No. Why is that . Theres no safe level of asbestos period. Its a carcinogen. Its a type one carcinogen and there should be no exposure. Just this past year, johnson and johnson ceo was asked whether asbestos is safe. He stated quote, i would agree that asbestos is considered unsafe. Im not an expert geologist or safety expert in that area but we would say yeah, its not safe. On october 18th, the fda announced it detected asbestos in j and j talcum powder. Whats the significance of this . To this day theyre finding asbestos when they go off the shelf. Its putting thousands, if not millions of people at risk in the future. Dr. Longo. Thats correct. Those rulesults verify our resus of finding asbestos in the products in the chinese mind chr mine which is the mine being used today. You tested historical samples. Yes. From what decade . From the 40s up to the 2000s as well as the current johnson and johnson products. What did you find . Overall, 65 of all the samples we tested were positive for regulated asbestos. Did you use the same asbestos detection methods as j and j . No, sir, we did not. How did they differ . We used what is called a heavy liquid separation technique which makes the analysis a lot more sensitive. Do you believe that sensitivity is essential to detecting asbestos and talc . Absolutely. Has johnson and johnson ever acknowledged any detection tests that have concludesed the company samples contain asbestos . Not that im aware of. Youve tested40s through today. Correct. Using this hls method of detection. In those tests you determined 65 of those samples contain asbest asbestos. On the other hand johnson and johnson has never acknowledged that any of their samples contain asbestos. How could that be . Not currently we havent. Certainly some of their dtestin of consul tantantss in the past. They dont acknowledge it. They say what were testing is not asbestos. Why does that matter . Well, on our side it doesnt matter were following regulated protocols to identify asbestos identified by epa, osha as well as the National Standards organization. Its defining what the definition is. Its misleading, at best. As you know on october 18th, fda announced its contract lab found asbestos in the talcum powder. Did they use the hls method . They did not. What kind of method did they use . I would call it the standard method where you have to find a needle in a hay stack. Every now and then youll find that needle and its rare. Theyve had a rare event, in my opinion. They found the needle in this particular bottle. What would have happened had they used the hls detection which is much more sensitive . If they used that method in its current state, they would not have found the asbestos which is what the method is really designed for. They are both regulated. The significance is the current products are being sold with trace amounts of asbestos in it. Either one would be carcinogenic . Thats not my air. I think dr. Molin would tell you either one is. You want to tell us. All of the forms are carcinogenic. Let me now congresswoman miller for five minutes. The Oversight Committee has long played an important part of overseeing the role government plays in protecting the public. Congress has mandated the food and Drug Administration be the responsible one for regulating certain products, including consumer cosmetics that use talc. While the committee has the jurisdiction to complete this oversight on the possibility of asbestos and talcs todays hearing does nothing to accomplish that goal. Johnson and johnson has provided over 10,000 pages of material to the committee on their asbestos testing methods and have offered to provide over 300,000 more. More colleagues on the other side of the aisle declined to receive them. Johnson and johnson has also offered to have its own experts in asbestos testing appear in front of this committee to provide real documentation and evidence and again has been unfortunately denied. This hearing does not help consumers and it is neither the right form nor the fair process needed to have this important conversation. It is inappropriate for this committee to attempt to influence ongoing litigation. Todays hearing is not the role of this committee and i look forward to the opportunity to perform the oversight duties that the American People elected us to do in order to keep us safe. Dr. Longo, is it true in the early 2000s you testified under oath that talc containing asbestos was an urban legend . Yes, i did. What has changed since then in. What has changed since then is we have been using a much more sensitive method. That was at the time we did not receive or have the opportunity to look at thousands of thousands of johnson and johnson confidential documents showing their own testing of their own products and their own lines had regulated asbestos in it. We were not using the most sensitive techniques. Since that time in three years we have analyzed over 109 johnson and johnson bottles and found 65 of them for regulated asbestos using heavy liquid density separation. How long has that testing been available . It was initially been available since for johnson and johnson when their consultants in 1973 and 1974 developed