ST. LOUIS – Mark Lanier, the attorney for 22 women suing baby powder maker Johnson & Johnson for the talc powder they claimed gave them ovarian cancer, said a J&J scientist had been accused of altering records to quash knowledge the product contained asbestos.
Coverage of the trial in the St. Louis City Circuit Court is being streamed courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
“You got one kind lady fired because she tried to explain that your company was having her alter records about ovarian cancer and baby powder, didn’t she?” Lanier asked.
“No, that’s not true,” responded Dr. Susan Nicholson, a scientist and vice president of safety and risk management consumer products with Johnson & Johnson.
“You know who I’m talking about? Do you know her?” Lanier asked.
“Not personally, no,” Nicholson said.
“Under oath, you know what she said, don’t you?” Lanier asked.
“I don’t know what she said, no,” Nicholson answered.
“You never got the testimony where she called you out for altering records?” Lanier asked.
“I have not read her deposition,” Nicholson said.
“She testified you had her alter records related to this issue and nobody told you that - that she did that?” Lanier asked.
“I have heard she testified, I have not heard the specifics of what she said,” Nicholson said.
“Then she was surprisingly fired afterwards,” Lanier said.
“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Nicholson said.
“Do you know about her whistleblower lawsuit?” Lanier asked.
“No I don’t,” Nicholson answered.
Lanier indicated the alleged records tampering by the company was part of what he termed “misbehavior road.”
Lanier said Nicholson was the only Johnson & Johnson employee he got to cross-examine and noted executives such as Joanne Waldstreicher, the company’s chief medical officer, had not appeared in person at the trial, but testified through a taped deposition.
Nicholson had been called to appear as a witness for the defense of Johnson & Johnson.
Peter Bicks of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, defense attorney, asked Nicholson what the baby powder contained?
“About 99 percent talcum powder and a little bit of fragrance,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson explained that talc is a stone mined out of the ground and then ground up into a fine powder that forms sheets of magnesium, sheet on top of sheet, that gives the substance its smooth feel.
Nicholson said the safety of the product had always been a top priority.
“Anybody can raise a concern at any time and I hope anybody would feel comfortable coming to me with an issue, and if they don’t we have a hotline,” she said.
Bicks noted a J&J document that said the company was committed to the preservation of trust earned from mothers ensuring product safety and maintaining a long history of safe use.
“Is that consistent with what you’ve tried to do?” Bicks asked.
“Very consistent,” Nicholson responded.
Nicholson told the jury ensuring safety included a wide array of testing procedures, the study of hundreds of findings including animal and cell studies, biological and scientific data.
“Tell the jury what your conclusion was?” Bicks asked.
“My conclusion is that all of this data does not support that using baby powder causes a risk of ovarian cancer,” Nicholson said.
Nicholson explained the results of monitoring 181,000 women in three major health studies in the years between 1993 and 2016, in which the subjects were well to begin with, and followed over the years to see who became ill. The results were eventually published.
“What did this tell you?” Bicks asked.
“Specifically about the use of baby powder for feminine hygiene and whether there was a risk of ovarian cancer over time,” Nicholson said. ‘It did not show there was an increased risk of ovarian cancer - this is consistent with talc being safe to use.”
Nicholson said agencies including the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) had done testing of the product and had not found asbestos in it.
“Do you feel confident today that Johnson & Johnson does not have asbestos in baby powder or Shower to Shower?” Bicks asked.
“There is no evidence we’ve ever had asbestos in our baby products,” Nicholson said.
Lanier on cross-examination disputed the contention there was no evidence of baby powder with asbestos in it and cited what he said were the many studies that have found otherwise.
“There is no evidence we’ve ever had asbestos in our baby powder, do you want to change that (testimony)?” he asked.
“No I do not,” Nicholson said.
Lanier produced a J&J document that had been edited. The original said the products “have always been asbestos free.”
The word “always” was lined through and a notation written in, “we cannot say always.”
“What you’re saying in front of this jury is different from what the company said in its internal documents, true?” Lanier asked.
“It’s true, I don’t know why they changed it or what the discussion was,” Nicholson said.
Lanier called J&J’s conclusions alleging no asbestos content to be “goofy.”