Londonderry Woman Joins UK Lawsuit Against Johnson & Johnson Over Talc-Cancer Allegations

A resident of Londonderry is among 1,900 individuals in the United Kingdom pursuing legal action against the pharmaceutical corporation Johnson & Johnson (J&J) concerning purported connections between its talcum powder and cancer. Sharon Doherty received a diagnosis of ovarian and fallopian cancer in 2020. However, subsequent to undergoing surgery and a six-month course of chemotherapy, she was recently informed that her cancer had recurred. Attorneys involved in the UK litigation assert that for many decades, talcum powder contained carcinogenic asbestos as a contaminant. They further claim that J&J possessed knowledge of this contamination but actively attempted to conceal it. Johnson & Johnson refutes these allegations and any association between its baby powder, asbestos, and cancer. During an interview with BBC Radio Ulster’s Good Morning Ulster programme, Ms. Doherty recounted being informed in 2020 about a substantial ovarian cyst. She subsequently underwent a full hysterectomy upon the discovery of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer. She stated, “It was out of the blue and a total worry and your life all of a sudden changes.” Subsequent to the extensive surgical procedure and six months of chemotherapy treatment, Ms. Doherty received news that her cancer had recurred. “I was then told that I have cancer again in three places this time, so I was very shocked because I thought I was on the road to recovery,” she explained. She added, “I was told that, particularly with ovarian cancer, it can lie in the soft tissue and regenerate so I am going through treatment again at the moment.” “They have told me now, even with this treatment, that it is between a two to four years prognosis. “I am a positive person, you have to be positive, I obviously hope that is not the case and I’m trying to put that prognosis aside and do different things for myself.” Ms. Doherty stated that she started to suspect a clear connection between asbestos and talcum powder during her personal research conducted while receiving chemotherapy. She had encountered numerous articles asserting a link between asbestos and talcum powder. She elaborated, “I used talcum powder all my life, it was particularly used on me while I was a baby, but it was not just in the talcum powder that had asbestos in it. “It was in the feminine-hygiene products I was using as a young adult, it was in face powders, it was in dry shampoo which I also always used.” “I was using a lot of products with asbestos in it, so it was then where I started to think this is what happened to me,” she concluded. Ms. Doherty expressed her desire “to stand up” alongside other participants in the class action, who, she noted, all shared “similar stories to myself.” Johnson & Johnson ceased sales of mineral-based talc in North America in 2020, extending this decision to the UK last year, substituting it with cornstarch. The company attributed this change to financial pressures and a “misinformation campaign” concerning the product. While the corporation has faced numerous lawsuits in North America, this marks the initial instance where legal counsel has represented plaintiffs situated outside the United States. KP Law, the firm representing these claimants, has initiated the litigation process, which is anticipated to commence in early 2025. Erik Haas, who serves as the worldwide vice-president of litigation for Johnson & Johnson, commented that the accusations directed at the company “defy logic, rewrite history and ignore the facts.” He asserted, “J&J takes the issue of talc safety incredibly seriously and always has.” He added, “As our documents show, we have relied upon the most state-of-the-art testing protocols for decades and have been entirely transparent with government institutions and academic researchers regarding our findings.” Mr. Haas further stated that the notion of J&J concealing the contaminated constituents of its products from the public, governmental bodies, and other organizations was “inconceivable and false.” Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC bears no responsibility for the material found on external websites. Information regarding our policy on external linking is available.