Preview Newsletter
Talc Coverage
-
J&J Faces 1,000 More Talc-Cancer Suits After Verdict Loss
May 2, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Margaret Cronin Fisk, Tim Bross and Jef Feeley
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Johnson & Johnson must pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company’s talcum powder in the second such trial loss this year. -
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55 mln in talc-powder trial
Jul 3, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) was ordered by a U.S. jury on Monday to pay $55 million to a woman who said that using the company’s talc-powder products for feminine hygiene caused her to develop ovarian cancer. -
St. Louis jury awards $55M in Johnson & Johnson cancer suit
May 3, 2016 | Associated Press
By Jim Salter
Twice in the past three months, juries have awarded tens millions of dollars to ovarian cancer victims who blamed Johnson & Johnson talcum powder for their illness — among the first verdicts in a gathering courtroom assault by law firms that are aggressively recruiting clients through TV ads and the Internet. -
Lawsuits Over Baby Powder Raise Questions About Cancer Risk
May 23, 2016 | New York Times
By Roni Caryn Rabin
Deane Berg thought she was going to die, and she wanted to know why. She was 49, way too young, she thought, to have advanced cancer in her ovaries. -
J&J to stand behind talc's safety at upcoming trials: lawyer
May 18, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Johnson & Johnson will keep arguing in court that its talc-based powders are safe, an outside lawyer who has defended the company in lawsuits said, even after losing two multimillion-dollar verdicts to plaintiffs who alleged that J&J Baby Powder and Shower to Shower caused ovarian cancer. -
Johnson & Johnson: No link between talc and ovarian cancer
Jul 19, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Tara Glasgow
As parents caring for our children and adults taking care of ourselves and families, we are deluged by what seems like a daily avalanche of information - some true, some not, and some tainted by hidden agendas. No matter where you turn, hyperbole and misstatements often take center stage, and it's difficult to know who or what to believe. At Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., we are guided by the medical facts and science when it comes to our products. Cosmetic talc is safe, and 30 years of scientific studies and regulatory reviews have shown this to be true. -
AMA: Lawyer Ads Are Alarming Prescription Drug Users, Jeopardizing Health Care
Jul 21, 2016 | Legal News Line
By Jessica Karmasek
At its annual meeting last month, the American Medical Association adopted a policy to advocate for a requirement that attorney commercials that may cause patients to stop using necessary medications to include “appropriate” and “conspicuous” warnings.
Ristesund Verdict
New York Times
Reuters
Houston Chronicle
Legal News Line/Forbes
-
J&J Faces 1,000 More Talc-Cancer Suits After Verdict Loss
May 2, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Margaret Cronin Fisk, Tim Bross and Jef Feeley
Johnson & Johnson must pay $55 million to a 62-year-old South Dakota woman who blamed her ovarian cancer on the company’s talcum powder in the second such trial loss this year.
J&J is accused in more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts of ignoring studies linking its Shower-to-Shower product and Johnson’s Baby Powder to ovarian cancer. Women contend the company knew the risk and failed to warn customers. In February, J&J lost a $72 million verdict in the same St. Louis courthouse to the family of a woman who died of the disease.
“The more talc verdicts that come down against them adds to the public’s growing distrust of their baby powder, which is one of their iconic products,” said Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at the University of Richmond in Virginia. “There are both economic and reputational issues that may motivate them to start thinking about a global settlement of these cases.”
J&J should consider setting up a settlement program to dispose of the talc cases, said Tobias, who isn’t involved in the case.
State court jurors Monday awarded $5 million in compensation and $50 million in punitive damages to Gloria Ristesund, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 after using J&J’s talc-based feminine hygiene products for almost 40 years. Ristesund’s cancer, after she underwent a hysterectomy, is in remission.
“Science has been simple and consistent over the last 40 years: There’s an increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital use of talc,’’ Allen Smith, Ristesund’s lawyer, told jurors Friday. Ristesund used talc for four decades unaware there were any health concerns, he said.Talc’s Safety
J&J, the world’s largest maker of health-care products, denied any link between talc and ovarian cancer or any need to warn women. The company will appeal the verdict, Carol Goodrich, a J&J spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.
