Interview with Gardiner Harris, author of The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson

The Hindu

17-07-2025

It's difficult to read Gardiner Harris' book at a stretch, only, and only because there are portions where you have to set it down and take a breather, and sigh. It is because the events of the book haunt you, turn you inside out and sometimes have you bristling with anger, the pages shaking in your hand. The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson, sometimes, is a drop down a rabbit hole on the dark side of the moon.
The book is a hard hitting expose on what went on at J&J, the pharma major, and it uncovers the secrets across the company's repertoire of drugs and products from baby powder, Tylenol, Risperdal (antipsychotic), EPO (a cancer drug), metal-on-metal hip implants, among others, all adversely impacting the health of users. Chillingly, the company continued to market them, fully cognisant of the harmful effects. In a conversation, Harris, an investigative reporter himself, describes the Herculean task he took on, and what he was up against.
In conversation with Gardiner Harris
Among all the violations that you have chronicled, what did you think was the most egregious?
J&J, early on, would find out that its product was dangerous, and would hide those dangers not only from the public, but from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and other regulatory agencies, knowing that it could result in a number of deaths. I estimate that at least 2 million Americans alone died from using J&J products. So it really is hard to rank order. But the worst of the worst, just in terms of sheer numbers, would probably be Risperdal. Epidemiological analysis shows that it is probably one of the most deadly drugs that has ever been sold in the U.S. It is sold to children, even though it causes boys to grow breasts and young girls to express milk. And again, the company hid those risks, lied about them in publications.
You have written about how you grew up in a J&J town. How did you move on from that to investigating the company?
I spent part of my growing up years in Princeton, New Jersey, right next to New Brunswick, where J&J is headquartered. There was a sense, growing up, that it was really a capitalistic ideal -- this was a company that both did well financially and did good in in society, and that it was seen as a sort of mom, apple pie and America all rolled into one. So when I first got the pharmaceutical beat, when I worked for The Wall Street Journal, I expected to have a wonderful time covering J&J. But my interactions with them were just the opposite and it surprised me that they were the least open with reporters, the most secretive.
When the AIDS crisis in Africa hit at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century, the scandal around the pricing of drugs led many U.S. pharma companies to agree to allow generics companies to sell drugs in Africa. J&J was the only major manufacturer of AIDS drugs that refused to allow that. I couldn't believe it. I thought there must be some mistake, but in story after story, the image of this company ended up being entirely the opposite of what we had believed so long.
It probably hit me hardest when my own first son was born. He was born early and ended up spending days in the NICU. Soon after, I got a whole bunch of documents on J&J's heartburn drug Propulsid. Even though the company had done 20 clinical trials in children and infants, each one of which had failed to show that there was a benefit; the company nonetheless underwrote a marketing programme to sell them to infants. Not only did this drug not help these children, but it caused a QT prolongation, which is a heart arrhythmia, and for newborns, and particularly for preemies, a heart arrhythmia can be fatal.
What was J&J's response to the book?
I did cover the company for many years, I knew a lot of the executives and I certainly knew how to reach out to the company. As soon as I got the contract for this book, I told them that I'm writing this book and I would love for them to participate in it. But J&J had the same reaction it had had throughout my career -- which is to stonewall, not talk to me, not participate, and hope the story goes away.
Did you, at some time, feel a bit like Erin Brockovich?
I never looked that good; it's tough competing with Julia Roberts! But what was difficult about this process was just how dark it was, and how depressing the work often was. I spent more than five years writing this book and I go to church quite regularly. I found that I really needed that outlet throughout this process, even more than normal because I found I needed to appeal to God to help me through this, because you can lose hope. For me, it's just a very dark tale and I am thrilled, and surprised, actually, that it's gotten as many readers as it has.
Do you think that the FDA, as a regulatory agency, could have done better?
The portrait I paint of the FDA is one of real feckless disregard for protecting the public. Unfortunately, the FDA is largely funded by drug makers by what are known as user fees. The result of that is that the FDA has become captive to the very industry that it regulates. When I talk about baby powder, for instance, people had petitioned the FDA repeatedly to mandate a cancer warning on all products with talcum powder, and this would have included Johnson's baby powder. The FDA refused to answer those petitions until finally J&J lost its first baby powder case, and then suddenly, the FDA had to answer these petitions; it did so in the negative and claimed that the baby powder was fine.
In the U.S., it was the drug kingpin when it came to opioids and the FDA got a lot of criticism of its oversight of opioids. To deal with that criticism, the agency actually hired a former FDA commissioner who served on the board of directors for J&J for the previous dozen years. So, to advise the agency on how to deal with this crisis that was created by J&J, it hired a top J&J person!
How did you decide on your chosen style for the book, an engaging, but investigative journalistic piece?
I have to say, you know, as I said, the book was nearly twice as long and I ended up hiring an editor to help me not only on the decisions about which products to include in the end, but also about the style. The original version of the book had had more personal stuff and my years as a reporter covering the company. But my editors thought the reader needed a really neutral voice in telling this story. The only way that it can work is to be told in a very low-key, neutral way.
In your view, was there was a turning point when J&J could have reversed things?
I really think it was that period in the early 1980s and perhaps the late 1970s. It was Johnson's baby powder in particular, that provided the ladder down which the company itself descended into real darkness.
The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson Gardiner Harris Ebury Press ₹899
[e-mail]