a heavy liquid density separation method. In 2001, when asked if you were familiar with the asbestos content of sort of like an urba legend about talcs containing term light. Ive never been able to verify that. Yes, maam, i did say that back in 2001. Again, thats before we received all the confidential documents from Johnson Johnson showing that they had a heavy liquid density method separation process that was presented to em in 73 and 74. Have you ever visited a talc mine that supplies Johnson Johnson product . No, maam, i havent. Has your lab ever tested a Johnson Johnson product that has been confirmed positive for asbestos . Yes, we have tested many Johnson Johnson products that we have confirmed positive for asbestos, as well as other laboratories. Dr. Moline, in your written testimony, you cite a study by dr. Victor rogley, but dr. Rogley says that cosmetic talc does not cause cancer, is that correct . Im not sure what study youre referring to. The study i was referring to was from early work he did where he analyzed the lung tissue of women with mesothelioma. This was in 2019. Specifically, in august of 2019, dr. Rogley stated that he and his fellow researchers identify no evidence of any causative role of cosmetic talc in malignant mesothelioma. I think that doctors may disagree on that. And i think the weight of the evidence is to the contrary. But hes entitled to his opinion. Thank you. I yield back my time. Thank you, congresswoman miller. Now, congresswoman pressley, you have five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. And respectfully, i disagree with my colleague across the aisle. I think this is the very exact vehicle and forum where this sort of oversight is supposed to take place. This is the committee where we pursue truth and justice for the American People. And there has been a great injustice done to many. And so im grateful for the hearing today. I find it insulting to this committee and to the men and women across this country whose trust in Johnson Johnson has destroyed their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Today, we have heard brave testimony from people like pastor etheridge. And let me say what mr. Gorski wouldnt. Im sorry. Im sorry for the pain you have endu endured because you put your trust in a company that placed profits over your very life and safety. When Johnson Johnson asked people to trust them, the fda should have said, show us. Show us that your products arent hazardous. And when they refused to do this, when research showed asbestos was showing up in their talcum baby powder, Johnson Johnson tried to discredit it. They looked for ways to sell more of it. And they set their sights on black and hispanic women. Mr. Gorski, i hope you are watching today. Because we still want answers. And thats exactly why representative of illinois and i earlier submitted a letter that we plan submitted a letter so that we can continue to get to the bottom of this. And to demand answers and accountability for those who have been harmed by Johnson Johnson. Because of their companys greed. And they deserve to be held accountable. Pastor etheridge, i know you had to step away from the pulpit. But i could argue, as a woman of faith, that your ministry continues. As evidence by your testimony here today. Could you share with us, what were your initial symptoms . My initial symptoms were unexplained weight loss. I never lost weight by accident in my entire life. I had fever, shortness of breath, and fatigue. And so and was there a was there any other context around this . Were you going on a trip or something . We were on vacation in hawaii and had some was taking antibiotics. And my symptoms, instead of getting better, were getting worse. And so we went to an e. R. And i was diagnosed with cancer at that time. It was later determined upon my return home that it was mesothelioma. Thank you. I have some more questions, and due to the interest of time, if youll please try to answer them as succinctly as possible. Preferably, with a yes or no answer. Did you consult additional doctors when you returned from vacation . Yes. Did your doctor discuss with you the causes of mesothelioma . Yes. Have you ever been exposed to asbestos in your profession as a pastor . No. How long have you been a pastor . I was a pastor for 33 years. How often in adulthood would you use Johnson Johnsons talcum baby powder . And for what purpose . Maybe two or three times a week to powder my genitals after i showered. Common. Again, im so sorry for the pain you have endured. As a lawmaker, i know the power of having those closest to the pain driving our policy solutions, as well as the the general accountability given the jurisdiction or reach of this committee. So just for the record, and you spoke to this in your earlier testimony but i think it bears repeating, pastor etheridge, do you believe Johnson Johnsons talcbased baby powder caused your mesothelioma . Yes, i am a convinced of that. And if you ever the opportunity to make policy changes to prevent other people from using products that cause mesothelioma, what would you do . At the very least, we should regulate the use of talc or add warning labels to the products. But