates his house and he had asbestos containing outside walls or something and now J&J is making a show of it.

We shall see, but I wouldn’t be surprised this is more of an intimidation tactic than anything.

Holy crap that was a crazy read. LTL, the North Carolina shell company owned by J&J, tragically lost sales revenue and went bankrupt "because of their 2020 study". "To set the record straight" they are de-anonymizing the data to dox 5 of the participants and then going through those cancer patient's lives to say that they had contact with industrial asbestos at some point. Their main claim against the only patient they have positively identified, Lanzo because he tried to sue J&J, is that his middle school locker room and basement later had asbestos pipes removed. Their claim against #2 after matching her tumor stats is that her dad worked with pipes that had asbestos. The third, again matched by tumor measurements, had a husband who once told a UCLA doc on a visit that he was doing some demolition that might've had asbestos. The fourth, "matched" only by her age, smoked and sued Kent cigarettes which were proven to contain asbestos. The last is an age match to a cleaning lady who sued J&J previously and said in court she cleaned buildings and navy ships that "possibly had asbestos".

Their claim is that since at least one patient might've come into contact with asbestos from a source that wasn't baby powder the entire study is false. Basically, they dig through peoples lives and if they ever visited somewhere that has any asbestos on record or lived with someone who mentioned asbestos worries to a doctor they think you should be disqualified from being linked to Johnson and Johnson.

Money is only a problem when raising wages.