Baby Powder Lawsuit Studies Solely Observational
The observational nature of talcum powder cancer research studies have caused their significance to become a point of contention thus far in Johnson & Johnson's baby powder lawsuit litigation.
Saturday, July 9, 2016 - Much of the arguments taking place between plaintiffs and defendants regarding talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits stems from the fact that only observational research studies can be conducted to determine the possible carcinogenic trait of the popular Johnson & Johnson cosmetic. A host of ethical and medical roadblocks prohibit direct cause and effect investigations to take place, as testing whether or not someone exposed to talcum powder develops ovarian cancer is an understandably misguided undertaking. With that evidentiary impediment in place, the arguments in talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits over whether talcum powder is in fact carcinogenic must rely on medical research that has the ability to be more easily manipulated and influenced by bias.
Despite observational medical studies being the only research available, Johnson & Johnson's baby powder cancer attorneys representing plaintiffs have discovered a large amount of them to employ in defense of their client's allegations. There are more than published 20 medical studies that claim there is a significant link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer, with a number of them putting the increased risk of contracting ovarian cancer as a result of regular, genital talcum powder use at over 30 percent.
In addition to the decades-long medical research supporting a link between ovarian cancer and talcum powder, baby powder lawyers have also uncovered internal documents recovered from Johnson & Johnson revealing that representatives in the company had been warned by doctors that their talcum powder products had repeatedly exhibited signs of a causal link with ovarian cancer.
Plaintiffs that have filed talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson claim that in light of the medical studies that have been published for decades in tandem with the internal documents uncovered proving the company's awareness of the ovarian cancer links, the defendants were negligent in failing to affix warning labels to their talcum powder products warning the public of the potential cancer risk their talcum powder cosmetics posed.
Their talcum powder cancer lawyers have also claimed that the company intentionally focused their marketing on African Americans, even after they were alerted to the ovarian cancer connection their talcum powder products held. This was exacerbated by a 2016 study that found African Americans may be even more likely to contract ovarian cancer from talcum powder products compared to the rest of the population.
In response to the claims made in baby powder cancer lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson, the company has claimed that the observational nature of the medical studies the plaintiffs have relied on to build their arguments does not constitute medical proof that talcum powder causes ovarian cancer. The company has also leaned on studies it has discovered that does not demonstrate a causal link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Talcum powder ovarian cancer lawyers representing plaintiffs claim that Johnson & Johnson cherry-picked those studies, and that they are not representative of the consensus developing in the medical community concerning the connection between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.
In any event juries have overwhelmingly found in favor of the plaintiffs thus far, awarded them a combined $127 million in the only two Johnson & Johnson's baby powder lawsuits that have been heard in court this year. Though the observational studies may not prove a link exists, Johnson & Johnson is fighting a losing battle thus far in attempting to dismiss their importance in the minds of the more than 1,200 plaintiffs that have already filed baby powder lawsuits and juries that have yet to find in favor of the defendants in court.
OnderLaw, LLC -