“Unfortunately, the jury’s decision goes against 30 years of studies by medical experts around the word that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,’’ Goodrich said. “Johnson & Johnson has always taken questions about the safety of our products extremely seriously.’’
The jury cleared J&J’s supplier and co-defendant, Imerys Talc America Inc., of any liability.
The outcome was a narrow victory for the plaintiff, with jurors voting 9-3 for Ristesund, the minimum required. The panel initially voted 7-5 for Ristesund, said juror Devon Small, 26, of St. Louis.
Jurors struggled to agree on whether talc was a contributing factor in ovarian cancer, said jury forewoman Teri Brickey, 45, of St. Louis. “After we agreed on that, everything was easy,” she said. “We felt like they knew for decades that they should have put a warning on this product.”Third Trial
Ristesund’s lawsuit is the third to go to before a jury, preceded by the trial in the suit brought by the family of Jackie Fox, who died at 62. An earlier trial in federal court in South Dakota in 2013 ended with a jury finding that J&J was negligent while deciding not to award damages. The company faces another talc trial in the St. Louis court in September.
Thousands of women or their family members contacted plaintiffs’ lawyers after the Fox verdict, attorney Jere Beasley said in March. His firm, one of several representing the Fox family and Ristesund, is reviewing more than 5,000 potential claims, he said in an interview.
Ristesund’s case was a “defense pick” after the plaintiffs selected the first case to go to trial, Beasley said in an interview Monday. “If they can’t win that one, they can’t win one. They’re going to have to come to the table and start settling cases.”Targeting Women
J&J documents showed the company was aware of health concerns since the mid-1970s, Smith told jurors Friday in closing arguments. A 1992 document suggested targeting women who were high users of talcum powder to boost sales, he said.
Ristesund incurred $174,000 in medical bills, plus pain and suffering, Smith told jurors. Talc was found in her ovarian tissue after the hysterectomy, he said.
Christy Jones, a J&J attorney, told jurors that Ristesund had several risk factors for ovarian cancer, That included a family history of cancer, having endometriosis and the fact she had no children, Jones said. “Nobody knows what causes ovarian cancer,” she said.
Three jurors sided with J&J. “I just thought there was a lack of evidence,” juror Kayla McGuire, 32, said in an interview after the verdict. Other jurors had “latched onto a few emotional statements,” she said.
The case is Hogans v. Johnson & Johnson, 1422-CC09012-01, Circuit Court, St. Louis City, Missouri.
-
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $55 mln in talc-powder trial
Jul 3, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) was ordered by a U.S. jury on Monday to pay $55 million to a woman who said that using the company’s talc-powder products for feminine hygiene caused her to develop ovarian cancer.
The verdict, which J&J plans to appeal, was the second straight trial loss for the company, which is facing about 1,200 lawsuits accusing it of not adequately warning consumers about its talc-based products' cancer risks.
Following a three-week trial in Missouri state court, jurors deliberated for about a day before returning a verdict for Gloria Ristesund. She was awarded $5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages.
J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said the verdict contradicted 30 years of research supporting the safety of cosmetic talc. The company intends to appeal and will keep defending its products' safety, she said.
Ristesund said she used J&J’s talc-based powder products – which include the well-known Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder – on her genitals for decades. According to her lawyers, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and had to undergo a hysterectomy and related surgeries. Her cancer is now in remission.
Jere Beasley, whose firm represents Ristesund, said his client was gratified with the verdict. The jury's decision should "end the litigation" and compel J&J to settle the remaining cases, he said.
J&J shares were down 18 cents in after-hours trading to $112.57.
The verdict followed a $72 million jury award from the same court in February to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer after years of using talc powder for feminine hygiene.
That verdict, which J&J is appealing, sparked renewed interest in talc-powder lawsuits among plaintiffs' lawyers, as well as consumers familiar with J&J's powder products. But scientists have told Reuters the evidence of a real danger is inconclusive.
