Federal Judge Wants Fair, Open Debate In Ovarian Cancer Talc Trials
A Daubert hearing judge decided that several plaintiff-friendly expert witnesses can tell their story that Johnson's Baby Powder contains asbestos, a known carcinogen
Friday, May 8, 2020 - No one expected the judge presiding over Johnson's Baby Powder cancer Daubert hearings that began in July 2019, and interviewed 8 scientific experts, to come down on one side or the other of the debate as to whether or not Johnson's Baby Powder is contaminated with asbestos and the judge is making sure that point is crystal clear. Instead, Federal Judge Freda Wolfson has made it known that her decision to allow plaintiff testimony that has tested and found asbestos in samples of talc used in cosmetics and baby powder is designed to spur a fair and open debate. In an article published the other day in Legal Newsline, titled "Talc judge wants juries to hear debated research, says settling scientific disputes not her role," Judge Wolfson will be allowing juries going forward in cases where women claim that using Johnson's Baby Powder for hygienic reasons caused them to develop and many die from ovarian cancer to hear both sides of the scientific debate. Talcum powder cancer lawsuit handled by experienced attorneys with a winning track record litigating pharmaceutical lawsuits and offer a free consultation.
The judge will allow plaintiff testimony that confirms that carcinogenic asbestos-contaminated talc fibers can enter the ovaries via the vagina in numerous ways such as when used after a shower for dryness, to freshen up down there between showering, or on a talc-dusted condom. On the other hand, Judge Wilson has bared testimony from star plaintiff witness, Dr. William Longo's about his theory that inhaling baby powder dust could, according to Legal Newsline, travel into the ovaries via the body's lymphatic system. The judge's decision is critical because about 3/4 of the more than 16,000 pending cases against Johnson & Johnson were filed by women that developed ovarian cancer and recently a very large study was presented that analyzed data from over 250,000 women and it was decided that women that used Johnson's Baby Powder did not have a greater risk of developing ovarian cancer than those that did not use the product.
As an important side note, Johnson & Johnson went as far as to re-brand their baby powders and label them "Shower to Shower" featuring African American women in their advertising without expressly mentioning that they needed a little something because they did not shower as frequently as their white counterparts. Plaintiff attorneys believe that internal company memos dating back to the 1970's when it was first publicized that asbestos is carcinogenic, show that targeting African American women with their advertising was more than coincidental with the company learning that they had an asbestos problem, and was done because "AA" women as was written in the memos comprised a less-well educated demographic and would be unlikely to make the talc-asbestos-cancer connection. Legal experts think that these memos could be interpreted as racist and as such infuriated and inflamed jurors that subsequently awarded African American plaintiffs with ovarian cancer hundreds of millions of dollars each.