Sorry JnJ, It’s 49 Years too Late
-
Sorry JnJ, It’s 49 Years too Late
Did you see this?
The Lancet has just retracted a 1977 commentary claiming asbestos-contaminated talc was safe.
Nearly 50 years later…. Yes thats right 50 years.
The reason? Undisclosed conflicts of interest and breaches of publication ethics. A paper that helped shape perception around safety—allowed to stand for decades.
Now think about who benefited.
Johnson & Johnson wasn’t just another company. It sold itself as the trusted name in family care.
I’m of the age where every mum trusted it. We grew up with it.
Baby powder was part of daily life—we literally left clouds of talc in our wake without a second thought. It was associated with care, cleanliness, and safety. No one questioned it. Why would we?
And yet, over the years, lawsuits, internal documents, and investigations have raised deeply uncomfortable questions:
-
What was known about contamination—and when?
-
Why did concerns take so long to surface publicly?
-
How did trusted institutions and publications reinforce that safety narrative?
-
How many ovarian cancer deaths can be attributed to talc, the author of “no more tears” says up to 15%. of cases can be attributed to the use of talc.
-
Why did the FDA not shout from the rooftops about the dangers. (Hint, listen to the podcast in the comments from No More Tears Author)
This isn’t just about one retraction.
It’s about a system where:
-
A major journal can take decades to correct the record
-
A trusted brand can face years of allegations before real scrutiny
-
And the public is expected to move on once it’s quietly “fixed”
When I look at some of the old adverts for talc they make me feel so angry,
I think part of it is because I was someone that just trusted in those days, and I know that so many young mom’s today still trust … the doctors, the big companies, the media and more.
Do we need to see people jailed at this point for any real change to happen?
I think this retraction is happening because Johnson and Johnson’s defence and lies are falling apart and the Lancet is trying to be ahead of the curve.
-
Log in to reply.