In a move that is sure to have significant implications for mesothelioma and ovarian cancer litigation, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals has retracted a 49-year-old unsigned commentary on cosmetic talc safety. The Lancet announced the action after the article’s author was discovered to be a paid Johnson & Johnson consultant.
Retracted Article Frequently Cited by Asbestos Talc Companies in Mesothelioma Lawsuits
Published in 1977, the retracted article has repeatedly been cited by corporate defense attorneys in mesothelioma and ovarian cancer lawsuits, who’ve used it to claim “the medical field did not consider asbestos in talc dangerous.” Originally submitted to the journal anonymously, the commentary was a response to proposed government-mandated testing for asbestos in cosmetic talc. Public health historians David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz researched its origins and found it had been written by cancer researcher Francis J.C. Roe. They found documents showing that Roe had given Johnson & Johnson an advanced copy, along with a letter indicating Roe had sought company input before publication.
Rosner and Markowitz frequently serve as expert witnesses in lawsuits filed by victims of mesothelioma and other diseases against asbestos product companies, and they researched the letter’s origins after increasingly being confronted with its contents by defense attorneys. Dr. Markowitz is the Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York, while Dr. Rosner is the Ronald H. Lauterstein Professor of Sociomedical Sciences and History at Columbia University. The two have researched and authored numerous books, book chapters, and peer-reviewed articles on the prevalence of toxic substances in the workplace.
Journal Cites Conflict of Interest in Retracting Study Used Against Mesothelioma Victims
“Roe’s conflict of interest with Johnson & Johnson was a clear breach of publishing ethics,” The Lancet editors wrote in their retraction notice. “Had the editors at the time known of this situation and been aware of the author’s undeclared competing interest, they would not have published this commentary.” The retraction coincides with the controversial withdrawal of a proposal requiring standardized asbestos testing in talc-containing cosmetics under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act. Experts called the withdrawal “enormously valuable” for Johnson & Johnson and suggested it “smacks of industry influence.”
Since 2009, Johnson & Johnson has faced lawsuits from over 67,000 plaintiffs claiming the company’s talc products caused both ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. The litigation has resulted in massive verdicts. A Johnson & Johnson representative said the company “strongly disagrees with the suggestion that a 1977 editorial in The Lancet reflects misconduct,” calling the retraction “underhanded litigation tactics” and stating it “comes at the cost of besmirching Dr. Roe’s good name.”
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or ovarian cancer and you suspect that asbestos in talc is to blame, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608.
