Fw: When Is Enough Enough?

[Guest guest]

I think Mr. Bernstein needs to HEAR US NOW!!!

Blessings,

MM / NSIF

----- Original Message ----- From: Myrl Jeffcoat

myrlj@...

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 1:33 AM

Subject: When Is Enough Enough?

Any of you guys wanna give Mr. Bernstein a hollar???Myrl- - -http://www.fed-soc.org/when-litv2i3.htmWhen Is Enough Enough? E. Bernstein*Even in these times of budget surpluses, there never seems to be quiteenough money for research into breast cancer. AIDS, prostate cancer, andother modern plagues. So why do California Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep.Gene Green of Houston, Texas, want to force the National Institutes ofHealth to waste millions of dollars on unnecessary studies of the healtheffects of breasts implants?The answer appears to be that they are acting at the behest of trial lawyersrepresenting women with breast implants. These lawyers will lose billions ofdollars in future legal fees if they fail to keep alive their claim thatbreast implants cause immune system disease. The problem the attorneys faceis that overwhelming scientific evidence contradicts that claim. Studiesconducted at Harvard University, the Mayo Clinic, s Hopkins, andsimilarly prestigious institutions have all found no connection betweenbreast implants and immune system disease.Recently, an Independent Review Group appointed by the British governmentconcluded, after reviewing dozens of scientific studies, that there is noevidence that breast implants cause immune system disease. The Review Groupconcluded that no further epidemiological studies on this issue arejustified. Case closed.The Institute of Medicine and a scientific panel appointed by a federaljudge are due to come out with their own reports this year. Everyone expectstheir conclusions will be similar to the British report.Unfortunately, while the scientific controversy over the safety of implantsis ending, the legal proceedings stagger on. Despite a recent globalsettlement by Dow Corning, hundreds of plaintiffs still have cases pendingagainst other manufacturers. The Boxer/Green bill is simply the latestskirmish in the trial lawyers' efforts to keep the breast implant litigationalive. Ten years ago, when the litigation over breast implants began inearnest, most plaintiffs claimed that the implants caused breast cancer.Scientific studies soon convincingly rebutted this theory, and the cancercases slowly disappeared. Trial lawyers then began filing lawsuits allegingthat their clients contracted immune system diseases such as lupus andrheumatoid arthritis from breast implants. After some initial successes, aseries of scientific studies were published rebutting that claim as well.Juries became increasingly skeptical of breast implant cases.The trial lawyers, however, did not give up. They began to argue that breastimplants cause "atypical" immune disorders, creating a variety of symptoms.The beauty of the atypical theory - from the trial lawyers' perspective - isthat it bought them time while scientists struggled with the difficult taskof figuring out how to study whether women with implants have purporteddisorders previously unknown to medicine.Unfortunately for the trial lawyers, the atypical disease theory has not wonany support in the scientific community, except for their own highly-paidexpert witnesses. Indeed, the recently released British study concluded that"good evidence for the existence of atypical connective tissue disease orundefined conditions such as `silicone poisoning' is lacking." Despite thescientific consensus that there is no good evidence that implants cause anytype of disease, and much evidence that they do not, many judges are stillletting the trial lawyers bring their cases to trial. While most jurors areconscientious, they are not scientifically-trained, and are inclined to givethe benefit of the doubt to an injured plaintiff. As long as trial lawyerscan make it appear as though a scientific controversy remains, they have achance to persuade juries to award damages to their clients.Even if 80 percent of juries continue to find in favor of the implantmanufacturers, the trial lawyers will still profit. After all, the averagesuccessful breast implant plaintiff has won several million dollars, and herlawyers take a third of that. The threat of these occasional victories hasbeen enough to persuade the implant manufacturers to pay out billions ofdollars in settlements. The only way to end the implant litigation once andfor all is to allow the scientific controversy over implants to run itscourse. In the absence of political interference such as the Boxer/Greenbill, it appears that implants will soon be exonerated from charges thatthey cause disease. Unfortunately, trial lawyers and the politicians whorely on them for support have a vested interest in keeping the breastimplant controversy alive.Of course, supports of the Boxer/Green bill claim to be advocating forwomen's health but this raises the question: How will spending taxpayermoney to keep alive claims based on junk science promote women's health?* Bernstein is Professor of Evidence at Mason Univesity Schoolof Law and co-author of Phantom Risk: Scientific Inferences And The Law.