Reply To: Big picture – Litigation – Perfix plug

[Good intentions]

Here is an interesting recent article about the topic.

https://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2019/11000/talc,_asbestos,_and_epidemiology__corporate.2.aspx

Talc, Asbestos, and Epidemiology: Corporate Influence and Scientific Incognizance

Tran, Triet H.a; Steffen, Joan E.a; Clancy, Kate M.a,b; Bird, Tessa,c; Egilman, David S.a,d

Epidemiology 30(6):p 783-788, November 2019. | DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001091

Here is the first paragraph –

“In the early 1970s, findings of asbestos in talc, and findings of talc colocated in ovarian tumor tissue, led to public controversy.1–5 For over 40 years, talc mining and manufacturing companies attempted to obfuscate the importance of these findings by keeping exposure information behind a corporate veil and otherwise influencing medical information concerning the health effects and asbestos content of talc used in cosmetics.6–9 Control over information is a recognized method by which industries maintain sales and avoid regulation and tort liability.10–16 There are many examples when companies have concealed the presence of hazardous components in products; failed to publish study results indicating that their products presented health risks; and manipulated studies to publish false results that encouraged product use or hid side effects.10–16 For example, in 1971, Henderson et al. found talc in an ovarian cancer tissue sample and raised concerns about the relation between talc use and ovarian cancer.17 Johnson & Johnson hired Arthur Langer, a mineralogist at Mount Sinai, to reexamine the tissue.9,17 Langer confirmed the presence of talc, and also found asbestos in ovarian cancer tissue. Evidence shows that Johnson & Johnson successfully dissuaded him from publishing these findings.9”