Hey everyone, welcome to the show. Great to be
here. Imagine generations of families placing
just this unwavering trust in a company. Yeah.
Only to discover that behind that comforting
image lay, well, a really disturbing pattern
of concealed risks and prioritized profits. That's
quite a hook, isn't it? What's fascinating right
from the start is that sheer betrayal of trust.
For so many people, Johnson & Johnson wasn't
just, you know, a corporation. It was sort of
woven into the fabric of daily life. Like mother
and medicine. Right. A symbol of reliability,
baby care, medicine, everything. And that's why
this book, No More Tears, The Dark Secrets of
Johnson & Johnson by Gardner Harris. Well, it
hits hard. It's investigative journalism, right?
Really digging deep. Oh, absolutely. Impactful
stuff. Very compelling read. Yeah, it really
is. This book takes us on a deep dive into the
history of this iconic company. And it reveals
this long series of instances where decisions
allegedly favored financial gain. Sometimes with
really serious consequences for consumers, it
seems. Yeah. We're talking controversies spanning
decades and across like a whole range of their
products. And the author meticulously pieces
together this narrative. Yeah. Suggesting these
weren't just isolated incidents. Right. Not just
one offs. No. More indicative of a perhaps a
broader corporate culture. It really makes you,
you know, the listener question how these things
can persist inside such a well, well regarded
company. What I particularly appreciated about
it, and no spoilers here, was just the sheer
depth of the investigation. The research. Yeah.
Harris clearly did an incredible amount of work
uncovering internal documents, testimonies. It
takes serious effort. It really does. And it's
the way he connects these seemingly separate
events across time that really stood out. It
reveals this consistent pattern of behavior.
And that kind of rigorous research is just...
essential, isn't it, for understanding the complexities
of a huge corporation with such a long history?
Totally. It lets us get beyond the surface, you
know. Look at the internal workings, the decisions
that led to these controversies. On the other
hand, though, what I found maybe disheartening,
again, not getting into specifics yet, was just
the sheer volume of instances where it really
looked like financial interest just took precedence
over, you know, ethical considerations. That's
a heavy thing. It is. It's a lot to process.
And it can leave you feeling a bit uneasy, frankly,
about corporate responsibility. Understandable.
Also, I was kind of left feeling that even after
all that digging, some crucial questions about
accountability, they still feel a bit elusive.
That sense of ambiguity, yeah, around accountability.
That's often a challenge in these kinds of deep
dogs, isn't it? I guess so. I mean, large corporate
structures can sometimes obscure responsibility,
maybe even intentionally. Makes it hard to pinpoint
who made the final call, even with documents.
Right. So overall, I give No More Tears a strong
four out of five stars. Solid rating. Yeah, I
think it's a really significant piece of work
for anyone who wants to understand, you know,
the potential dark side of major corporations,
especially in health care. And the importance
of ethics in business. Definitely. A strong ethical
compass. So as you get into the book, one of
the early things that sort of sets the stage,
this tension between profit and ethics. It involves
the company's initial reluctance, apparently,
to widely share patents for HIV AIDS meds. Oh,
wow. Yeah. With the UN program aimed at saving
lives in Africa. It raises that huge question,
right? Global health crisis versus proprietary
interests. How do you balance that? That's a
tough one right off the bat. Okay, so let's talk
about that brand image, J &J's image. Crucial.
The book really highlights how vital that perception
of trust was, especially with the baby products.
The golden egg. Yes. You remember that bit? The
2008 internal slide deck calling the Johnsons'
names linked to the mother -infant bond, their
golden egg. Creating this almost unbreakable
emotional dawn. Exactly. And that emotional connection,
it's incredibly powerful in marketing, isn't
it? Totally bypasses rational thought sometimes.
Right. it taps into fundamental feelings security
well -being especially with babies this Emotional
trust, as they called it, gave them a huge edge
over competitors who maybe just relied on rational
trust, like product effectiveness. And they deliberately
built that image from way back. Pioneers, really.
The book talks about them mass producing sterile
surgical dressings, supplying the army and navy
during the Spanish -American War. That Fred Kilmer
quote. Oh, yeah. Offering millions of pounds
of cotton, millions of yards of gauze, plasters
enough to encircle the earth. To the nation.
It really paints a picture, doesn't it? A company
deeply tied to American values. Public service.