ideally, we need to get the stuff off the shelves. All right. Well, well certainly do everything we can to ensure justice for you and your family. God bless you. Thank you. Thank you and i yield. Thank you, congresswoman. Im going to use the remainder of your time for a couple questions here. Dr. Longo, when was the first known reporting of asbestos in j j talcum powder made public . I keep forgetting. First reporting was only recently public. And was that finding conducted by an independent lab . Yes, sir, it was. And let me ask you this. In response to a couple questions that you were asked. I think that they they mentioned that earlier in 2001, you had indicated that you werent aware of asbestos in talc powder. But then after reviewing documentary evidence, as well as conducting additional tests, you then learned of the presence of asbestos in talc powder. Do you want to say anything more about that . Yes. It was early on and as scientists, we keep our minds open. And in the there was a published paper in 20142015. And then i became interested in it. And then finally, in 2016, decided to go ahead. But had to look for a more sensitive method. And thats where the liquid heavy density separation method came in. Thank you, dr. Longo. Now, i will recognize mr. Grothman for five minutes. Thank you. This is a very interesting committee on oversight. You never know what youre going to get a different topic every day. Im a little bit disappointed here and ill say this because, of course, people back home are watching. This is being filmed and we have four people testifying today. As i understand it, and of course, you know, we sometimes meet with people in our offices prior to these hearings. Johnson johnson had an expert they wanted to have testify. I understand Majority Party wanted mr. Gorki i think was his name, the ceo, to testify. But not surprising, Johnson Johnson wanted a expert. And i see we have three doctors testifying today. They wanted their own expert to be able to testify. There are usually two sides to every story. I think their expert was a woman by the name of kathy widmer. And for whatever motivation, kathy is not here today. She was not allowed to testify. And i think its disappointing because i came here open minded. I wanted to hear both sides of the story. I assume theres both sides to the story. As i understand it, there are four or five times in which an Appellate Court has ruled on this situation. And all four or five times, theyve ruled in favor of Johnson Johnson. Now, im as jaded about courts as anybody. But i assume that when people have when judges have time to review briefs, maybe read hundreds of pages on this topic. And they decide against the plaintiffs, theres something there. There is a story that i should be able to hear. And i resent a little bit of the fact that im not able to hear that story. I dont think its out of line for Johnson Johnson to say we dont want our ceo to testify. We have three doctors testifying. We want our own doctor. But we didnt hear their own doctor. And ill ill just say, one more time, that thats disappointing. And in case anybody is paying attention to this hearing paying attention to hearing at home, for our homeviewing audience, that they are aware that were getting one side of the story today. Ill plunge ahead with that one side. And and see what i can hear from these folks. As i understand it, four or five times, on appeal, judges decided that plaintiffs did not have a Strong Enough case or ruled against plaintiffs. I have other questions, too, but ill ask because we dont have the people on Johnson Johnson side here, could i ask, say, dr. Longo, why, on appeal, does Johnson Johnson seem to keep winning these cases . I keep doing that. And, again, my understanding is the appeal had to do with jurisdiction. Issues. Not anything to do with the science. And thats just my understanding. Okay. And they sometimes won before juries, as well. Again, juries dont always get it right but theyre juries who listen to all the evidence. Not just, you know, fiveminute questions from congressmen. And they are sometimes deciding that Johnson Johnson has not done anything wrong on these cases. Dr. Longo, and i i hope this isnt true but, you know, were provided some stuff in advance here. You own a company mas over have 75 in mas, is that true . Yes, sir, i do. Okay. And mas makes money testifying or providing evidence before trials of this nature. Yes we do provide experts that bill for their time. Yeah. Could i find out how much on these cases, how much you billed out total to to claim that Johnson Johnson is negligent in these cases . I believe mas has billed for all its research and development and and Sample Analysis and 100,000 . A million . Ten million . 