Fw: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~ Newsletter

[Guest guest]

From: " Adella (by way of ilena rose) " <adellaem@...>

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:22 PM

Subject: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~ Newsletter>

> I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY

>

> 102 - 6086 Boundary Drive West

> Surrey, B.C., Canada V3X 2B3

>

> Telephone: (604) 572-8486

>

> Website: http://www.info-implants.com/BC/index.html

>

> e-mail: implantas@...

>

> Dear Silicone Sisters,

>

> This letter is all about the NEW SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS. Now you can

> decide how great they are.

>

> On June 16, 2001, an article in The National Post Canada read: Silicone

> implants making a comeback. Years of alarm washed away by new research and

> a gel like Gummi Bears. " You would never have believed it, " says Dr.

> Walter s, a professor of plastic surgery at the University of

Toronto

> and a self-styled international expert on silicone breast implants. Dr.

> Walter s has been involved as an expert witness for manufacturers

and

> plastic surgeons in about 25 liability cases.

>

> " After all the stuff that 's gone on, after having been through all this

> controversy and gone to court as a witness on all these cases and all this

> research we 've done, [silicone] implants are back on the market again. It

> just boggles my mind to no end. "

>

> (He testified for the manufacturers, NOT the sick women, so he promotes

> implants. Now he is blown away with his own promotion and has this boggled

> mind?)

>

> The new " cohesive " gel implants, which also have a thicker shell, look

> more like the inside of a Gummi Bear. " We cut one in half, and it

doesn't

> pour out. It doesn't stick to anything, " Dr. De Lorenzi says. (Is he

> now admitting the other gels were not desirable in a woman's body?)

>

> Dr. Blais states that these new Gummi implants are the same old ones they

> had in the sixties. Nothing is new, the silicone gel or the silicone

> shell. They were found to be so unsatisfactory that they were

discontinued.

>

> The National Post quoted studies: The Harvard Nurses Epidemiological Study

> in 1995 and a study by Mayo Clinic investigators in 1994 -- found no

> evidence linking silicone implants with connective tissue diseases and

> other problems, reports s.

>

> Dr. s has implanted many women with the new Gummi, and boasts of an

> American actress coming to him in Canada. For now, the silicone breast

> implants are available in Canada through special use in specific cases, a

> regulatory hurdle doctors say requires little more than filling out a few

> forms. " A lot of women who we took {silicone}gel implants out of,

because

> they were scared of them, and we replaced them with saline implants,

ended

> up having suboptimal results. Now they're coming back to get gel ones put

> back in. "

>

> Do we doubt the documented records that many plastic surgeons earn over

one

> million a year on breast implants alone. Not counting other procedures.

>

> Joyce Attis, a co-founder and spokesperson for Breast Implant Line Of

> Canada states in her letter to The National Post, " The statement by Dr.

> Walter s that he is now doing something that he finds " totally

> mind-boggling " is, in itself mind boggling. What does he mean? Is he

> surprised that marketing efforts by unscrupulous manufacturers are luring

> unsuspecting and naive young women into his office? Or is his mind

boggled

> by the fact that he continues to implant women with devices that have

> NEVER been proven safe? "

>

> Joyce adds, " If connective tissue diseases, scleroderma, lupus, etc., are

> not caused by silicone gel breast implants then why did implant

> manufacturers place implant recipients in a grid on such diseases and

then

> disburse payments to them? " Joyce, who has been diagnosed with several

> silicone related diseases, asks The National Post and Dr. s, " Who

> funded these studies that found no diseases relating to breast implants?

"

> The manufacturers funded them in 1994!

>

> Word for word from the International Journal of Occupational Medicine and

> Toxicology, Special Issue on Silicone Toxicity, Volume 4, Number 1,

> January-March 1995, with peer-reviewed papers edited by 28 doctors,

> published by Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., Inc, page 11:

>

> It is very clear that causation has been established. One naturally then

> asks the question, " If causation has been established, why is the

> scientific medical community divided? " To answer this question, one must

> look at the studies published by those who claim that " there is no

> causation, " and that " silicone implants are safe. "

>

> 1. Mayo Clinic study by et al. (1994): This study is severely

> flawed, and one wonders how it came to be published. Not even one patient

> was examined. The study did not evaluate even one sick patient, and

> examined only connective tissue disease in nonsymptomatic patients. This

> is like trying to answer " What causes diarrhea? " in a group of patients

> who do not have diarrhea. Furthermore, this study did not address a

> multisystem disease (which afflicts 80% of the patients), but limited the

> record review to only 20% of the silicone-symptomatic patients.

>

> 2. Recent " Harvard " study: In this study, not one patient was examined;

> only charts were reviewed. No charts were examined for lung disease,

> nervous system disease, or abnormalities of T- and B-cells.

Unfortunately,

> the medical doctors who examined the charts did not understand that this

> is a multisystem disease, and did not understand that to establish

> causation they need probability, meaning, more likely than not, a 51%

> probability, not a 95% probability.

>

> For the doctor who sees patients with a certain pattern of exposure and

> disease presentation, all that is needed is medical probability. To claim

> that " we need large-scale studies " is to let the bodies fall and the

> patients die in the name of statistics, and not in the name of medicine.

>

> If the Hill criteria, described above, (These criteria were set forth by

> Sir Bradford Hill in 1965 and have been relied on since then.) are

> fulfilled, one can conclude that causation has been established. And

> indeed, the data clearly document that these criteria have been

fulfilled.

