Preview Newsletter
talc 5/9
-
Column Ovarian cancer and talc: Did junk science cost Johnson & Johnson $127 million in court?
May 9, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Michael Hiltzik
Johnson & Johnson is an immense pharmaceutical and consumer products company of the type that the public loves to hate. Recently, it's been getting absolutely killed by juries holding its baby powder responsible for causing several women's ovarian cancers. -
Johnson & Johnson Pays $55M In Second Lawsuit Claiming Talcum Powder Products Cause Ovarian Cancer
May 8, 2016 | Medical Daily
By Jaleesa Baulkman
Last Monday, a woman from South Dakota was granted $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages after she claimed Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder-based products caused her ovarian cancer, The New York Daily News reported. This is the second lawsuit the company has lost this year. -
When talcum powder can make you rich, it's time to reassess our litigation mania: Michael Kirsch (Opinion)
May 6, 2016 | Cleveland.com
By Dr. Michael Kirsch
I read a piece earlier this week in The Plain Dealer which gives new meaning to the expression "keep your powder dry." A jury in a Missouri state court ruled that Johnson & Johnson must pay a defendant $55 million dollars because the jury was convinced that the company's talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. Earlier this year, another Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million under similar circumstances. -
On Mother’s Day, Give Moms What They Really Want: Protect Our Kids from Toxic Chemicals
May 6, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
...And just this week, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a woman who linked her ovarian cancer diagnosis to talcum in the company’s baby powder. -
Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce Added To Portfolio
May 9, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
...For me, Tuesday, May 4 was "Talcum Powder Tuesday." That was the day I pondered the possible shareholder implications of lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) by some talcum powder users.
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
-
Column Ovarian cancer and talc: Did junk science cost Johnson & Johnson $127 million in court?
May 9, 2016 | Los Angeles Times
By Michael Hiltzik
Johnson & Johnson is an immense pharmaceutical and consumer products company of the type that the public loves to hate. Recently, it's been getting absolutely killed by juries holding its baby powder responsible for causing several women's ovarian cancers.
The damage awards levied against Johnson by juries in St. Louis on behalf of two families total $127 million. That sum would suggest that the scientific evidence is clear that Johnson's talcum powder caused the women's cancers. But what does science say?
Science says the evidence is murky at best, often self-contradictory, and may well be nonexistent. One study involving more than 100,000 women found "little support for any substantial association" between talc use and overall ovarian cancer risk.(The verdict) goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc.— Johnson & Johnson, responding to a $55-million damages award in a St. Louis court Monday
That's not how the lawyers who brought the St. Louis cases put it. In a lawsuit filed in Missouri state court in June 2014, they cite a study showing a "92% increased risk in ovarian cancer" among women who reported using talcum power in their genital area. The crux of their case is that their clients' ovarian cancer was "directly and proximately caused" by Johnson & Johnson's manufacture and sale of its baby powder and Shower to Shower products, along with marketing that "compelled women" to "dust themselves with this product to mask odors" and help them "feel soft, fresh, and comfortable."
The plaintiffs who are also suing Luzenac America, a talc manufacturer, argue that Johnson & Johnson has known since 1971 of a link between ovarian cancer and the application of talc to the genital area. Since the 1980s, the lawsuit says, the companies have been advised by scientists and cancer prevention organizations to warn consumers of the possible risks, but never have done so.
Johnson & Johnson, in response, says that "multiple scientific and regulatory reviews have determined that talc is safe for use in cosmetic products and the labeling on Johnson’s Baby Powder is appropriate." After a St. Louis jury awarded a South Dakota woman $55 million on Monday, the company said the decision "goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc." That verdict followed a $72-million award to another plaintiff in the same court, including $62 million in punitive damages. Johnson faces at least an additional 1,200 lawsuits on similar claims.
