[asdfasgasdgasdg]

If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad? As we've seen in a number of other recent cases research is by no means free of malfeasance. Even research performed to some statistical standard may fall far short of truly indicating a casual link.

These researchers have gained materially from the output of their research (expert witnesses do not testify for free). Of course if the lawsuit is baseless then it is an evil distraction but the mere act of suing researchers is not, on its face, a problem.

[blincoln]

> If indeed the researchers did conceal that the subjects had other exposure to asbestos, that would be pretty bad?

It depends. Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc. and will argue things like "Subject A visited Australia ten years before the study and was in a city where some older structures were made using asbestos-infused concrete. Did the researchers think to ask their subjects if they'd traveled to Australia?"

[DebtDeflation]

>Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos

One of the subjects previously filed a workers comp claim for asbestos exposure at a textile plant where she worked, despite being considered to have had no asbestos exposure other than from cosmetic talc for the purposes of the quoted study.

https://retractionwatch.com/2023/01/24/jj-subsidiary-alleges...

[mkagenius]

> Were the subjects actually exposed in a meaningful way to another source of asbestos, or did the corporate lawyers go fishing through past address history, purchases, etc.

Ideally that should be part of the research paper if done diligently, refuting them even before people doubt them.