ST. LOUIS – The attorney for 22 women plaintiffs suing Johnson & Johnson for the baby powder they claimed gave them ovarian cancer on July 2 challenged the qualifications of a defense witness epidemiologist and accused her of leaving pertinent information out of her findings.
“You’re what we call science for hire, will you agree with that?” asked Mark Lanier the attorney for the plaintiffs.
“No,” responded Dana Hollins, a board certified industrial hygienist in the areas of environmental and occupational epidemiology with Cardno ChemRisk of San Francisco, a scientific consulting firm.
Mark Lanier
Coverage of the trial in the St. Louis City Circuit Court is being streamed courtesy of Courtroom View Network.
Hollins appeared as a witness for the defense and said the findings of asbestos in Johnson & Johnson baby powder alleged by witnesses for the plaintiffs involved studies that were flawed.
Defense attorney Morton Dubin disputed the findings of Dr. David Egilman, a plaintiff expert whose testimony had been frequently cited linking ovarian cancer with asbestos. Egilman had contended that 960 studies showed the presence of asbestos in J&J talc powder out of 1,400 studies conducted.
Dubin said Egilman inflated his exposure calculations.
“Did Dr. Egilman perform his analysis scientifically on sound data?” Dubin asked.
Hollins responded no.
Dubin also noted other alleged test gaffs including a 1972 paper titled the “Dement,” a study he said that did not distinguish between asbestos and other fibers.
“It must be emphasized that no positive identification of the fibers found in these powders has been made since the phase contract microscope is not well suited for the purpose,” a conclusion on the 1972 study read. “Further work is needed to provide positive identification as to the nature of the fibers present.”
That researchers did not use the proper microscope in their studies has been a bone of contention during the trial, now in its fourth week
Yet another study paper Dubin maintained was not based on J&J powder, but a body powder called “Cashmere Bouquet.” In addition, the defense contended that Dr. William Longo, a noted materials scientist and an electron microscope researcher for the plaintiffs, had inaccurately measured his powder sampling.
However, Lanier portrayed Hollins’ testimony as an attempt to muddy the waters by the use of "junk science."
“You've got a master’s degree in public health, right?” he asked.
“Correct,” Hollins answered.
“You said I’m a scientist,” Lanier said.
“Right,” Hollins answered.
“Are you a biologist or any type of anatomical scientist?” Lanier asked.
“I wouldn’t characterize myself that way,” Hollins said.
“What kind of scientist are you?” Lanier asked.
“I’m an industrial hygienist as in epidemiologist,” Hollins maintained.
Lanier said scientists such as Dr. Egilman and another researcher cited by the plaintiffs, Dr. Jacqueline Moline, were much more qualified than Hollins to speak on the issue of asbestos exposure. He said the difference between their qualifications and hers’ was “huge.”
“She (Moline) is director of the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Committee did you know that?” Lanier asked.
“I did not,” Hollins said.
“Have you done any work for them?” Lanier asked.
“I have not,” Hollins said.
Lanier asked Hollins if in her review of the case she had factored in how much baby powder was applied to babies by mothers?
“I didn’t necessarily include it in,” Hollins said.
“Oops!” Lanier said. “But you know women testified they would bathe their children and put the powder on them, right?”
“I don’t believe I reviewed their testimony, I reviewed Dr. Egilman’s calculations,” Hollins answered.
“Did you include (information) when they used it (powder) on their carpets?” Lanier asked.
“I did not,” Hollins said. “I did not look at those scenarios.”
“So your exposure numbers are artificially low,” Lanier said. “They’re wrong, too low, correct?”
“I would not characterize it that way,” Hollins responded.
“Well I would,” Lanier said. “It’s wrong isn’t it?”
“I wouldn’t characterize it as being wrong,” Hollins said.
“Well it isn’t right,” Lanier said. “Do you know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to a math equation?”
“I do,” Hollins said.
“You got it wrong didn’t you?” Lanier asked.
“No,” Hollins said.
“You didn’t get it wrong, but you didn’t get it right,” Lanier said. “Two plus two either equals five or it doesn’t.”
Hollins also agreed she had not looked at the women’s genital application of powder, but had focused on possible exposure due to inhalation.
“You’re saying these women couldn’t have their ovarian cancer caused and contributed to by asbestos - when you never even took into account they were putting it on their crotch?” Lanier asked.
Near the end of the session Dr. Cheryl Saenz, a defense witness and gynecologic oncologist with the UC San Diego School of Medicine, was called to the stand and asked if J&J powder contributes to the development of ovarian cancer.
She told the jury she had reviewed a variety of sources including medical studies in the cases, epidemiology literature, case and tort literature, websites and information provided by organizations such as the National Institute of Cancer (NCI). She added she also relied on her experience as a gynecologist for over 20 years.
“It is my opinion that using Johnson & Johnson (powder) does not lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer,” Saenz said.