US plant ruins 15 million J&J coronavirus vaccine doses: report

WASHINGTON - About 15 million doses of the single-shot coronavirus vaccine made by Johnson & Johnson were ruined in a factory error in the United States, The New York Times reported -- a blow to the company's efforts to quickly boost production.

When contacted by AFP, the pharmaceutical giant said it had identified a batch of doses at a plant in Baltimore run by Emergent BioSolutions "that did not meet quality standards" but did not confirm the specific number affected. 

The company also said the batch "was never advanced to the filling and finishing stages of our manufacturing process." 

"Quality and safety continue to be our top priority," it said.

The Times report however signaled that issues with quality control could affect future output, with the Food and Drug Administration expected to investigate. 

The FDA told AFP it was "aware of the situation" but declined to comment further.

Johnson & Johnson said it was sending more experts to the site to "supervise, direct and support all manufacturing of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine," which would allow it to deliver an additional 24 million shots "through April."

The Emergent BioSolutions plant had not yet been authorized by US regulators to manufacture a "drug substance" for the J&J vaccine, the company said, but US media reported that it was expected to produce tens of millions of doses in the near future.

The J&J vaccine has won praise for its single dosage and because it does not need to be frozen -- unlike the shots from Moderna and Pfizer -- making distribution much simpler. 

"We continue to expect to deliver our Covid-19 vaccine at a rate of more than one billion doses by the end of 2021," J&J said.

Agence France-Presse

J&J says cutting enrollment for COVID-19 vaccine trial by 20,000 as US cases rise

Johnson & Johnson said on Wednesday it has cut enrollment for its pivotal COVID-19 vaccine trial to 40,000 volunteers from its original plan for 60,000, as higher rates of COVID-19 infections amid a worsening pandemic should generate the data it needs with fewer study subjects.

The move could speed up the time frame for US regulatory clearance, because they will need two months of follow-up safety data from 10,000 fewer people in order to meet US Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

A top US official said on a Wednesday press call that the lower target means the trial could be fully enrolled this week. J&J said it continues to expect an interim data readout in late January and could apply for US emergency use authorization (EUA) in February.

"Given the high incidence of COVID-19 among the general population, we expect that approximately 40,000 participants will generate the data needed to determine the safety and efficacy of our investigational COVID-19 vaccine candidate," J&J said in a statement.

The United States has reported an average and 205,661 new COVID-19 cases each day over the past week.

Meanwhile, Pfizer Inc could within days receive an EUA from the US Food and Drug Administration for its vaccine, developed with Germany's BioNTech SE, US Health Secretary Alex Azar said on the call, adding that vaccinations could begin as soon as next week.

A panel of outside expert advisers to the FDA will meet on Thursday to review the Pfizer vaccine and decide whether to recommend that the agency grant the EUA. An FDA decision is expected soon after that.

Officials said they are preparing to distribute 2.9 million doses to more than 600 locations across the country once the vaccine is authorized. They are setting aside the remainder of their first 6.4 million-dose allotment to guarantee a second dose in the two-dose regimen for those who received a first shot, and to have a precautionary reserve.

Although the federal government is coordinating distribution efforts, states, territories, and five federal agencies will decide who should receive a vaccine first.

On Wednesday, the Department of Defense said it would receive about 44,000 doses of the initial nationwide supply and will prioritize vaccinating healthcare workers at military medical centers.

Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser for US efforts on coronavirus vaccines, said on Wednesday Americans with a history of severe allergic reactions may not be candidates for Pfizer's vaccine, after two people with severe allergies had serious adverse reactions to the shot on the first day of vaccinations in the UK British health officials said both are recovering well.

Britain’s medicine regulator said it was changing its guidance to warn people with a history of significant allergies to vaccines, medicine and food to not get the vaccine.

Canadian health officials are making a similar recommendation after Canada approved the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on Wednesday.

-reuters-

Johnson & Johnson to stop sales of talc-based baby powder in US, Canada

NEW YORK - Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson said Tuesday it would stop selling talc-based baby powder in the United States and Canada, where sales had already been hit by changing consumer habits and fears the product causes cancer.

The company has long denied claims that the talc powder it uses contains cancer-causing asbestos, but has nonetheless been taken to court several thousands of times over the allegations.