Plaintiffs in talc litigation, which is concentrated in Missouri and New Jersey state courts, have accused J&J of failing for years to warn that talc was linked to an increased risk for ovarian cancer. J&J has said it acted properly in developing and marketing the products.
The only other case to be tried involving talc powder and ovarian cancer resulted in a mixed verdict in South Dakota federal court in 2013. While those jurors found J&J was negligent, they awarded no damages to the plaintiff, whose cancer was in remission at the time of the trial.
Reuters viewed the proceedings on Courtroom View Network.
-
St. Louis jury awards $55M in Johnson & Johnson cancer suit
May 3, 2016 | Associated Press
By Jim Salter
Twice in the past three months, juries have awarded tens millions of dollars to ovarian cancer victims who blamed Johnson & Johnson talcum powder for their illness — among the first verdicts in a gathering courtroom assault by law firms that are aggressively recruiting clients through TV ads and the Internet.
While the link between ovarian cancer and talc is a matter of scientific dispute, a St. Louis jury Monday ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $55 million to a South Dakota survivor of the disease. In February, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to relatives of an Alabama woman who died of ovarian cancer.
They are among several hundred lawsuits claiming that regularly applying products like Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower to the genitals can cause the often-lethal cancer.
Both cases were handled by the Onder Law Firm, based in suburban St. Louis, one of the firms with ads running nationwide that urge cancer victims to come forward.
Attorney Jim Onder said Johnson & Johnson's marketing targeted overweight women, blacks and Hispanics, "knowing that those groups were most at-risk for talc-related ovarian cancer," he said. "It's horrible."
Onder said researchers began connecting talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the 1970s. Some case studies have indicated that women who regularly use talc on their genital area face up to a 40 percent higher risk of developing ovarian cancer.
But other studies have found no definitive link, the company said.
"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.
Teri Brickey, forewoman of the jury that decided the latest case by a 9-3 vote, said she found the science presented by the plaintiffs more believable.
"I will never use talc again. It's definitely concerning to me," Brickey, 45, told The Associated Press. "I think it's a potential health hazard for some women — a small percentage, but it is a percentage."
Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that is mined from the soil. It is widely used in cosmetics and other personal care items to absorb moisture, prevent caking and improve a product's feel.
Onder's firm alone has around 1,200 other talcum-related lawsuits pending — roughly 1,000 in St. Louis and 200 in New Jersey, Onder said. Legal experts not involved in the lawsuits said Johnson & Johnson will probably consider a settlement after two big losses.
"One blockbuster jury award can be written off as a fluke," said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a Stanford University law professor. "When you have two, it starts to look like a trend, and a very worrying one for Johnson & Johnson."
Goodrich said Johnson & Johnson is appealing both verdicts while "focusing on the next trial."
The medical community hasn't reached a consensus on talc as a possible carcinogen.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies genital use as "possibly carcinogenic." The National Toxicology Program, made up of parts of several different government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, has not fully reviewed talc.
Dr. Adetunji Toriola, a cancer epidemiologist at Washington University's Siteman Cancer Center in St. Louis, said case studies indicate that women who use talc increase their chances of developing ovarian cancer by 20 to 40 percent. Ovarian cancer is highly deadly because it is often diagnosed too late.
"It's probably just safer not to use talc for that reason," Toriola said.
He said talc might cause inflammation, which in turn is believed to increase the risk of ovarian cancer.
Dr. Joshua Muscat, a Penn State public health professor and paid Johnson & Johnson consultant who testified for Johnson & Johnson in the earlier trial, said Tuesday that scientific agencies including the National Cancer Institute, the FDA and the American Cancer Society have never found a link between talc and ovarian cancer.
"That finding was made only in the court of law and not among official scientific agencies," Muscat said. "In my opinion, it's settled in the scientific community."
The two St. Louis verdicts were the first talcum powder cases in which money was awarded. A federal jury in 2013 sided with another South Dakota woman, but it ordered no damages, a spokeswoman for Onder's firm said.
