The record
A July 1973 internal FDA memorandum summarised Lewin's analysis, as FDA consultant, of 195 samples: definite chrysotile indications in 17 samples (many also with tremolite) and tremolite without chrysotile in a further 18; roughly 10 percent of samples had definitely detectable chrysotile or tremolite. In October 1973 FDA cosmetics division director Heinz Eiermann recorded poor correlation between Lewin's results and other investigators'.
Claim scope
The quantified 1973 federal-consultant result (195 samples, 17 + 18 positives, ~10 percent) and the immediately-following official record of inter-laboratory disagreement. Both sides of the measurement dispute are in the same opinion.
What this source does not establish
The ~10 percent figure is Lewin's, and the same opinion records the FDA's own division director stating the chrysotile findings “could not be confirmed with certainty by the other investigators”. Reporting the 10 percent without the non-confirmation would misrepresent the record.
Limitations
McNeal is the most valuable opinion in this set for timeline purposes because the court sets out the internal documents in an explicitly dated month-by-month chronology (headings 'a. August 1971' through 's. May 1977'). CRITICAL COUNTERWEIGHT: the court REVERSED the punitive damages award, holding the same evidence did not establish malice, oppression or fraud. Any use of McNeal must carry that disposition. The documents are verified as recounted; the culpability inference was rejected by this court. Note a cross-opinion discrepancy: Strobel describes 'a 1972 FDA-sponsored study by Professor Seymour Lewin ... examining “195 standard, commercial cosmetic talc products”' whereas McNeal attaches the 195-sample figure to the July 1973 FDA memorandum and the 102-product figure to 1972. Both are published opinions. Do NOT state a single date for 'the Lewin 195-sample study' — describe it as reported in 1972-73 and cite both.
Source
Case Citation — McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, No. B313472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Div. 8, July 5, 2022) (published; reporter cite UNVERIFIED)