Yet taken altogether, these cases raise real questions about whether the American legal system is well-equipped to weigh scientific evidence and assign liability where the facts are, at best, equivocal. Since we aren't privy to the discussions in the jury rooms, we can't say for sure what aspects of these cases led the jurors to their punishing conclusions.
It's quite possible that Johnson & Johnson, as a hugely profitable $70-billion company, was a sitting duck for juror hostility. It's proper to note that government agencies have accused the company of overly aggressive marketing and promotion of prescription drugs, including dangerous opioids. So it's also possible that the juries heard convincing evidence that Johnson deliberately downplayed the risks of talc in order to rack up sales.
Perhaps most important, the verdicts may reflect a loss of credibility of scientific evidence in general. Some of the leading research asserting a link between talc and ovarian cancer was done by a scientist who is a paid consultant for the plaintiffs in the St. Louis case; but one of the more comprehensive papers debunking the link was paid for partially by a law firm representing Luzenac. It's unsurprising that the public, and jurors, don't know who to believe, if anyone.
Still, the link between talc and ovarian cancer appears to be unproven. Let's take a look.
Ovarian cancer is relatively rare, accounting for only 1.3% of all new cases in the U.S., according to the National Cancer Institute. But it's a tenacious killer. It's the eighth most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Fewer than half of all patients survive five years after diagnosis.
Most ovarian cancer authorities seem to suggest that any role played by talc in the incidence of ovarian cancer is swamped by more easily identified risk factors. The Ovarian Cancer National Alliance doesn't list talc at all as a risk factor. Among the main causes of the disease, the organization says, are heredity--mutations in breast cancer gene 1 (BRCA1) or breast cancer gene 2 (BRCA2) are "responsible for about 10 to 15 percent of all ovarian cancers"; obesity; and age -- rates are highest in women aged 55-64. Reproductive history is another factor, with rates elevated among women who have not given birth or taken oral contraceptives.
The American Cancer Society does list talc among these risk factors, but only gingerly, stating that "some studies suggest a very slight increase in risk of ovarian cancer in women who used talc on the genital area" and suggesting that the blame may rest with contamination of talcum powder with asbestos, which is no longer the case.
Patient advocacy groups have been less measured about the risks. In 2010, Samuel Epstein, then chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and a crusader against supposedly carcinogenic consumer products, wrote that ovarian cancer mortality "for women over the age of 65 has increased by 47 percent in African American women and 13 percent in Caucasian women due to genital use of talc powder," which gave talc prominence as a cause of mortality that doesn't seem widely supported in the scientific literature.
The scientific findings are all over the map. Among the work most commonly cited by the plaintiffs bar is that of Daniel Cramer, an epidemiologist at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, which found a 33% increase in the ovarian cancer rate among women who used talcum power genitally. Cramer is a paid consultant for plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson.
Other researchers, including the authors of a paper in the Journal of the American Cancer Society, point to serious flaws in such retrospective case control studies. These rely on subjects to report their past experience, which could be marred by poor recollection or biased by the desire to pinpoint a cause of disease.
More reliable study designs have failed to confirm Cramer's findings. These include a survey drawn from the Nurses Health Study, which involves 121,000 nurses nationwide, and a second cohort study of nearly 62,000 postmenopausal women led by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Neither found any significant connection between talc use and overall incidence of ovarian cancer, although the nurses study found inconclusive hints of a possible association with one variety of ovarian cancer.
Another question is the mechanism of how talc could affect cancer rates. One theory is that talc applied to the genital area could migrate up the female reproductive tract to the ovaries, causing inflammation leading to cancer, but that process is unproven. Nor have studies established a link between talc-dusted diaphragms or condoms and ovarian cancer risk, which should appear if talc really is a significant culprit.
So the link between talcum powder use and ovarian cancer hasn't been proved, but hasn't been conclusively debunked, either. That places it right in the danger zone of product liability litigation, especially when scientists on either side of the debate affiliate themselves with lawyers on either side. (A paper challenging the scientific basis for the link was produced on a contract from Crowell Moring, the law firm representing Luzenac.)