Johnson & Johnson has been targeted before by health and consumer groups over ingredients in its products, including Johnson's No More Tears baby shampoo.
After three years of petitions, bad publicity and a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable carcinogens, from all products by 2015.
-
Lawsuits Over Baby Powder Raise Questions About Cancer Risk
May 23, 2016 | New York Times
By Roni Caryn Rabin
Deane Berg thought she was going to die, and she wanted to know why. She was 49, way too young, she thought, to have advanced cancer in her ovaries.
As she scrolled through websites that listed possible causes of ovarian cancer, one jumped out at her: talcum powder. She did not have risk factors like infertility or endometriosis, but she had dusted baby powder between her legs every day for 30 years.
“I went into the bathroom, I grabbed my Johnson’s Baby Powder and threw it in the wastebasket,” recalled Ms. Berg, now 59, a physician assistant in Sioux Falls, S.D. “I said, ‘What else could it be?’”
Ms. Berg was the first of thousands of women with ovarian cancer to file a lawsuit against the consumer products giant Johnson & Johnson, claiming that baby powder caused their disease and pointing to a long trail of studies linking talc to the cancer. The research dates to 1971, when scientists in Wales discovered particles of talc embedded in ovarian and cervical tumors.
Since then, numerous studies have linked genital talc use to ovarian cancer, including a report earlier this month that among African-American women, genital use of powder is linked with a 44 percent increased risk for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer.
Johnson & Johnson says its trademark baby powder is safe, and it plans to appeal two multimillion-dollar jury awards, including $55 million in damages awarded to a cancer survivor earlier this month and a $72 million award in February.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2006 classified talcum powder as a possible human carcinogen if used in the female genital area. But the agency, part of the World Health Organization, has also said pickled vegetables and coffee are possible carcinogens and that hot dogs cause cancer.
Johnson & Johnson says research implicating talcum powder is flawed and points to studies that absolve talc of any cancer risk.
“We have children ourselves,” said Tara Glasgow, the research and development lead for the company’s baby products franchise worldwide. “We would never sell a product we didn’t believe was safe.”
So did the juries get it right or wrong? Is it plausible that Johnson’s Baby Powder — that clean-smelling soft stuff that’s a medicine cabinet staple, packaged in milky-white containers and supposedly mild enough for babies’ bottom — can cause cancer?
It’s not an easy question to answer.
“There is no way we’re ever going to know for certain that any exposure is necessarily causal to a disease,” said Dr. Shelley Tworoger, an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard. “We might be 99 percent sure,” in some cases, she said, “but there’s usually no way to guarantee that what you see is actually the truth.”
Cancer is hard to study because it develops over a long period of time and is influenced by many factors, including genes, behaviors and environmental exposures. The best we can do, Dr. Tworoger said, “is look at the preponderance of the evidence.”
Talc is a naturally occurring clay mineral composed of magnesium and silicon. Known for its softness, it is used in cosmetic products like blush because it absorbs moisture and prevents caking. It is also an additive in tablets, chewing gum and some rice. It’s often mined in proximity to asbestos, a known carcinogen, and manufacturers have to take steps to avoid contamination. Many women use the powder on their inner thighs to prevent chafing, while others sprinkle it on their perineum, sanitary pads or underwear to stay “fresh” and dry. A 1980s ad campaign for a once-popular powder promised with a catchy jingle that “a sprinkle a day helps keep odor away.”
There has never been an experiment to see what happens when you deliberately expose women to talcum powder — for practical and ethical reasons, there never will be — so scientists must rely on observational studies that can link an exposure to a disease but cannot determine a cause-and-effect relationship.
In 1982, a Harvard professor, Dr. Daniel W. Cramer, and his colleagues compared 215 women with ovarian cancer and 215 healthy women who served as a control group. Compared with nonusers, women who used talcum powder were at nearly twice the risk for having ovarian cancer, and those who used it regularly on their genitals and sanitary pads were at more than three times the relative risk.
At least 10 subsequent studies echoed the results, with varying degrees of increased risk. But a small number of studies did not find a heightened risk for talc users.