It does. And that early history is so important
for understanding why their positive reputation
lasted so long. Right. Resilience. They positioned
themselves as partners. Public health. national
efforts, built up this deep well of goodwill
they could draw on for decades. Even when, as
the book suggests, internal practices maybe didn't
always match that image. Exactly. Yeah. Which
brings us to where the narrative takes that sharp
turn. Yeah, the clash between the image and the
internal stuff. And one of the first big areas,
one of the most significant, centers around asbestos
and their talc -based baby powder. Right. The
talc issue. The timeline the book lays out around
this alleged asbestos contamination is, well,
it's deeply concerning. What does it say? It
presents evidence suggesting that as early as
the 1970s, internal documents, scientific findings,
pointed to asbestos in the talc. Seventies. Wow.
Yeah. And, you know, for everyone listening,
it's crucial to understand asbestos is a known
carcinogen. Absolutely. Deadly stuff. So finding
it in baby powder, that raises huge health questions.
The book even mentions a 71 study, Tenovus Cancer
Research Institute, reportedly found talc particles
deep inside ovarian tumors, hinting at a potential
link between talc use and cancer. And it wasn't
like this was totally unknown inside J &J itself.
Apparently not. The book details internal memos,
one from a company scientist in 71, raising the
possibility of litigation. Litigation because
of tech. Potential links between their powder
formulas and pulmonary disease. So this wasn't
some sudden crisis that blindsided them. No,
there were internal warnings, discussions happening
decades before it all blew up publicly. Exactly.
And here's a crucial point the book highlights.
J &J allegedly chose not to publicly disclose
findings suggesting asbestos contamination. So
they kept it quiet. Reportedly, yes. And even
discouraged researchers from making these findings
public. Wow. What that reveals, and this is a
key insight for you listening, is how longstanding
internal knowledge of a potential harm can maybe
be suppressed, especially when a product is so
tied to the brand, to profits. It suggests it
wasn't just one bad decision, maybe. It suggests
a potential systemic bias, perhaps, against acknowledging
negative findings that could hurt a core product.
The story gets even twistier with researchers
like Dr. Arthur Langer. Right, the microscopist.
Interesting story. Early in his career, he accidentally
grew talc, trying to grow asbestos in the lab.
Shows how similar they are, minerally speaking.
Later, working with Dr. Irving Selikoff. A huge
name in asbestos research. Right. Selikoff. Groundbreaking
work. Their findings about potential asbestos
in talc were reportedly met with resistance from
J &J. Resistance? How? Well, Selikoff's work
showed the dangers of even minimal asbestos exposure.
He and Langer apparently share their concerns
about talc with New York City's top environmental
official back in 71. Leading to a public announcement.
Yeah, about potential asbestos in cosmetic talc.
So the alarm bells were ringing in parts of the
scientific community, even if the companies seemed
to be downplaying it. The book also goes into
how J &J responded to these pressures, right?
Like with the FDA. There's mention of them telling
FDA officials their talc had only minor amounts
of bestis, less than 1%. But wait, wasn't their
public stance that it was completely asbestos
-free? Exactly. That discrepancy. Internal communications
versus public statements. It's a recurring theme,
raising big questions about transparency. Yeah,
it really is. That inconsistency is right at
the heart of the ethical concerns, isn't it?
Seems like it. I mean, maybe early on, some executives
genuinely believed the levels were negligible.
That's conceivable. Okay. But the continued denial,
the alleged suppression of research as more evidence
came out. Yeah. That gets harder and harder to
square with that carefully built image of trustworthiness.
And didn't someone eventually admit in court
that earlier statements were false? Yes. The
later acknowledgement and testimony that previous
sworn statements about bogey powder never containing
asbestos were false. That's a huge turning point
in the story. It's quite striking, too, that
even when other companies started switching to
cornstarch baby powders, it's like. late 80s,
J &J stuck with talc. By then, everyone knew
asbestos was dangerous. The idea of it possibly
being in baby powder just seems unthinkable.
It does. Why did they persist? Did the book offer
any reasons? It suggests there's no single simple
answer, but it points to maybe deeply ingrained
brand loyalty. The company's long -held belief
that their talc product was just superior. It
speaks to how hard it can be for huge corporations
to change course, even when evidence is mounting.
OK, so moving beyond baby powder, the book covers
other major scandals, too, right? Oh, yeah. Risperdal,
the antipsychotic drug. Medical devices like
the ProLift vaginal mesh. Pinnacle hip implants.
And does it suggest a similar pattern? It seems
to. Aggressive marketing. Allegedly downplaying
risks. A focus on profit. That narrative seems
to repeat. Tell me about Risperdal. What were
the issues there? The narrative around Risperdal
is particularly troubling. The book presents
allegations that J &J marketed it for uses not
approved by the FDA. Off -label marketing. Exactly.