Big damage awards based on equivocal scientific evidence aren't good for anyone. They're vulnerable to being overturned or significantly pared down. They generate public fears that may be unwarranted. The litigation process itself undermines the credibility of scientists across the spectrum of debate. And they contribute nothing to the fundamental issue of corporate responsibility: When should a company such as Johnson & Johnson disclose the putative risk of a product?
The talc lawsuits are a disturbing example of a judicial system that imposes certainty where there isn't any. Jurors in the courthouse were sure enough about the link to slap Johnson & Johnson with $127 million in damages, even though the scientific jury is still out.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-talc-cancer-johnson-20160506-snap-story.html
-
Johnson & Johnson Pays $55M In Second Lawsuit Claiming Talcum Powder Products Cause Ovarian Cancer
May 8, 2016 | Medical Daily
By Jaleesa Baulkman
Last Monday, a woman from South Dakota was granted $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages after she claimed Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder-based products caused her ovarian cancer, The New York Daily News reported. This is thesecond lawsuit the company has lost this year.
Gloria Ristesund used the company's talc-based powder products, including Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower Powder, on her genitals as a part of her hygienic routine for decades. According to her lawyers, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer after undergoing hysterectomyand other related surgeries, something she believed to be related to her use of talc-based products. Her cancer is currently in remission,Reuters reported.
Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer death in the U.S., with 20,000 women being diagnosed with the illness each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It accounts for 3 percent of all cancers in women.
The verdict adds to the ongoing debate about the safety of talc-based cosmetic products, and comes just three months after Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $72 million in damages to the family of an Alabama woman who died from the same type of cancer. Despite these two losses, the company maintains that their products are safe and plan to appeal the recent decision.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,” Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement. “For over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has provided consumers with a safe choice for cosmetic powder products and we will continue to work hard to exceed consumer expectations and evolving product preferences.”
Talcum powder is widely used in cosmetic products, including adult body and facial powders. The powder — made from talc, a mineral that consists of the elements magnesium, silicon, and oxygen — is used to keep skin dry and protect against rashes. Some talc contains asbestos, a substance that has been linked to cancers in and around the lungs when inhaled, according to the American Cancer Society; however, this type of talc is not used in modern consumer products.
Dr. Daniel Cramer first suggested there was a link between using talcum powder on genitals and ovarian cancer in 1982. After this finding, he was reportedly called by companies for help putting warning labels on these kinds of products. A more recent study, released shortly after the February verdict, supported Cramer's finding, that applying the product to genitals, underwear, and sanitary napkins could increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer risk by a third.
Jim Onder, who served as an attorney for the plaintiffs in the two recent cases, said internal documents show that Johnson & Johnson was aware of the studies linking their products to ovarian cancer.
“The evidence is real clear that Johnson & Johnson has known about the dangers associated with talcum powder for over 30 years,” said Onder, according to the New York Daily News. “Instead of giving a warning, what they did was targeted the groups most at risk for developing ovarian cancer.” The groups Onder is referring to are overweight women, black and Latino people.
Johnson & Johnson is reportedly facing more than 1,200 talcum-powder lawsuits accusing the company of not adequately warning consumers about their products cancer risks.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/johnson-johnson-lawsuit-talcum-powder-products-ovarian-cancer-385166
-
May 6, 2016 | Cleveland.com
By Dr. Michael Kirsch
I read a piece earlier this week in The Plain Dealer which gives new meaning to the expression "keep your powder dry." A jury in a Missouri state court ruled that Johnson & Johnson must pay a defendant $55 million dollars because the jury was convinced that the company's talcum powder caused her ovarian cancer. Earlier this year, another Missouri jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $72 million under similar circumstances.
I suggest that citizens of the "Show Me" state find another way to keep dry as summer approaches.