When researchers pooled the results of similar studies involving nearly 20,000 women, they found powder use was associated with a 24 percent increased risk for ovarian cancer, an uncommon disease but one that is often fatal. If the finding is true, it means that for every five or six talcum powder users who develop ovarian cancer, one may be a result of talcum powder use, Dr. Steven A. Narod, an expert in cancer genetics from Toronto, said.
But critics say such studies can get it wrong, because they quiz women about their risk factors after a cancer diagnosis, and people, by nature, have selective memories.
“A patient is looking for reasons, and wondering, Why did this happen to me?” said Dr. Larry Copeland, a gynecologic oncologist from Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and paid expert for Johnson & Johnson. If a researcher asks a patient about talc use, he said, “The answer is going to be ‘Aha, yeah — maybe that was it.’”
Dr. Copeland points to a large government-funded study, the Women’s Health Initiative. Researchers asked 61,576 women at the beginning of the study whether they had ever used perineal powder (although they did not specify talcum powder) and tracked their health over time. After 12 years, the study investigators found no relationship between powder use and cancer.
But that paper has critics, too. Dr. Narod said that the Women’s Health Initiative cohort was not large enough and did not track women long enough to find differences in ovarian cancer. The findings, he said, do not invalidate the earlier observational research that showed a link between talc and cancer.
Why talc use might lead to cancer is not clear. Studies have shown that talc crystals can move up the genitourinary tract into the peritoneal cavity, where the ovaries are. Indeed, a pathology report on Ms. Berg’s tumor found talc particles embedded in the tissue.
There is also a plausible mechanism, Dr. Tworoger said, because talc particles can set off inflammation, and inflammation is believed to play an important role in the development of ovarian cancer
Since the research began showing a link between talc and cancer in the 1990s, federal officials have not acted to remove the powders or add warning labels. The nonprofit Cancer Prevention Coalition petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 1994 and again in 2008 for talc warning labels. In a 2014 denial letter, the agency said there was “no conclusive evidence” to establish causality, though it is plausible that talc “may elicit a foreign-body-type reaction and inflammatory response that, in some exposed women, may progress to epithelial cancers.”
Nevertheless, Johnson & Johnson made plans to “grow the franchise” by targeting African-American and Hispanic customers, according to internal company documents obtained by the plaintiff’s lawyer, Allen Smith. “Negative publicity from the health community on talc (inhalation, dust, negative doctor endorsement, cancer linkage) continues,” a 1992 memo said.
Although Johnson & Johnson’s talc supplier added warning labels in 2006, J&J did not add similar warnings to its products, according to litigation documents. Baby powder does carry a warning to keep it out of the reach of children and many pediatricians discourage its use on babies, who can become ill or die after breathing in the particles. Inhalation studies in female rats demonstrated carcinogenicity, according to the National Toxicology Program. Condom and surgical glove makers have stopped dusting their products with talc.
“Talcum powder is an interesting case, because it’s not something that’s necessary,” said Dr. Anne McTiernan, an epidemiologist with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “If there’s any doubt, why should anyone use it?”
As for Ms. Berg — the Sioux Falls woman with advanced ovarian cancer — she won her lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, but the jury did not award damages. She hopes other talc lawsuits will raise awareness.
“I knew nothing about this before,” she said. “I figured baby powder is for babies, it must be safe.”
-
J&J to stand behind talc's safety at upcoming trials: lawyer
May 18, 2016 | Reuters
By Jessica Dye
Johnson & Johnson will keep arguing in court that its talc-based powders are safe, an outside lawyer who has defended the company in lawsuits said, even after losing two multimillion-dollar verdicts to plaintiffs who alleged that J&J Baby Powder and Shower to Shower caused ovarian cancer.
Gene Williams blamed those verdicts on confusion created by plaintiffs' lawyers at the trial. The Houston-based lawyer insisted in a recent interview that there "is no proven linkage between talc and ovarian cancer, and the vast majority of scientific and regulatory bodies, who have reviewed the same studies the plaintiffs point to, do not accept the premise."
