Johnson & Johnson Pay Out $4.7 Billion In Compensation For Causing Cancer

Johnson & Johnson ordered to payout billions in compensatino to cancer vicitms

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email Reddit Telegram

US Big Pharma giant Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay out a staggering $4.69 billion in damages for selling their infamous cancer-causing talcum powder to the public.

22 women and their families were rewarded the huge payout after a jury in St Louis, Missouri, ruled in favor of the women following a six-week trial.

Telegraph.co.uk reports: The damages include $550 million in compensation and over $4.1 billion in punitive damages.

BYPASS THE CENSORS

You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

The plaintiffs said using the talc for personal hygiene had caused ovarian cancer.

“For over 40 years, Johnson & Johnson has covered up the evidence of asbestos in their products,” Lanier said in a statement.

“We hope this verdict will get the attention of the J&J board and that it will lead them to better inform the medical community and the public about the connection between asbestos, talc, and ovarian cancer,” he said, calling for talc to be pulled from the market.

J&J said it was “deeply disappointed in the verdict.”

In a statement, it described the trial as “a fundamentally unfair process that allowed plaintiffs to present a group of 22 women, most of whom had no connection to Missouri, in a single case all alleging that they developed ovarian cancer.”

“The result of the verdict, which awarded the exact same amounts to all plaintiffs irrespective of their individual facts, and differences in applicable law, reflects that the evidence in the case was simply overwhelmed by the prejudice of this type of proceeding.”

The company said its talc does not contain asbestos or cause ovarian cancer, and vowed it would “pursue all available appellate remedies.”

Several similar trials have already taken place, with a Los Angeles appeals court last October dismissing a $417 million verdict against J&J, saying the complainant’s arguments were insufficient and vague.