30 million . There are all sorts of numbers around out there. How much have you guys, about, billed out on this on this matter . I would estimate, in the two years, 2017, 2018, and 2019, i would estimate somewhere a million. Million point two. I think. Thats an estimate. Now, somebody gave me something. Maybe theyre lying. Theyre saying total mas may have billed out as much as 30 million. But youre saying its only 1 or 2 million . Well, thats two different questions. Mas started in 1988. And for 31 years, weve probably we have we have averaged a Million Dollars in litigation. But you have to understand, were a 20,000 square foot laboratory. I understand you got expenses. When people tell me that you mightve billed out 30 million to to take a side on this matter, are they lying to me . Or is it about 30 million . I wont call somebody a liar but thats just not true. If i had billed, personally, 30 million, i think not personally. The company. If the company has billed the company has not billed 30 million involved with Johnson Johnson. 20 million . Total . I would say maybe 1. 5 million. Thank you much. I hope someday we do have a chance to hear from ms. Widmer. Well, thank you. And the minority always has the option to provide witness. They declined to do so today. Nobody. Now, were going to call on congresswoman tlaib for five minutes. Thank you so much, chairman. I do sincerely appreciate you using this committee to kind of elevate the voices of people like the pastor here and others that have been impacted. I think its really hard for me to sometimes sit here and hear folks, you know, kind of be the the defendant lawyers for the corporations. I mean, how much money, millions and billions of dollars, did Johnson Johnson make in poisoning people . I mean, literally, why arent we asking that question . Because i you cant get away from the facts. Fda found asbestos in baby powder. Now, remember, its baby powder. Its not even just regular powder. Its baby powder. Not only that, they later on, furthermore, reports state that the asbestos was detected in one of the texts Johnson Johnson itself conducted using sample from the same bottle as the okay. Fact. Okay . Fda is coming to us saying this. Are we going to say is fda getting paid . No. These are folks coming there and trying to protect the public. That is our job. That is our job to protect the public. Reports show that Johnson Johnson contracted with rg lee labs rj lee reportedly deviated from its standard testing procedures in order to deliver rushed results at the request of the company. Check this out. In rj lee scientist stated that Johns Johnson and johnson wanted, quote, very rapid turnaround for obvious reasons. Then the lab found asbestos in its sample but later retracted its results and claimed that initial false detection was due to environmental contaminants in one of its testing rooms. Johnson johnson discredited its own company that they hired and contracted out. They discredited rj lees initial finding blaming the asbestos detection on all kinds of stuff that is, you know, what we say in detroit, b. S. Dr. Longo, have you evaluated this particular rj lee testing port . Yes, i have. I mean, do you do you see whats the problem here . I mean, they found asbestos, correct . They detected asbestos in the actual talc samples. And then their controls or blanks, when they were analyzed, they did not detect asbestos. And samples of a bottle of Johnson Johnson baby powder have tested positive in two separate labs, correct . I know yes, in the ama lab, as well as the rj lee lab. And Johnson Johnson proceeds to accuse both labs of being contaminated with asbestos. I know. Dr. Longo, i mean, wow like, i am just you know, ive only been here a year. But some i am just so taken aback that my colleagues dont even see it. I cant even make this stuff up. This is factual. I cant even make it up. These fda folks. Theyre not republicans or democrats. Theyre government officials that are doing their jobs, right, pastor . I mean, thats what theyre supposed to be doing. Theyre public servants. Theyre doing exactly what they were hired to do which is protect the public. And i am just taken aback that my colleagues who represent each of us, represent close to 700,000 people back home, that doesnt expect us to be defendant lawyers for Johnson Johnson. Who have basically poisoned people. They expect us to defend them. To protect them. And we have to be realize like how much money did they make off of the human suffering of people . My god, pastor. 33 years pastoring people. You know, i hope this is this, for you is you are continuing your work for the people by by talking about this in in the very profound way through your own personal experience. But i am just, you know, chairman, i cannot stress enough just how important it is that this committee is used for good. And thats exactly what were doing. Were sharing exactly what is happening to people because of this. And they want to come up with these kinds of little conspiracy theories and all this other stuff. The fact of the matter is, fda found asbestos in the testing. Two companies that Johnson Johnson hired found asbestos. How much more testing do our people need . How much more . Enough is enough. And so i just urge my colleagues to support the chairman as he proceeds to find the truth. And im tell you ive been here. They have every opportunity to bring their own witness forward. I actually went and asked staff whos their witness . They said they dont have one. They had every opportunity. The republicans. T to actually put somebody up o here to talk about this. So i am obviously very passionate