Two talc lawsuits are scheduled for trial this fall, one in Missouri and one in New Jersey. At least 1,400 cases have been filed over the issue, mostly in Missouri, where state court rules are seen as friendly to plaintiffs.
Three cases on the issue have gone to trial in which plaintiffs pointed to studies dating back three decades, saying they show talc use on the genitals can raise women’s ovarian cancer risk between 30 and 60 percent. J&J said subsequent larger, more comprehensive studies found no conclusive link between the product and cancer.
“The science supporting the safety of talc has gotten stronger and stronger," Williams said.
In February, a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, awarded $72 million to a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer from using J&J's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products for feminine hygiene. Another jury, before the same St. Louis judge, returned a $55 million award in a similar case. J&J has said it will appeal both awards.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals acquired Shower to Shower from J&J by in 2012.
An earlier trial in South Dakota ended in 2013 with the jury finding J&J had been negligent but declining to award damages.
Neither side appealed the South Dakota case.
Following the Ristesund verdict, plaintiffs' lawyer Jere Beasely, whose firm Beasley Allen has been one of the most active in filing talc lawsuits, issued a statement calling for J&J to establish a compensation fund to settle the remaining talc cases.
Asked whether J&J would consider settling, company spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said it was preparing for the upcoming trials this fall.
Williams, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, has represented J&J in all three talc lawsuits that have gone to trial. He mainly defends medical drug and device companies, including Eli Lilly and Co and Bristol Myers Squibb.
-
Johnson & Johnson: No link between talc and ovarian cancer
Jul 19, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Tara Glasgow
Editor's note: In her monthly column on aging (Commentary: A plaintiff's witness in the baby powder case speaks out, June 6, 2016), Roberta B. Ness wrote about her role as an expert witness on behalf of a woman who successfully sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging that its talcum baby power caused her ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson is appealing the ruling. The following is a response to Ness' column by Tara Glasgow, vice president of research and development, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
As parents caring for our children and adults taking care of ourselves and families, we are deluged by what seems like a daily avalanche of information - some true, some not, and some tainted by hidden agendas. No matter where you turn, hyperbole and misstatements often take center stage, and it's difficult to know who or what to believe. At Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., we are guided by the medical facts and science when it comes to our products. Cosmetic talc is safe, and 30 years of scientific studies and regulatory reviews have shown this to be true.
This counters the claims of so-called experts, paid to testify on behalf of plaintiffs, who say decisions by juries should trump the overwhelming scientific data.
We first offered Johnson's Baby Powder as a product choice more than 100 years ago. Today, we continue to manufacture and sell Johnson's Baby Powder with talc because the science supports its safety.
Ovarian cancer is a devastating disease, and we recognize that women and families affected by this disease are searching for answers and want to understand the science. When concerns about an association between talc use and ovarian cancer were raised, we started doing the things you expect from a company you trust, including testing to ensure the talc in our products meets the highest quality standards, meeting with regulators and governments around the world, looking closely at the studies and available information, and talking with independent consultants.
The facts are clear. The studies, science, research and clinical evidence have continued to support the safety of cosmetic talc. Most recently, two widely-accepted, very large studies which followed women over a long period of time - the Nurses' Health Study by the Harvard School of Public Health published in 2009 and the Women's Health Initiative Observational Cohort by the U.S. National Institutes of Health published in 2014 - found no association between talc use for feminine hygiene and ovarian cancer.
There have been some studies that reported an association between talc and ovarian cancer.
In my job as a scientist, terms and words matter when it comes to studies, and an "association" does not mean something causes a specific result. Additionally, many in the scientific community have concluded that the data from those studies are inconclusive because of how the studies were conducted. Various governmental and non-governmental agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Cancer Institute, as well as other expert panels have reviewed and analyzed the available data and concluded that there is insufficient evidence linking talc use to ovarian cancer.
Johnson's Baby Powder products contain only U.S. Pharmacopeia grade talc to ensure it meets the highest quality, purity and compliance standards. We also carefully select and process the talc used in all our global production to be asbestos-free, and have confirmed this with regular testing since the 1970s. The U.S. FDA has also independently tested and confirmed the purity of the talc used in our cosmetic products.
