In 1977, The Lancet—a highly prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal—published an unsigned article that found “no reason to believe” using baby powder made with talc could cause an increased risk of cancer. For decades, the paper was used in court by talc manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson as evidence that their products were safe.
Now, nearly 50 years later, The Lancet has officially retracted the article after the journal’s editors found that it was secretly written by a paid Johnson & Johnson consultant.
How did this happen?
In December 2025, The Lancet received an email and a letter from David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, two professors who discovered alarming intel about the hidden author of the 1977 article. According to The Lancet’s editors, the professors provided evidence revealing the author to be Dr. Francis J C Roe, a now-deceased cancer researcher and consultant paid by Johnson & Johnson.
The professors also sent evidence showing how Roe submitted a late-stage draft of the 1977 article directly to Johnson & Johnson for review, and then altered it after J&J’s staff provided feedback.
Editors from The Lancet responded to the evidence with the following statement:
“Roe’s conflict of interest with Johnson & Johnson was a clear breach of publishing ethics. In our view, had the editors at the time known of this situation and been aware of the author’s undeclared competing interest, they would not have published this commentary. The Lancet has therefore decided to retract the commentary.”
Then on March 25, 2026, The Lancet published a formal retraction of the landmark 1977 study in its online journal, along with a similar notice in its corresponding print issue.
How did Johnson & Johnson respond?
As the company has done before, Johnson & Johnson denied playing any kind of role in altering The Lancet’s article, framing the allegations as a biased legal tactic. J&J provided the database blog Retraction Watch with a detailed statement about its disapproval:
“Johnson & Johnson strongly disagrees with the suggestion that a 1977 editorial in The Lancet reflects misconduct or warrants retroactive condemnation. While Johnson & Johnson respects The Lancet’s commitment to ensuring a lack of bias in the materials it publishes, unfortunately, in this instance the journal is being used as part of ongoing and underhanded litigation tactics.”
What does this mean for the talcum powder lawsuit?
According to attorneys for current lawsuit participants, The Lancet’s retraction will likely be a huge help in court, strengthening thousands of cases as the talcum powder lawsuit finally comes to a head. As of May 2026, the talcum powder mass tort has become the single biggest lawsuit in the country, with nearly 70,000 cancer cases filed in federal court. Approximately another 20,000 claims have also been filed in state courts across the nation.
Now that J&J’s bankruptcy strategy has been thoroughly denied as of last year, and evidence linking talcum powder to cancer continues to pile up, legal experts suggest that Johnson & Johnson only has a few options left for the lawsuit:
- Move towards a global settlement and pay the victims who’ve been waiting years for compensation.
- Continue getting struck with million and billion-dollar verdicts by going to trial for individual cases.
- Keep settling select cases privately and appealing existing verdicts.
According to experts involved in the lawsuit, negotiation has recently begun between Johnson & Johnson and victims’ attorneys for a new global settlement. But for now, all eyes are on Johnson & Johnson as thousands of victims continue to wait to finally receive the compensation they deserve.
File a Talcum Powder claim
If you or a family member were diagnosed with ovarian cancer after using Johnson’s Baby Powder or another brand of talc-based baby powder, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation from the lawsuit.
Ready for a free case review? Take our online Talcum Powder eligibility evaluation to see if you may be eligible to file a claim.