about this. I can just tell you i have the third poorest Congressional District in the country. Very strong, resilient people. They are the people that got targeted by Johnson Johnson. Theyre the ones that they thought was disposable for profits. So im not gonna keep my mouth shut or try to say, well, this aint fair. No. If the fda found asbestos, shouldnt that be enough . Thank you, chairman. Thank you congresswoman tlaib. Wear just going to go to a second round of questions and then finish up here. It is true. The minority did not call a single witness. Whether it was from Johnson Johnson or anybody. So they had the opportunity and they declined. And, of course, as we know, the ceo has opined on this issue multiple times. Hell go to the media. Hell go in other fora and and talk about this. But he doesnt want to talk about it in congress. And thats a problem. Now, let me just ask a couple more questions here. Mr. Etheridge, at the time that you had used Johnson Johnsons baby powder, did you have any inkling whatsoever about this presence of asbestos in its powder . There was no reason for me to suspect this hazard. Theyre known as the baby company. In fact, they advertise the powder in a way that makes it seem like its as pure as any any material out there. And obviously, thats why moms and families apply it to babies, right . I used it on my own children. Sure. I did, too. And i think that i hear some of my colleagues saying the same thing. And i think generations of families have used it. Around the world. Dr. Longo, you know, i wanted to ask you a little more about your testimony with regard to your own practice. I think the other side wants to make a big deal out of your prior testimony. Would you like to comment on, i think, their suggestion that somehow your testimony is really motivated by money as opposed to what youve discovered in your scientific testing . No. Our practice is not motivated by money. We do participate in litigation. But our company testifies for both plaintiffs and defendants over the last 30 years. We have to charge for our time. We we have to pay for the electron microscopes. We have to pay for the optical microscopes. We have to pay the rent. Im not sure a lot of these folks understand what it takes to run a small business. We we go with every type of analysis we do with the utmost integrity. I had no idea, back in the day, that cosmetic talcs would have this kind of asbestos levels in them. It wasnt until i got interested in it and realized that it was the detection limits that was the problem. That the trace amounts of asbestos in the detection limits was causing all the labs who were analyzing it at the time to think there was nothing there. Using the best detection method, they were now seeing these minerals are there. And you cant predict when youll find it or not. Its almost almost ambiguous. The only way to get rid of the problem and to assure, in my opinion, that there is no more exposures to this is to eliminate talc from these cosmetic products. Okay. Dr. Moline, its pretty clear that mesothelioma can only be caused by one material. And that is asbestos, correct . Thats basically true. Theres some evidence that folks who have undergone therapeutic radiation may be at increased risk. We theres no studies that look at the combination of those two. There are some folks that have had both. And is at increased risk. In terms of outside products, in the united states, asbestos is the only product that were aware of that causes mesothelioma. Although, there is some question of some other minerals. I see. But its about 99 or more. Okay. And, dr. Metcalf, i think that you talked about the mineral mining and i think maybe some of my colleagues will talk about this a little bit further. But talc and asbestos are naturally occurring, together, correct . Thats correct. Its like you cant mine talc without mining asbestos in the same process. Well, i i did outline a very narrow set of conditions where talc might be produced without at least amphorable without asbestos. But most of the geologic settings where talc forms, we very much expect to find asbestos with it because it is the amphorable minerals. Let me add that these processes are taking place almost at the atomic scale that these minerals are growing. But we are mining this stuff with drills and frontend loaders and blasting and dump trucks. And so to be able to assure, the way dr. Longo does, that that that the material were mining is free of this, we need to test lots of it because theres lots of heterogeneities, too. We may test one sample and it may be pure talc. We may test another sample and it could have asbestos in it. And so its the heterogeneities that make this a real problem. Very good. Now, ill recognize congresswoman pressley for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to say i associate myself with the impassioned detroit tell it like it is comments of representative tlaib a moment ago. And completely disassociate myself with the comments offered by my colleague across the aisle. I find that i have that dual experience often on this committee of comparable pride of our honoring the words of our late chairman in being in efficient