We trust our consumers to make their own decisions, which is why we will continue to provide consumers with the facts. As a scientist, and most importantly, as a parent, I can tell you the science is clear - cosmetic talc is, and has been, safe for use and that is the most important guiding principle for every product Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. offers to consumers and patients.
-
AMA: Lawyer Ads Are Alarming Prescription Drug Users, Jeopardizing Health Care
Jul 21, 2016 | Legal News Line
By Jessica Karmasek
At its annual meeting last month, the American Medical Association adopted a policy to advocate for a requirement that attorney commercials that may cause patients to stop using necessary medications to include “appropriate” and “conspicuous” warnings.
The AMA, the largest association of physicians -- both Doctors of Medicine, or MDs, and Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine, or DOs -- and medical students in the U.S., contends late-night television is “rampant” with attorney ads that seek plaintiffs regarding complications from new medications.
“Potential complications are spoken about in an alarming way, and often it is the first time the public learns about those potential complications and side effects,” the association said in a statement following its meeting, held in Chicago this year.
“These ads describe only the lethal side effects and not the benefits of the medications that many patients have experienced -- but this is not explained to the viewers.”
In an effort to better protect the public’s health, the AMA has adopted a policy to push for ads that include warnings that patients should not discontinue medications without seeking the advice of their physician.
“The onslaught of attorney ads has the potential to frighten patients and place fear between them and their doctor,” Russell W. H. Kridel, M.D., and AMA board member, said in a statement. “By emphasizing side effects while ignoring the benefits or the fact that the medication is FDA (Food and Drug Administration)-approved, these ads jeopardize patient care.
“For many patients, stopping a prescribed medication is far more dangerous, and we need to be looking out for them.”
Legal Newsline’s requests for additional comment by the AMA on the new policy went unanswered.
Rustin Silverstein, founder and president of X Ante, a Washington, D.C.-based firm that tracks mass tort litigation advertising, said he has heard directly from physicians about their frustration with such ads.
“They’re worried about the effect these ads will have on the state of health care,” he told Legal Newsline. “A lot of the medications targeted are needed for life-saving treatment, but then patients see these ads, get scared and stop taking them, which can be even more dangerous.”
Silverstein’s firm monitors and analyzes nearly all advertising in the U.S. related to mass tort litigation, including television, online and social media.
And he said the field is growing at an alarming rate.
In 2015, nearly $900 million was spent on television ads related to legal services. Silverstein said that is a jump of about 70 percent from 2008.
Last year, of those ads, about 360,000 focused on drugs and medical devices at a cost of $123 million.
So far this year -- from January through June -- about 217,000 drug and medical device litigation ads have aired at an estimated $80 million.
“We’re seeing a lot of new money coming in,” Silverstein said.
“With all of the big settlements and jury verdicts in recent years, there are a lot more law firms -- and even for-profit companies -- interested in this type of litigation.”
According to X Ante data, the top 10 drug and device litigation ad sponsors in 2015 were:
1. Parilman & Associates Attorneys, with 35,722 ads;
2. The Pulaski Law Firm, with 34,292 ads;
3. The Relion Group, with 30,031 ads;
4. Akin Mears Law Firm, with 19,037 ads;
5. Ferrer Poirot & Wansbrough, with 18,423 ads;
6. Morgan & Morgan Attorneys, with 17,237 ads;
7. iLawsuit Helpline, with 14,791 ads;
8. Goldwater Law Firm, with 13,204 ads;
9. Brown & Crouppen, with 9,710 ads; and
10. Davis & Crump, with 9,051 ads.
“A lot of what we think of lawyer advertising really isn’t lawyer advertising,” Silverstein pointed out. “A lot of law firms on television are not the actual law firms going to trial, handling cases, taking depositions, etc. A lot of them are devoted strictly to advertising and getting cases. They pass those (cases) onto other law firms that will actually do the work and then they share the fees under some sort of co-counsel arrangement.”