First, let me state boldly and unequivocally that I am against cancer. Indeed, as a physician, I am ever vigilant for this foe and combat it aggressively when it appears. I am also hostile to frivolous litigation and to awards that are wildly disproportionate to the injuries suffered, assuming that true culpability even exists.
I am not a shill for corporate America. In fact, I am a private practitioner whose small gastroenterology practice is threatened by the titanic corporate medical institutions that we have here in Cleveland.
But, I am an advocate for fairness, and this verdict and the resultant award are only the latest example of a legal system that has run amok. Remember, just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's fair or just.
We know how the talcum powder legal template works. Plaintiff attorneys find documents that they claim show that a company knew that its product had risks, and that the company buried this information. When a consumer of the product develops the complication, lawyers present these "hidden studies" on large posters using giant fonts to jurors, who have understandable sympathy for an injured individual. Scientific experts, who are often professional testifiers, offer a scientific imprimatur to the legal allegation. Under these circumstances, the demonized and greedy corporation is easily presumed guilty.
I am not faulting the jury. We can all see how jurors can rationally connect the dots that lead to their decision.
But, science is not a smooth process where there is a unanimity of conclusions and beliefs. In my own field of medicine, every established medical practice has dissenting medical studies, views and expert opinions that physicians have decided should not overturn the current standard of care.
In an ideal world, treatments for osteoporosis, depression, heart disease and cancer would be based on a unanimous scientific viewpoint. Of course, on planet Earth, this is not the case.
Science is not a smooth process where there is a unanimity of conclusions and beliefs.
And, beliefs and practices can change. In medicine, just as in our court system, minority dissenting opinions can rise to become the new standard over time. If talcum powder is found in some future study to actually prevent cancer, should the jury's award be returned?
All manufacturing industries – automotive, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, food, toys, etc. – have done studies or have information which suggest an unfavorable result. The existence of such data does not mean that the product is risky, any more than your medication is dangerous because scientific information exists that challenges its safety. One must look at the totality of evidence in order to reach a reasonable conclusion, understanding that reasonable does not mean absolute certainty.
2014: Facts contradict physician's view on medical malpractice: Meghan Connolly and Dennis Mulvihill
Contrary to the opinions expressed in a recent column by Dr. Michael Kirsch, medical malpractice lawsuits are rare in part due to Ohio laws favoring physicians, including a one-year statute of limitations that keeps many cases out of court, write local attorneys Meghan Connolly and Dennis Mulvihill.
I have read, for example, that 97 percent of climate scientists argue that warming temperatures are caused by human activity. Would it be reasonable for me to highlight the 3 percent of dissenters as evidence of a global warming hoax?
Of course, I do not condone an institution burying studies or data, which would threaten the public's interest. Companies should have independent professionals overseeing this process to assure the public that the institution is operating in a responsible and ethical manner. But, companies also have a right to protect proprietary information from competitors. While I favor transparency in the corporate sphere, I understand a company's reluctance to open its books in the current predatory legal climate.
No, I did not attend the talcum powder trial, so you can accuse me of not knowing the facts. If that is your best shot against me, then have at it. Most of us increasingly feel that the legal system has become more of a strangling noose than a protective net under us.
Like millions of folks, I use talcum powder regularly. So far, I have escaped a catastrophic consequence. But, if any medical adversity befalls me, I'll know just who to blame.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/05/when_talcum_powder_can_make_yo.html
-
On Mother’s Day, Give Moms What They Really Want: Protect Our Kids from Toxic Chemicals
May 6, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Linda Reinstein
It’s Mother’s Day weekend and that can mean only one thing - fathers and children are asking themselves “What does Mom really want?” I will fill you in on a little secret. It’s actually quite easy. We all just want sleep.
But not just any sleep. We want the “pre-baby sleep.” That blissful, sound, uninterrupted sleep. Don’t get me wrong, after your kids reach a certain age, you can get the hours of sleep back, but can you never get the deep sleep that you are able to get before children.