and effective pursuit of the truth. And simultaneous shame with all of the efforts to obstruct the work of this committee to get to the truth. But since there was a desire expressed earlier to center the science, id like to ask some line of questioning in line with that. It is reported that Johnson Johnsons talc tested positive for asbestos as far back as 1957 and 1958. Yet, on more than one occasion, labs have tested samples from the same bottle of Johnson Johnsons talcbased powder and come to different conclusions. As representative tlaib mentioned in her impassioned testimony or statement, Johnson Johnson commissioned its own studies with samples from the same bottle. And predictably, announced their samples tested negative for asbestos. Notably, Johnson Johnsons own commissioned lab also detected asbestos in one of the companys samples. Yet, later, attributed the false positive to environmental contaminants of an air conditioning unit. Dr. Longo, how are divergent detection results possible when two samples from the same bottle are tested for asbestos . If you have trace levels and youre using a unsensitive method, you can have where one sample will be detected. And then another, you may not see that. So its very hard to say, especially if you have a laboratory that did detect it, then didnt detect it. So cant really compare apples to apples here. Mr. Metcalf, geologically, how closely related are talc and asbestos . Very closely related. As i said, many of the reactions that form talc, the metamorphic reactions that form talc, are breaking down amphorable under the kinds of conditions that make them fibrous. And i will say i actually came to this not to look at talc not because i was interested in talc. But because i was interested in understanding why amphorables, which are sometimes fibrous and sometimes not fibrous. And as i started to do literature review, and there is a lot of papers published in the 70s and 80s and into the early 90s that looked at this with High Resolution microscopes. And i kept running into textures and understanding that we went from nonfibrous to fibrous amphorable to talc. And thats what really got me interested and i really wasnt paying attention to the talc stories until i kept running into this in the literature. And so, yes, asbestos and talc are linked by geologic processes. And so talc and asbestos evolve from the same protolith . Yes, thats correct. Okay. And so what environmental processes cause the protolith to evolve into asbestos in talc . The process thats involved in this most the time as i talked about is something called hydrothermal alteration. Its a type of metamorphism when a preexisting rock, the protolith is subject to different temperature. And particularly, fluid flow. So over the course of the metamorphism, fluids are passing through the rock. And its the reaction of those fluids with the protolith that drives these processes. All these minerals are hydrous minerals. Right. And ill add one thing is that that, again, i said this in my opening statement. We often talk about asbestos as being a contaminant in the talc as though it were fell out of a air conditioner, for instance. Its some foreign body that was introduced. But the reality is the way that talc forms, it forms the road to talc leads through amphorable is and amphorable asbestos. So it is a relic of the geologic process, not a contaminant from some foreign body. Just to be clear, this will be my final question. So is is it the case and accurate to say then, talc cannot reliably be asbestos free . Well, i wouldnt go quite that far. There there are some, as i said, there are some reactions that have the potential. And its been reported that theyre asbestos free versions. Theres a mine in montana. However, i dont think anybodys ever tested it to the sensitivity that bill longo has been discussing. So i think, of the ones that people say are asbestos free, i think thats not been demonstrated. I think the the the responsibility is to is to do the best testing possible and make sure that these things are asbestos free. But i would i would be surprised if we could find anything thats asbestos free. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congresswoman. And now, congresswoman tlaib, five minutes. Thank you so much, chairman. I do want to submit, for the record, if theres no no objection. Mother jones article where it shows that Johnson Johnson has poured money into directly influencing federal lawmakers. So far this year, the company has spent 100,000. Mr. Chairman, i would like to submit the article. Without objection, so ordered. Also, i would like to submit a press statement from the Michigan Attorney general, dana nestle, who announced a 3 million share of multistate settlement with Johnson Johnson. According to is that okay . Without objection, so ordered. Thank you, chairman. But according to the statement, it looks like Johnson Johnson and its subsidiaries to pay over 3 million for their deceptive marketing of transvaginal surgical mesh devices. The total multistate settlement is nearly 116. 