A key paper linking use of talc-based baby powder to cancer contains fraudulent information, according to a new complaint against an author of the article who has testified on behalf of plaintiffs.
A judge had previously allowed the release of a document confirming the identity of one of the patients in the article, who had claimed exposure to asbestos besides in baby powder, contrary to the authors’ claim that the cases in the series had no other exposures.
The paper, “Mesothelioma Associated With the Use of Cosmetic Talc,” was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in January 2020. It has been cited 22 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Corresponding author Jacqueline Moline of Northwell Health in Great Neck, N.Y., has also referenced the article in expert testimony for plaintiffs in talc litigation, as well as in remarks before Congress.
The abstract of the paper states that its objective is “to describe 33 cases of malignant mesothelioma among individuals with no known asbestos exposure other than cosmetic talcum powder.”
The authors further wrote that their article “is the first to describe mesothelioma among talcum powder consumers.”
But some patients described in the publication had other exposures to asbestos, lawyers for LTL Management, a recently-formed subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that holds liability for cosmetic talc litigation, argue in a complaint against Moline.
In the course of other cosmetic talc litigation, Northwell Health confirmed the identity of one of the patients in the study, whom Moline had described in her Congressional testimony. The patient had claimed worker’s compensation for asbestos exposure at a textile plant, apart from her exposure to cosmetic talc as a hairdresser. A judge ordered in December that the document Northwell provided to confirm the patient’s identity could be released and used in other litigation.
Stacieann Yuhasz, the managing editor of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, told Retraction Watch that the journal “has received a letter to the editor regarding the Moline publication, and Dr. Moline has notified JOEM that a response will be submitted late January.”
A spokesperson for Northwell informed us that Moline would not comment, “pending ongoing litigation.”
We emailed Paul DeFilippo of the New York City firm Wollmuth, Maher, & Deutsch and Allison Brown of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, also based in New York City, the lawyers who filed the complaint on behalf of LTL Management, but did not hear back.
Update, 2200 UTC, 2/6/23: LTL has made a similar claim about another another article.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
Among 33 cases, one was exposed to asbestos before using talcum powder-containing product. How about the other 32 cases?
Can paper fix the problem by changing 33 to 32 without touching the valid observations they made?
Can a fault in a comprehensive research discredit the entire results and conclusion?
Just change 33 to 32, save millions $$ of legal & court costs. All useless, only good for law firms.
The issue is that if one case is wrong, was due diligence done on the others? It might be an isolated and innocent mistake (though it’s hard to see how someone who filed for compensation for asbestos exposure would neglect to mention asbestos exposure); or it might not.