Promoting a drug for something it wasn't officially
approved for, which carries big risks because
the safety and effectiveness for those uses haven't
been fully checked out. And who are they marketing
it to off -label? The book suggests this included
marketing to elderly patients with dementia and
also to children with behavioral issues. Oh,
wow. Vulnerable groups. Yes. And that these efforts
allegedly involved maybe inappropriate tactics
like incentivizing doctors to prescribe it. And
the consequences. Were there side effects? Yes.
As detailed in the book, they were significant.
Risperdal was shown to have serious side effects,
especially in those groups. Like what? Reports
of increased risk of strokes, even death in elderly
patients with dementia, and issues like major
weight gain and gynecomastia, breast development
in young boys taking the drug. That's awful.
And the prolift vaginal mesh, what was the story
there? Another concerning picture. The book describes
how the company apparently kept marketing the
mesh despite early reports from surgeons about
really serious complications. Like the mesh eroding.
Exactly. Erosion into surrounding tissues. The
fact that at one medical conference, a high percentage
of surgeons reportedly raised their hands when
asked if they'd had to surgically manage mesh
erosion. Yeah. Gives you a sense of the potential
scale of the problem. That's alarming. And the
hip implants. Pinnacle. Pinnacle, metal on metal
hips. Yeah. The book details how an engineer
reportedly spotted a potential design flaw right
before they submitted it to the FDA. But they
launched it anyway. Allegedly, yes. The issue
was friction between the metal parts could release
metal debris into patients' bodies. Leading to?
Potentially devastating health problems, tissue
damage, needing revision surgeries. Yeah. Just
awful outcomes for some patients. And was this
type of metal -on -metal implant known to have
problems before? That's what's striking. The
book reports comparisons to earlier metal -on
-metal devices that had already failed significantly
in the market. Did the FDA raise flags? Apparently,
yes. The FDA reportedly raised concerns about
the pinnacle design, but J &J allegedly downplayed
them and kept marketing it aggressively. It just
it becomes almost overwhelming, doesn't it? The
sheer number of different product lines and these
repeated allegations prioritizing profits over
consumer well -being. The book really paints
a picture of a company that may be strayed pretty
far from that original trusted image. And it's
important for listeners to understand the book
also touches on the complexities of the whole
regulatory landscape. The FDA's role. Yeah, the
relationship between the FDA and these industries
is multifaceted. The book raises questions about
how effective oversight really is or was in certain
cases. Didn't the book also mention their role
in the opioid crisis? Briefly, yes. Through a
subsidiary that became a major supplier of opioid
ingredients. So not just Purdue Pharma. Right.
While Purdue and OxyContin get most of the attention,
the book points out J &J's role in supplying
raw materials and allegedly mirroring some of
Purdue's aggressive marketing tactics. It just
shows how interconnected it all is. Absolutely.
The opioid crisis wasn't just one company. It
was a whole network. Manufacturers, distributors.
J &J's position as a key supplier put them right
in that ecosystem. Even their attempt at a COVID
vaccine, which seemed like a chance to maybe
rebuild some trust. Yeah. That was hit by manufacturing
problems and safety concerns, too, as the book
details. It almost feels like a continuation
of past issues with ensuring safety and reliability.
That's a really sobering point, isn't it? Even
in a global health crisis where you'd think a
trusted health care company could shine, the
book suggests those past patterns and challenges
might have still been influential. It truly makes
you reconsider that initial image, doesn't it?
J &J as this universally benevolent corporation.
Completely. The book presents a really compelling
case for a much more complex and, yeah, sometimes
troubling reality where. The pursuit of profit
allegedly came at a significant cost. Public
health, consumer trust. And that is the key takeaway,
I think, for you, the listener. This deep dive
into J &J's history, as laid out in No More Tears,
it just raises fundamental questions. About corporate
responsibility. Yeah, and about regulatory oversight.
And just the very nature of the trust we place
in these huge corporations that directly impact
our health. our well -being. Absolutely critical
question. So if this exploration into the dark
secrets of Johnson & Johnson has intrigued you.
Which it probably has. Yeah. Please be sure to
like and subscribe. You can find a link to buy
No More Tears, The Dark Secrets of Johnson &
Johnson on Amazon right in the description below.
And we really appreciate you joining us for this
important and... frankly, thought -provoking
discussion. We'd love to hear your thoughts,
too. What was the most surprising or maybe impactful
revelation for you in this deep dive? Yeah, let
us know. Share your insights in the comments
below. And please, feel free to share this with
anyone who you think would find it valuable.
Let's keep this crucial conversation going. Definitely.
Your comments, your shares, they really help
broaden the discussion and bring these important
issues to more people. So here's a final thought.
Knowing what we've uncovered today. What does
it make you reconsider about the trust we place
in major corporations, particularly those that
have such a direct impact on our health? Something
to chew on. It's definitely something to keep
in mind. Thanks for listening, everyone.