9 million. I just want to show a pattern of this company. And i know it has but this is very critically important to show. Now, they actually have subsidiaries so that we have to now worry about whether or not in those instances that theyre exposing people to devices and to chemicals that are very toxic and harmful. I know that weve been talking a lot about testing, which i think is really critically important because it gives credibility to the pastors claim, as well as others who are come forward and said, you know, im sick because of being exposed to this product. The in 2009 and 2010, the fda conducted a survey of products for asbestos testing and records show that fda selected ama labs to conduct its testing for all three surveys. Then just last month, ama detected asbestos in a sample of Johnson Johnsons talc powder. In its public its request for quote. Solicitation for asbestos testing. It is now apparent that detection of asbestos in cosmetics demands using the most sensitive asbestostesting methods available. Dr. Longo, your lab conducts these kinds of testing. Do you are you familiar with this at all . Im familiar with that i have a big note that says push talk button. Oh, that was me the first month, sir. So dont worry about it. Im very familiar with the testing. Im very familiar with the request for proposal and im very familiar with the detection limits that ama has for the analysis they did in 2010. Yeah. So does ama labs, the lab fda consistently contracted with since 2009, employ what you consider the most sensitive asbestos testing methods available . No, theyre not. Their 2010 work for fda, their detection limit was approximately 10,000 excuse me, 10 million asbestos fibers per gram of talc to find one fiber. Wow. Would fda have detected asbestos in these samples earlier in the time if they used more sensitive detection methods . In my opinion, yes. Is there a Scientific Consensus as to which asbestos detection method is most sensitive . I believe the consensus would be that the heavy liquid density separation for electron microscopy. It is a standard method now for the interNational Standards organization that has a specific section especially for talc using this method that was published in 2014. Why is it essential to use the most sensitive methods . I mean, its clear to me, so we can find it, right . And also, i believe because its hard to grasp around the fact that if you have something that is at trace levels, you can still have hundreds of millions of asbestos fibers in there because theyre so small and weigh so little. And do you believe the heavy liquid density separation method, which was just talked about, is the most sensitive method available . And youre saying internationally, thats whats been seen as the the the process. Yes, i do. So and just to get a little more deeper and i cant believe this is this is stuff that my son would love. My 14yearold. This is out of my area. I just know if somebodys harmful, i just want to be able to speak up for them. But how does the sensitivity of high liquid density separation method detect asbestos in samples that would otherwise test negative for asbestos . Well, if you have a a detection limit of 10 million to 14 million, that would eliminate almost 95 of the samples that we found that were positive if we had to have that detection limit. The heavy liquid sensitive separation method, we have been able to increase that sensitivity between 2,000 and 3,000 times. Thats why were now seeing what people have not been seeing in the past. Thank you so much, chairman. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you so much, congresswoman. And thank you to all the witnesses for coming here today. Thank you to the audience members for being present for this very important hearing. Id like to thank our witnesses for their testimony. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witnesses, to the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for responses. I ask our witnesses to, please, respond as promptly as you are able. This hearing is adjourned. Coming up on cspan3, a look at what it would take to require paid family and medical leave. And later, a discussion about how government surveillance works and the possible implications for your privacy. Weeknights this week, we are featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight, we focus on the vietnam war with the traveling exhibit waging peace in vietnam. A panel of activists discuss the Health Problems associated with the toxic chemical. Also, historian christian and peace activist cora weiss talk about civilian peace initiatives during the war. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. The impeachment of president trump. Watch unfiltered coverage of the senate trial on cspan2, live as it happens and sameday reairsmereair. Listen on the go using the free cspan radio app. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has b n providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. , and around the country. So you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan. Your unfiltered view of government. Up next, a hearing examines National Paid family and medical leave. Witnesses offer their ideas on making it a national requirement. This hearing by the House Oversight and Reform Committee is about three hours