In some instances, for-profit companies, like The Relion Group, solicit cases and then sell the leads to various law firms, Silverstein said.
“That’s the new model,” he said.
No matter the setup, there is one common denominator, Silverstein said: a diverse portfolio.
“Typically, these firms and companies go after older, more established litigation -- think pelvic mesh, (blood thinner) Pradaxa -- and some more recent, like (anti-nausea) Zofran and (blood thinner) Xarelto,” he explained.
“They want to go after ones they are sure to get payouts from, even if those payouts are dipping. But they also go after some of these newer drugs and devices in hopes of getting bigger payouts. The only problem with that is, they don’t know how much they’re going to get.”
According to X Ante data, the 10 most targeted drugs and medical devices from January 2015 through June 2016 were:
1. Xarelto, with 167,810 ad spots;
2. IVC filters, with 92,195 spots;
3. Pelvic mesh, with 73,642 spots;
4. Pradaxa, with 72,139 spots;
5. Hip implants, with 39,489 spots;
6. Invokana, with 31,095 spots;
7. Zofran, with 28,599 spots;
8. Testosterone, with 26,200 spots;
9. Risperdal, with 21,853 spots; and
10. Androgel, with 19,736 spots.
Philadelphia injury lawyer Max Kennerly, who has tackled serious injury and wrongful deaths cases and nationwide litigation over defective medications and medical devices, said he thinks the AMA’s policy is driven by its desire to have doctors be the sole source of information for patients about medications.
“That seems like a good idea in theory, but it ignores the realities of medicine and of health care in 2016,” he said.
“Numerous studies have shown that: doctors spend only a few minutes with their patients discussing medication options, doctors routinely prescribe medications ‘off-label’ for purposes that weren’t approved by the FDA, doctors’ decisions about prescribing are heavily influenced by drug company spending on the doctors, like free lunches and speaking opportunities.”
Kennerly noted that patients these days get health information from a variety of sources, including websites published by some of the most reputable names in medicine, such as the Harvard School of Medicine.
“It’s simply not realistic to think that a patient’s only source of information about drugs could be, or should be, the handful of minutes they spend with their doctor, a doctor who may have been influenced by outside factors, like drug company spending,” he said.
While he doesn’t purchase advertising online or on television, but instead maintains a website that discusses the cases he handles, Kennerly admitted that many of his clients were referred to him by attorneys who do, in fact, advertise.
“Advertisements play a central role in connecting people injured by drugs and medical devices to the lawyers who can help them,” he explained.
That being said, he doesn’t think the AMA’s push for warnings are necessary.
“I don’t know of a single instance of a patient stopping a medication and being hurt because they saw an attorney’s advertisement,” Kennerly said. “I do know, however, of many patients seeing an advertisement and then discussing the issue with their doctor, and that’s a good thing.
“Patients should know the potential risks of their drugs and should be able to have an informed conversation with their doctor about the drug they’re taking. Attorney advertisements are one of the primary ways that the public learns about new dangers of drugs and medical devices.”
While he doesn’t think such a warning would have much of an impact on the number of people who contact a lawyer after seeing an ad, Kennerly said he does have concerns that it could leave the public scratching their heads.
“I do worry, however, that if the warning was so lengthy that it overwhelmed the ad, then it could leave the public confused about the nature of the advertisement and the attorneys making the advertisement,” he said, noting that attorney advertisements, themselves, rise and fall with “corporate recklessness.”
“I think in the past few years we’ve seen more attorney advertisements because of the extraordinary number of defective drugs and medical devices that have been put out on the market.”
Plaintiffs’ lawyers don’t make up drug and medical device lawsuits “out of thin air,” he contends.
“They follow the science, and they follow indications that the defendants should have acted sooner to protect the public,” Kennerly said.
“If we can make it a few months without another drug or medical device being revealed as a threat to public safety, then we'll see fewer attorney advertisements.”
Ristesund Verdict
New York Times
Reuters
Houston Chronicle
Legal News Line/Forbes
Add recipients
Suggested