In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said it remained "steadfastly confident" in the product's safety and would "vigorously" defend against the lawsuits, noting that all guilty verdicts passed against the company have been overturned.

"As part of a portfolio assessment related to COVID-19, in March, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Health stopped shipping hundreds of items in the US and Canada to prioritize high-demand products and to allow for appropriate social distancing in manufacturing and distribution facilities," the statement said.

It then decided to discontinue around 100 products in the 2 countries, including the talc-based powder.


"Demand for talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising," the company said.

Existing stocks of the powder will be sold in the US and Canada until they run out, the company said, and the product will remain for sale in countries where there is "significantly higher consumer demand."


Agence France-Presse

Johnson & Johnson says recalled baby powder asbestos-free

Johnson & Johnson said Tuesday that it did not find asbestos in multiple tests of a bottle of baby powder that the Food and Drug Administration said contained trace amounts of the carcinogen.

The company had recalled 33,000 bottles of the product earlier this month after the regulator said it discovered evidence of chrysotile asbestos in a bottle bought from an online retailer. Johnson & Johnson said 15 new tests of that very bottle came up clean.

Another 48 tests of samples from the recalled lot, conducted by two third-party labs, reached the same conclusion, the company said. Johnson & Johnson is facing lawsuits from more than 15,000 plaintiffs who claim that the company’s baby powder and other talc-based products caused their cancer.

“We stand by the safety of our product,” the company said in a statement. Johnson & Johnson’s shares rose in after-hours trading Tuesday afternoon.

The company said it contacted the two labs after the recall to expedite tests of the baby powder in question. Three samples did initially test positive for asbestos, the company said in Tuesday’s statement, but after an investigation by the lab, the contamination was found to be coming from a portable air conditioner in the room.

“This finding underscores the importance of investigating any positive test result,” the company said, adding that “even when careful safeguards are followed, asbestos contamination may be introduced during sample division, storage, preparation and analysis.”

For decades, Johnson & Johnson has cast doubt on multiple findings of asbestos in its talc products, blaming poorly executed tests, unqualified scientists, similar-looking minerals and other factors. The company said that it “routinely” uses “a rigorous testing standard” to check its talc.


2019 The New York Times Company

source: news.abs-cbn.com

J&J recalls 33,000 bottles of baby powder as FDA finds asbestos in sample

Johnson & Johnson said on Friday it is recalling around 33,000 bottles of baby powder in the United States after US health regulators found trace amounts of asbestos in samples taken from a bottle purchased online.

J&J shares fell more than 6 percent to close at $127.70.

The move marks the first time the company has recalled its iconic baby powder for possible asbestos contamination, and the first time US regulators have announced a finding of asbestos in the product. Asbestos is a known carcinogen that has been linked to deadly mesothelioma.

The recall is the latest blow to the more than 130-year-old US healthcare conglomerate that is facing thousands of lawsuits over a variety of products, including baby powder, opioids, medical devices and the antipsychotic Risperdal.

A jury last week ordered the company to pay $8 billion to a plaintiff in a case claiming J&J downplayed the risks of Risperdal. That award is not expected to stand, the company and legal experts have said.

J&J faces more than 15,000 lawsuits from consumers claiming its talc products, including Johnson's Baby Powder, caused their cancer.

On a conference call with reporters on Friday, Dr. Susan Nicholson, head of Women’s Health in the company's medical safety organization, called the asbestos finding "extremely unusual," adding that it was "inconsistent with our testing to date."

The voluntary recall announced on Friday is limited to one lot of Johnson's Baby Powder produced and shipped in the United States in 2018, the company said. 

J&J in a news release said that testing by the US Food and Drug Administration as recently as a month ago found no asbestos in their talc.

The FDA said in a statement that the latest sampling took place during its testing for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics that it began reporting this year. A second Johnson’s Baby Powder sample from a different lot tested negative for asbestos, the agency said.

The FDA said it stands by the quality of its testing and results and recommended consumers stop using the product if it comes from the affected lot.

J&J said on the conference call that it received a report from the FDA on Oct. 17 alerting the company about the asbestos finding. It said it has started an investigation and is reviewing manufacturing records and collecting data on the distribution of the lot to determine where the product was shipped.

J&J added that it is working with the FDA to determine the integrity of the tested sample as well as the validity of test results.

THOROUGH INVESTIGATION NEEDED

The type of asbestos discovered by FDA testing has not been found in the mine where the company sources its talc, J&J's Nicholson said. She described it as an environmental contaminant most commonly found in building materials and industrial applications.

J&J said it was too early to confirm whether cross-contamination of the sample had caused a false positive, whether the sample was taken from a bottle with an intact seal or whether it was prepared in a controlled environment. It added that it could not confirm whether the tested product was authentic or counterfeit.

"It is so critical that we perform a thorough investigation of the sample to determine the source of contamination," Nicholson said.

Since 2003, talc in Johnson's Baby Powder sold in the United States has come from China through supplier Imerys Talc America, a unit of Paris-based Imerys SA and a co-defendant in much of the talc litigation. Imerys and J&J said the Chinese talc is safe.

J&J has known for decades that asbestos lurked in its talc, Reuters reported last year. Internal company records, trial testimony and other evidence show that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos. Company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it, while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public, Reuters found.

J&J has repeatedly said that its talc products are safe, and that decades of studies have shown them to be asbestos-free and that they do not cause cancer.

The FDA test indicated the presence of no greater than 0.00002 percent of chrysotile asbestos in the tested sample, J&J said.

The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later.

Thousands of the lawsuits against J&J have been consolidated before a New Jersey federal judge, who is currently weighing company motions to disqualify plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including the head of an asbestos testing lab who has testified in earlier trials that he found the contaminant in J&J powders.

Leigh O’Dell, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys, on Friday said the recall "vindicates the position we’ve been taking for months.”

Wells Fargo analyst Larry Biegelsen said in a research note that the recall could encourage additional lawsuits and prompt the company to pursue a broader settlement.

Jefferies healthcare strategist Jared Holz said J&J has already lost close to $10 billion in market value due to the talc issue over the past year.

He said further downside to J&J stock is likely to be limited because legal concerns over talc are well known and have already taken a toll on the share price. "This is one single bottle within one lot with barely a trace here," he said.

J&J said in February that it had received subpoenas from the US Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for documents related to the asbestos contamination allegations. A Bloomberg report, which Reuters has confirmed, said those inquiries include a criminal grand jury investigation into how forthright J&J has been in its statements about the safety of its powders.

While talc products make up less than 1 percent of J&J sales expected by analysts to reach $82 billion in 2019, the New Jersey-based healthcare-products maker considers its Baby Powder to be an essential facet of a carefully tended image as a caring company.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

J&J must pay $8B in case over male breast growth side effect: jury

NEW YORK -- Johnson & Johnson must pay $8 billion in punitive damages to a man who previously won $680,000 over his claims that it failed to warn that young men using its antipsychotic drug Risperdal could grow breasts, a Philadelphia jury said on Tuesday.

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas jury's verdict in favor of Nicholas Murray came in the first case in which a Pennsylvania jury had been able to consider awarding punitive damages in one of thousands of Risperdal cases pending in the state.

"This jury, as have other juries in other litigations, once again imposed punitive damages on a corporation that valued profits over safety and profits over patients," Murray's lawyers, Tom Kline and Jason Itkin, said in a joint statement. "Johnson & Johnson and (subsidiary) Janssen chose billions over children."

J&J said the award was "grossly disproportionate with the initial compensatory award in this case, and the company is confident it will be overturned." It added that the jury in the case had not been allowed to hear evidence of Risperdal's benefits.

Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law said he expects the punitive damages to be lowered on appeal, citing a US Supreme Court decision which found that "few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process."

Tobias said the verdict was about sending a message.

"A jury, if it's outrageous enough conduct, will award a big number and let the lawyers and judges work it out," he said.

Tobias added that the verdict could be a sign that J&J will face more large damages awards in other Risperdal cases.

"The kind of evidence in this trial may persuade another jury or judge to do something similar," he said.

Murray, like other male plaintiffs in the mass tort litigation over Risperdal, alleges that he developed breasts after being prescribed the medicine when he was a minor. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in late 1993 for treating schizophrenia and episodes of bipolar mania in adults.

Plaintiffs claim that J&J failed to warn of the risk of gynecomastia, the development of enlarged breasts in males, associated with Risperdal, which they say the company marketed for unapproved uses with children.

In his lawsuit, Murray, now 26, alleged that he developed breasts after his doctors began prescribing him Risperdal off-label in 2003 after a psychologist diagnosed him with autism spectrum disorder. Doctors are allowed to prescribe medicines as they see fit, while companies are only allowed to promote their drugs for approved uses.

A jury in 2015 awarded Murray $1.75 million after finding J&J was negligent in failing to warn of the risk of gynecomastia. A state appeals court upheld the verdict in February 2018 but reduced it to $680,000.

Plaintiffs in the mass tort litigation had been barred from seeking punitive damages since 2014, when a state court judge ruled that the law of New Jersey, which prohibits punitive damages and is J&J's home state, should be applied globally to the cases.

But a Pennsylvania Superior Court ruling in 2018 cleared the way for punitive damages awards, holding that the law of each plaintiff's state should instead apply. 

source: news.abs-cbn.com

J&J verdict sends opioid makers a billion-dollar warning

WASHINGTON -- The US pharmaceutical industry faces tens of billions of dollars in potential damage payments for fueling the opioid addiction crisis after Oklahoma won a $572 million judgment against drugmaker Johnson & Johnson.

One day after the healthcare giant was found guilty of flooding the market with highly addictive painkillers, another top opioid producer, Purdue Pharma, was reported to have offered $10-12 billion to settle more lawsuits before they come to trial.

Dozens more companies in the US prescription drugs chain -- giants like Teva Pharmaceuticals, Allergan, Mallinckrodt, Walmart, CVS and Walgreens Boots -- could face similarly large payouts as the next major opioids case gears up in Ohio.

Nearly 2,300 lawsuits similar to Oklahoma's have been rolled into one trial to begin in October.

The states, cities, towns and Native American tribes who filed the suits are demanding huge sums to pay for the fallout of the crisis -- overwhelmed health and social systems, families unable to care for themselves, and babies born addicted to the drugs.

$454 BILLION DAMAGE ESTIMATE

The case has drawn comparison to the $206 billion the tobacco industry agreed to pay 46 states in 1998 for the consequences of decades of nicotine addiction.

In the consolidated Ohio case, one estimate submitted to the court puts the total costs that communities face due to the epidemic at $453 billion over the coming decade.

In the Oklahoma case, Judge Thad Balkman said the $572 million would cover estimates of just one year of "abatement," or mitigation efforts related to the rash of addiction and overdose deaths the state has experienced.

Balkman said J&J's aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, downplaying and hiding the high addiction risks, "compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans."

That was a clear message for the companies accused of doing the same in the Ohio case.

Purdue, which settled out of court early on in the Oklahoma case for $270 million, confirmed Tuesday it was in talks to avoid going to trial in Ohio as well.

"While Purdue Pharma is prepared to defend itself vigorously in the opioid litigation, the company has made clear that it sees little good coming from years of wasteful litigation and appeals," the company said in a statement.

The company, whose Oxycontin painkiller became an emblem of the addiction epidemic, and whose wealthy owners the Sackler family have come under international scorn, would not confirm or deny the media reports that it had offered up to $12 billion to resolve its liability.

However, it said, "The people and communities affected by the opioid crisis need help now."

"Purdue believes a constructive global resolution is the best path forward, and the company is actively working with the state attorneys general and other plaintiffs to achieve this outcome."

MILLIONS ADDICTED

The cases seek to address the costs of millions of Americans sinking into addiction after using potent opioid painkillers that the companies churned out and doctors freely, and often criminally, prescribed over the past two decades.

Well over 400,000 people died of opioid overdoses in that period, while the companies involved raked in billions of dollars in profits.

And while the flood of prescription opioids into the black market has now been curtailed, addicts are turning to heroin and highly potent fentanyl, where the risk of overdose and death is even higher.

Even so, the lawsuits are complex and legally challenging. 

The producers, wholesale distributors and pharmacies that liberally distributed the prescription painkillers argue they acted legally in a highly regulated industry, and say the fault lies mainly in doctors over-prescribing the drugs.

The Oklahoma and Ohio suits depend on evidence showing the drug industry knew the risks and covered them up, encouraging overprescription to make more money.

Both suits rely on "public nuisance" laws that are rarely used in such a case, and J&J says it will appeal Monday's judgment based in part on the over-expansive use of the statute.

But University of Georgia law professor Elizabeth Burch said the Oklahoma case brought out evidence about the drug companies' behavior that had not been seen before -- evidence that could hurt the defendants in the Ohio trial.

"Some of Judge Balkman's key findings will certainly play a role in future cases, but it's the evidence itself, not his ruling that will be on display," she said.

"I think it will have an effect on all the district litigations in Ohio because defendants will see they could be held liable," said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.

"I think some defendants are going to have to think twice about going to trial," he said.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

J&J doubles down on baby powder safety message

NEW YORK/LOS ANGELES -- Johnson & Johnson Inc's statement was unequivocal.

"The FDA has tested Johnson's talc since the '70s. Every single time it did not contain asbestos," the company said in a Dec. 19 tweet. It followed by several days the publication of a Reuters investigation that found the healthcare conglomerate knew for decades that the carcinogen lurked in its Baby Powder and other cosmetic talc products.

The tweet, posted under the handle @JNJNews, didn't mention that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found traces of asbestos in the company's Shower to Shower talc in 1973, as revealed in agency documents reviewed by Reuters. And it is only one of dozens of tweets conveying a similar message about talc safety since the Reuters article appeared Dec. 14.

The Reuters article prompted a stock selloff that erased about $40 billion from J&J's market value in one day and created a public relations crisis as the blue-chip healthcare conglomerate faced widespread questions about the possible health effects of one of its most iconic products.

To reassure investors and consumers, J&J has tweeted, posted on Facebook, run a series of full-page newspaper ads across the United States, published a lengthy rebuttal to the Reuters investigation on its website and announced a $5 billion stock buyback. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Alex Gorsky has appeared in a company video and on CNBC's "Mad Money" to reinforce the company's position.

That position has been unwavering. J&J insists that its Baby Powder is safe and has been asbestos-free at least since regular testing began in the 1970s. The message doubles down on the stance the company has taken to defend against lawsuits in which about 11,700 plaintiffs allege that the J&J talc they used in past decades caused their cancer. The company is pursuing this strategy despite the evidence that talc in its raw and finished powders sometimes tested positive for the carcinogen from the 1970s into the early 2000s — test results that the company didn’t disclose to regulators or consumers.

In response to a Reuters request for comment, the company said it was committed to defending the talc litigation, "and that same, long-term view is reflected in our ongoing communications that consistently point to the strong scientific evidence that our talc is and always has been safe."

As for the 1973 Shower to Shower test, J&J noted that the result didn't "reflect FDA's final determination about this sample" in a 1976 table summarizing the agency's early 1970s cosmetic talc testing. However, in that 1976 table, which Reuters examined, the FDA did not indicate any result, positive or negative, for the type of asbestos found in the Shower to Shower sample in 1973.

Given the mass of litigation it faces, J&J has little choice but to zealously dispute findings that its products sometimes contained traces of asbestos, said Eric Dezenhall, a crisis-management consultant in Washington, DC. "If your position in court is that the claims being made are false…you can't just shrug your shoulders," he said.

Soon after the Reuters article appeared, J&J executives consulted crisis-management experts, according to people familiar with the matter. Among the company's reasons for deciding to maintain its stance on absolute talc purity, these people said, was a conviction that a company known for putting health and safety first had the facts on its side, a litigation track record that included victories and mistrials, and the expectation that adverse verdicts will be overturned on appeal.

THROUGH LAWYERS

Many of J&J's subsequent messages have mirrored the company's written responses to questions and findings Reuters presented to the company during its investigation: They deny that the company kept information from regulators and point to the many studies finding that talc is safe and doesn't cause cancer.

Those earlier responses were composed by J&J's outside litigators, led by Peter Bicks at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, and conveyed to Reuters by lawyers at a crisis-management firm co-founded by Lanny Davis, a lawyer who represented US President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former attorney who has pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges.

Gorsky, in his appearance on "Mad Money," invoked J&J's now legendary response to the Tylenol crisis as evidence that the company can be trusted to address any safety problems linked to its products. In 1982, J&J moved decisively to pull all Tylenol from store shelves after 7 people died from taking cyanide-laced pills.

"I can't believe the company that took that dramatic of an action would allow a product that they felt in any way could be harmful to stay on the market," Gorsky told "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer. "We unequivocally believe that our talc, our Baby Powder, does not contain asbestos."

Citing the Tylenol recall provides "some reputational buffer," said Stephen A. Greyser, the Harvard Business School professor who wrote the first study of the company's handling of that crisis. "But it is not a total protection" because it won't shield the company from a loss of trust if consumers or investors conclude the company hasn't been fully forthcoming in this case, he said. J&J needs to guard against "reputational contagion," the risk that a loss of confidence in Baby Powder could bleed over into how consumers, shareholders and others view the company more broadly, Greyser added.

The key difference between the two crises is that poisoned Tylenol presented a threat to consumers at the time, while the documented asbestos contamination of J&J talc that Reuters investigated spanned from 1971 to the early 2000s. J&J says that if it believed that Baby Powder today presented safety risks, it wouldn't hesitate to remove it from store shelves, given that the product accounts for less than 0.5 percent of annual revenue.

The company joined its talc supplier, Imerys Talc America, a unit of Paris-based Imerys SA, in requesting that a trial scheduled for January in St. Louis be delayed for, among other things, what they called "negative national and local news coverage" resulting from the Reuters investigation that would inevitably taint prospective jurors.

The judge denied the motion. The same judge recently upheld a $4.69 billion jury award in a separate ovarian cancer case, which J&J says it expects to be overturned on appeal. The judge said J&J's promotion of a product that the evidence showed was contaminated with a known carcinogen was "particularly reprehensible."

In an emailed statement, Imerys Talc America said it "is committed to the quality and safety of its products," and that rigorous research "overwhelmingly confirms that talc is safe, and no agency has asserted that talc causes cancer."

UNDERMINED BY EVIDENCE

Some of J&J's messages in its recent campaign omit key details regarding findings on talc and, in certain instances, are undermined by other evidence, according to a Reuters review of the company's statements.

The Dec. 19 tweet claiming that the FDA’s own tests never found asbestos in J&J talc, for example, ignores an agency scientist's 1973 finding that a Shower to Shower sample contained asbestos fibers, according to a copy of an FDA report titled "Asbestos and Other Contaminants in Talc" and a deposition of a former J&J head toxicologist. The FDA did not respond to questions for this article, citing a partial government shutdown.

On CNBC, Gorsky said: "We also not only used the best testing methodologies that were available, but we continued to improve them through the years."

J&J's testing methods do exceed the industry standard. But even so, as a geologist and frequent J&J expert witness acknowledged in court this year, only a tiny fraction of the company's talc sold over the past 40 years has been tested using what is widely recognized as the best method to detect asbestos fibers, known as transmission electron microscopy.

Plaintiffs' lawyers are already homing in on inconsistencies between J&J's statements and other evidence regarding its talc, and they are planning to depose Gorsky in coming weeks.

"There is no flexibility in what they're saying," said Leigh O'Dell, one of the lead lawyers representing plaintiffs in thousands of lawsuits against J&J consolidated in a New Jersey federal court. "Taking these statements on behalf of the company and pointing out to juries and judges the misrepresentations contained in those statements — I think you're going to see that in every case going forward, whether it's an ovarian cancer case or a mesothelioma case."

One of J&J's recent tweets criticized plaintiffs' lawyers: "Far from a new theory or insight, plaintiffs' lawyers have resurrected a disproven argument about asbestos in our talc that dates to the 1970s."

The Reuters investigation found that tests by J&J's own contract labs and others periodically found small amounts of asbestos in talc from mines that supplied the mineral for Baby Powder as recently as the early 2000s.

Some J&J tweets and newspaper ads have adopted a question-and-answer format. "What about the allegation you withheld safety information?" the company said in a full-page ad in USA Today the day after Christmas.

"It is false,” the company said. “All safety concerns are taken seriously, and we share all relevant information with regulators."

Some Twitter users have responded to J&J's tweets with praise and support. Others have referenced their relatives' longtime use of J&J talc products and subsequent deaths from ovarian cancer. "We're very sorry to hear this," J&J responded to several Twitter users, expressing a desire to speak with them and offering a phone number to call.

In response to another recent tweet in which J&J said its talc doesn't contain asbestos, one Twitter user asked: "Did it USED to?"

"No," J&J responded. "For decades, J&J's baby powder has repeatedly been tested for asbestos and found not to contain asbestos."

source: news.abs-cbn.com

J&J Baby Powder maker wins California lawsuit over cancer claim

A California jury on Thursday ruled in favor of Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit by a woman who said she developed the cancer mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos in the company's talc-based products including J&J's Baby Powder.

The Los Angeles Superior Court jury's verdict came in the first trial centering on claims that J&J's talc products contained asbestos. J&J is separately battling thousands of cases claiming those products can also cause ovarian cancer.

The verdict came in a lawsuit by Tina Herford, who said she developed mesothelioma after using J&J talcum powder products that her lawyers claimed contained asbestos.

Reuters watched the verdict through an online broadcast by Courtroom View Network. The jury also found in favor of talc supplier Imerys Talc.

J&J in a statement welcomed the verdict. J&J said it believed that setbacks dealt to individuals pursuing ovarian cancer cases had "forced plaintiff attorneys to pivot to yet another baseless theory."

"Johnson's Baby Powder has been around since 1894 and it does not contain asbestos or cause mesothelioma or ovarian cancer," J&J said.

Chris Panatier, Herford's lawyer, in an email cautioned against reading too much into a single verdict.

"It is a matter of time before juries begin holding them to account," he said.

The verdict came as a federal jury, separately, ordered J&J to pay $247 million to six patients who said they were injured by defective Pinnacle hip implants.

Mesothelioma is a deadly form of cancer closely associated with exposure to asbestos. It affects the delicate tissue that lines body cavities, most often around the lungs, but also in the abdomen and elsewhere.

Herford's lawyers contended that internal J&J documents showed the New Jersey-based company for decades was aware of the presence of asbestos in the talc that was used in its products but kept selling them anyway.

J&J faces lawsuits by around 5,500 plaintiffs nationally asserting talc-related claims, largely based on claims it failed to warn women about the risk of developing ovarian cancer from the products.

In 5 trials in Missouri involving ovarian cancer lawsuits, juries found J&J liable 4 times and awarded the plaintiffs $307 million. In California, a jury awarded a now-deceased woman $417 million.

But in October, J&J scored major victories when a Missouri appellate court threw out the first verdict there for $72 million and a California judge tossed the $417 million verdict.

The case is Herford et al v. AT&T Corp et al, Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC646315.

source: news.abs-cbn.com

California judge tosses baby powder cancer verdict vs J&J

A California judge on Friday threw out a $417 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit by a woman who claimed she developed ovarian cancer after using its talc-based products like Johnson's Baby Powder for feminine hygiene.

The ruling by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson marked the latest setback facing women and family members who accuse J&J of not adequately warning consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products.

The decision followed a jury's decision in August to hit J&J with the largest verdict to date in the litigation, awarding California resident Eva Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.

Nelson on Friday reversed the jury verdict and granted J&J's request for a new trial. Nelson said the August trial was underpinned by errors and insufficient evidence on both sides, culminating in excessive damages.

Mark Robinson, who represented the woman in her lawsuit, in a statement said he would file an appeal immediately.

"We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product," he said.

J&J in a statement said it was pleased with the verdict, adding that it will continue to defend itself in additional trials.

The judge added that there also had been misconduct of the jury during the trial.

J&J said declarations by two jurors after the trial showed that three members of the 12-person jury who voted against finding the company liable were improperly excluded from determining damages.

J&J says it faces lawsuits by 4,800 plaintiffs nationally asserting talc-related claims. Many of those cases are in California, where Echeverria's case was the first to go to trial, and in Missouri, where J&J has faced five trials.

The Missouri litigation led to four verdicts against J&J in which juries issued verdicts totaling $307 million. The company has only won one trial.

But the Missouri cases, which have largely been brought by out-of-state plaintiffs, have faced jurisdictional questions after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in June that limited where personal injury lawsuits could be filed.

On Tuesday, a Missouri appellate court threw out a $72 million verdict by a jury in February 2016 to the family of a deceased Alabama woman after ruling the case should not have been tried in St. Louis.

source: news.abs-cbn.com