The Height of Hypocrisy – Johnson & Johnson’s Talcum Ovarian Link Denials (Commentary about the Baby Powder Ovarian Cancer Trial and Results)
JTB Law Group, LLC on
Monday, September 26th, 2016
Johnson & Johnson has been hit with multiple verdicts over its denials of the links of talcum powder to ovarian cancer. Two separate juries have already found there is such a link. Pathology slides showing a signature injury of talc in the cancer shows there is such a link and the increased risk to women could be as high as 30%. Would you want to know if a product you’re using stands a 3 in 10 increased chance risk of killing you. Further, despite being on notice that this product has a correlation to an increased risk in ovarian cancer, J &J deliberately engaged in an advertising strategy to market the product to minorities. These are not idle coincidences – these are deliberate actions that if done by an individual would be potentially indictable, but when done by a corporation are merely the cost of doing business.
J & J continues with its mass propaganda about how safe it is on its website, “We continue to use talc in our products because decades of science have reaffirmed its safety. Because of its safety and effectiveness, we confidently include the finest-grade talc in our products. Your trust in our products and your confidence using them every day is a huge responsibility—that’s why we rely on scientific research to deliver the safest possible products. Science, research, clinical evidence and 30 years of studies by medical experts around the world continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc. Government agencies and organizations in the US and around the world have confirmed that talc is safe for personal care use.” Yet despite its self-serving conclusions with its self-bought studies, the site fails to cite to the studies that show otherwise. Should you as a consumer have a right to know if there are other studies out there that show a link of baby powder to cancer?
To continue with its hypocrisy, another trial to hold J & J accountable was supposed to commence today 9/26/16. The case was grouped with 50 other cases, but J & J motioned to sever the cases to try them individually, since it didn’t want a jury to hear how many other women have had ovarian cancer as a result of talcum usage. Then the week before the trial, J & J removed the matter to Federal Court complaining about the cases were improperly bundled and since the one case was supposed to be tried individually, it should not be tried in State court. Imagine that, J & J complained it wanted an individual trial in State Court, and then in Federal Court complained that it is only an individual trial in State Court. When J & J speaks out of both corners of its mouth perhaps it should be renamed Janus and Janus for its two faced approach and its duplicity in its conduct and its action when it comes to the Talcum Cancer link.