Science Versus Emotion In Baby Powder Cancer Trials
Johnson & Johnson defense attorneys argue that their talc product is asbestos-free and that the plaintiff's expert witnesses are wrong
Wednesday, July 24, 2019 - Medical and legal experts are saying that juries should not be given the responsibility of solving complex scientific questions, ones in which they have no education, training or experience, and they may have a good point. Jurors selected from a variety of occupations and backgrounds are best suited to deal with issues of ethics and morality and to hold those that have broken specific laws accountable but what do they really know about issues as complex as whether or not talcum powder causes cancer? In the case of Johnson's Baby Powder, both sides bring forth their expert witnesses that have come to starkly different conclusions. On the one hand, plaintiff's experts claim that they have found particles of asbestos in samples of Johnson's Baby Powder that they bought unopened online from Ebay.com. The defense experts counter that they were not able to find asbestos when they repeated the tests. The credibility of plaintiff's experts is also being called into question as most make millions of dollars per year performing as a plaintiff's witness, suing deep-pocketed medical and pharmaceutical companies and simply regurgitating their test findings over and over.
When two sides battle to a draw as to the science behind the case it is usually the defendant's corporate behavior that breaks the tie. In the Johnson's Baby Powder cases, the expert's scientific evidence has been supported by emails and internal JNJ company memos that show that the company was worried about the presence of asbestos in their talc supply and that the FDA was, some 50 years ago, contemplating requiring JNJ to use a more sensitive asbestos method to determine the presence of asbestos. Talcum powder cancer lawsuits handled by top national attorneys with vast experience handling baby powder cancer cases and offer a free consultation before filing a claim.
A recent talcum powder asbestos plaintiff, 66-year-old Donna Olson, was diagnosed with mesothelioma of the lungs from inhaling asbestos she claims came from Johnson's Baby Powder. The plaintiff's expert witness Dr. William Longo, a Georgia based microscope researcher, claimed to have found asbestos in Johnson's Baby Powder in samples that he tested using the liquid separation method of finding smaller particles of asbestos, a method 10 times as sensitive as the methods used by Johnson & Johnson. This method of testing for asbestos was being considered by the FDA decades ago and leading JNJ executives to consider it a "disturbing proposal." According to Reuters, the internal memo: "It looks like the FDA is getting into separation and isolation methods, which will mean new concentration procedures open up new problems with asbestos and talc minerals."
In addition to the scientific evidence and alleged corporate malfeasance, there are the incriminating circumstances surrounding how talc is mined that that point in favor of Johnson's Baby Powder cancer plaintiffs. First, talc, a naturally occurring mineral is mined from locations that are adjacent to asbestos mines and miners have stated that there is no way that cross-contamination could be prevented. Talc and asbestos are blasted from the ground hundreds of feet into the air and some of it lands where it may. JNJ executives continue to go on record as supporting the asbestos test results from independent testing agencies and the talc suppliers themselves, often countries like China that have a dubious record of supporting worker or consumer health. Finally, and perhaps the most incriminating factor of all, is that the cosmetics industry is "self-regulating" and has never been held to the strict product safety standards that other industries like medical devices and drug manufacturing have. As a result, Johnson & Johnson seem to have used the least sensitive asbestos testing methods available to come to their conclusions that talc is asbestos-free.
OnderLaw, LLC -