Something happens when you become a mom. Not only do you think about your children throughout the day, but they are even in your thoughts as you sleep. What starts often as a sense of heightened anxiety - “Is the baby breathing?” - turns into a constant awareness of another’s wellbeing. Even when your children are grown, leading lives of their own, the recurring question on mom’s mind is “Are they safe?”As moms we do everything we can. We analyze ingredients labels with a fine toothcomb. We read Amazon reviews before buying products our kids use. We pray we have prepared them for the world and hope they will be safe. But we also know we simply cannot control everything.
When it comes to the air we breathe, the food our families eat, and the products our children use, we often have to trust the government to ensure they are free from toxic chemicals and our families are protected from preventable harms caused by exposure dangerous substances. But lately our trust in our government has been called into question.
The water crisis in Flint, Michigan has not only shattered the trust of the residents of Flint, but also sent a shockwave of fear across the country as more and more communities learn of elevated lead levels in their water. Last year, asbestos - a known human carcinogen - was found in children’s crayons. And just this week, a jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a woman who linked her ovarian cancer diagnosis to talcum in the company’s baby powder.
As more families question how the government failed to protect us from these dangerous substances, they are learning that the law governing chemicals in our country, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 , is broken and potentially hazardous chemicals remain in our schools, homes, and consumer products.
My trust was forever broken the day my husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused cancer. Like most American families, we were blissfully unaware chemicals in our country were largely unregulated by our government. I had never heard of TSCA and had no idea one of the most important laws in our country had been rendered essentially ineffective decades ago. But I quickly learned TSCA was so weak that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wasn’t even able to ban asbestos.
I also learned asbestos was the tip of the iceberg. Jim Jones, Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention of the EPA recently stated, “More than three and a half decades since the passage of TSCA, the EPA has only been able to require testing on just a little more than 200 of the 84,000 chemicals listed on the TSCA inventory and has regulated or banned only five of these chemicals.”
The U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives are in the midst of finalizing a bill to reform TSCA. This legislation will shape the future of chemical safety for decades to come. If the Committee focuses their efforts on protecting public health and the environment, their work will greatly improve the safety of American families across our country.
The members of Congress working on the final bill have the facts and data, but they need to hear from moms and dads about what’s really at stake. Join me in calling on Congress to protect our families. Tell Congress that the final TSCA bill should be focused on ensuring the safety of our families.
And if you are like me and not willing to wait on Congress, download the Environmental Working Group’s Healthy Living App, where you can find ratings for more than 120,000 food and personal care products. This amazing app gives you information you need to make smart, safe purchases.
Congress may not be able to give us “pre-baby sleep,” but they can help us sleep more soundly by restoring our trust that the government is working to protect our families from toxic chemicals.
-
Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce Added To Portfolio
May 9, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
SummaryThe current market pause or plateau provided an opportunity try to protect gains since mid-February.
Johnson & Johnson's current talcum powder lawsuits reinforce the importance of diversification.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce wins a place in the portfolio.
The portfolio now consists of 40 holdings: 28 common stocks, 2 MLPs, 6 preferred stocks and 4 ETFs.
"Talcum Powder Tuesday"
For me, Tuesday, May 4 was "Talcum Powder Tuesday." That was the day I pondered the possible shareholder implications of lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) by some talcum powder users.Lots of people use JNJ's Baby Powder.When I typed the words "Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder Lawsuit" into an Internet search engine, the first four hits were paid advertisements by four law firms inviting free consultations for those who may qualify for a lawsuit.CNN reports that more than 1,000 women are lined up to sue JNJ for cancer diagnoses they attribute to the company's talcum powder products. On Monday, May 3, a St. Louis jury ordered JNJ to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who used talcum powder for years and has ovarian cancer.I see many attorney billboards each day. Attorney TV ads daily penetrate the consciousness of television watchers.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3972710-canadian-imperial-bank-commerce-added-portfolio
Client Attorney Privileged/Attorney Work Product/At Request of Counsel
US Coverage
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested