They cite to all kinds of junk science to support their
litigation-driven argument. One report says that asbestos causes only 20% of mesothelioma diagnosed in U.S. women. [E.N. Pavlisko and T.A. Sporn]. While another posits
that 60% of mesothelioma diagnosed in U.S. women is simply “idiopathic,” a
conclusion derived from the simple fact that these women did not have
“occupational” exposure (as opposed to “domestic,” or “environmental” or
whatever bizarre box they construct to shift liability). [A Lacourt, C Gramond, et al, Feb. 7, 2014]
 |
| Watson and Crick Cracking the Genetic Code |
If you’re an asbestos company, this is a great, albeit
self-serving, argument. Most asbestos products sold in the U.S. contained
mainly “chrysotile,” not “amphibole,” asbestos.
Not surprisingly, companies that made products with chrysotile
asbestos routinely defend mesothelioma lawsuits based on this same argument. Namely, they seek to prove that the patient was exposed to amphibole asbestos,
which they agree causes mesothelioma, at some time in his or her lifetime. They
then try to convince the jury that it was the amphibole asbestos, not their
“asbestos lite” chrysotile, that is the culprit.
Fortunately, most juries like solid evidence based on real
science.
Recently, a jury in Los Angeles County considered these arguments and found them wanting. As we have reported, the Winkel case involved claims against Colgate-Palmolive, which sold Cashmere Bouquet, a talcum powder laced with asbestos, for over five decades
Recently, a jury in Los Angeles County considered these arguments and found them wanting. As we have reported, the Winkel case involved claims against Colgate-Palmolive, which sold Cashmere Bouquet, a talcum powder laced with asbestos, for over five decades
It turns out that Cashmere Bouquet was impregnated with both
kinds of asbestos – chrysotile and amphibole, depending on which of the three
mines they sourced their talc.
As reported, this was the first case that made it to trial
against Colgate-Palmolive. For years the
talcum powder industry has spent millions to crush plaintiffs and their lawyers
who dared to prove their case to a jury. As one of their lawyers warned us early on: if you continue this case,
we will destroy you, your practice, your clients and your experts.
Why did they fight so ruthlessly? Like their life depended
on it? We think we know why.
Go back to that high number of conveniently unexplained U.S.
women diagnosed with mesothelioma. Over 60%, they argued, were idiopathic. Well, idiopathic simply means
“we didn’t look hard enough.” Truth is, they didn’t want anyone taking a
hard look at their talcum powder. You
can’t blame them. If you do look hard, the talcum powder industry is in big
trouble.
No matter what box you throw it in – “occupational,”
“environmental,” “domestic” or whatever - it’s the worst kind of exposure. Millions of women used talcum powder. They used it daily. They liberally applied it all over their bodies. They
sprinkled it on their undergarments. They powdered it on their babies. The intended use of the product generated
gobs of visible, fine and respirable dust. And they never warned anyone that
that fragrant fluffy white powder contained toxic and deadly asbestos.
Now questions are being asked. What other cancers are caused
by talcum powder? For years women have been contracting ovarian cancer and
we’ve never fully understood why. Is ovarian cancer linked to talcum powder? A
jury recently answered “yes” to that question in a case against Johnson and
Johnson (see http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-24/women-are-suing-johnson-johnson-over-talcum-powder).
Did we crack the code? For the last 50 years how many of
those U.S. women with “idiopathic” mesothelioma regularly used talcum powder
after showering? Our hunch is plenty. And
the sad part is the talcum powder industry has gotten away with it.
RGW
May 28, 2015
.jpg)