>

> In summary, the data show that:

>

> 1. Silicone leaks from breast implants;

>

> 2. The leaked silicone causes a local and systemic immunological

reaction;

>

> 3. This reaction presents in a clinical spectrum of diseases;

>

> 4. Based on animal studies, patient case reports, and population case

> studies, causation has been established; and

>

> 5. The practicing clinician must not overlook organs that are not joints.

>

> Drs. N. Brautbar and A. .

>

> From this we can clearly see that the National Post article featuring Dr.

> Walter s was an promotional advertisement in the guise of news. Let

us

> not be duped by these features any longer. Enough is enough, and shame on

> the National Post.

>

> Zuckerman, Ph.D., quoting Louise Brinton, Ph. D., of the National

> Cancer Institute, states on her website:

> http://www.cpr4womenandfamilies.org/implantgovstdy.html " One of the

> studies found that women with breast implants are more likely to die from

> brain tumors, lung cancer, other respiratory diseases, and suicide

> compared to other plastic surgery patients. The other study found a 21%

> overall increased risk of cancer for women with implants, compared to

> women of the same age in the general population. There was a four-fold

> increase in suicide for breast implant patients, which seems to

contradict

> the manufacturers' assertion that implants improve a woman's feeling of

> self-worth. "

>

> Dr. Zuckerman states, " FDA scientists found a statistically significant

> link between implants and fibromyalgia and several connective-tissue

> diseases. The study of patients who had silicone breast implants for at

> least 8 years found that women with ruptured silicone implants may be at

> risk for several painful and debilitating diseases. When the silicone had

> migrated outside of the scar tissue surrounding the implant, women were

> significantly more likely to report a diagnosis of disease such as

> fibromyalgia, dermatomyositis, polymyositis, Hashimoto's thyroiditis,

> mixed connective-tissue disease, pulmonary fibrosis, eosinophilic

> fasciitis, and polymyalgia. "

>

> " Women can't make informed choices if manufacturers and plastic surgeons

> provide inaccurate information to them. Women getting implants at the age

> of 20 might need at least six more operations just to replace broken

> implants - which multiplies the expense and the risks of surgery. "

>

> On her fact sheet on safety she declares: " The IOM report does not

> conclude that breast implants are safe, but instead concludes that local

> complications " occur frequently enough to be a cause for concern " and

> are " the primary safety issue " with breast implants. "

>

> Geoffrey White, Esq., of the Law Offices of White & Meany writes: " Two

> latest studies including the NIH study demonstrate that breast implants DO

> indeed CAUSE disease (i.e., fibromyalgia, connective tissue disease, etc.)

> in certain susceptible women, so even if we ignore the great pathology

> evidence (and we shouldn't) and treating doctor 's evidence, now we have

> epidemiology on our side. "

>

> Cornelia Baines MD, MSc, FACE, states in ls Of The Royal College of

> Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Volume 33, Number 1, Feb. 2000:

> " Regardless of indication, SBIs are associated with local and mechanical

> side effects, fibrous capsule formation, discomfort, altered nipple

> sensation, and implant dislocation and rupture. Such problems are

> experienced by many and cause indisputable morbidity. "

>

> Getting breast implants was the greatest insult I could have given my

body.

> My health today is severely compromised from the wonderful Dow Corning

> implants I had for 21 years. The fill holes were never properly sealed

and

> they had many ruptures. This was determined on explantation. I will not

go

> for this gimmick again.

>

> I invite all enquiries.

>

> Adella

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi e,

Thanks for your accurate & provacative comments on this issue. Once again, I believe we need to launch a very dedicated letter-writing campaign to our state & federal representatives ---'like "flood' their mailboxes, emails, & phonelines!!!

Hugs,

MM / NSIF

----- Original Message -----

From: eRene@...

Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:39 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~ Newsletter

This totally blows my mind. How can these awful things be allowed to "make a comeback???" After all the hearings and the money being paid out from Dow, you'd think some of these docs would have learned something (and women). Obviously not. What will it take for all implants to be banned and regarded as unsafe and dangerous? More deaths? More women being dx'd with connective tissue diseases? More lawsuits? Highly unlikely. As long as women are willing to pay to have implants, and their are unscrupulous ps out there, we are going to have implants til the end of time. What a shame and a disgrace on our medical ethics and scruples, as well as our medical culture.e> From: "Adella (by way of ilena rose)" <adellaem@...>> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:22 PM> Subject: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~ Newsletter>> > > I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY> >> > 102 - 6086 Boundary Drive West> > Surrey, B.C., Canada V3X 2B3> >> > Telephone: (604) 572-8486> >> > Website: http://www.info-implants.com/BC/index.html> >> > e-mail: implantas@...> >> > Dear Silicone Sisters,> >> > This letter is all about the NEW SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS. Now you can> > decide how great they are.> >> > On June 16, 2001, an article in The National Post Canada read: Silicone> > implants making a comeback. Years of alarm washed away by new research and> > a gel like Gummi Bears. "You would never have believed it, " says Dr.> > Walter s, a professor of plastic surgery at the University of> Toronto> > and a self-styled international expert on silicone breast implants. Dr.> > Walter s has been involved as an expert witness for manufacturers> and> > plastic surgeons in about 25 liability cases.> >> > "After all the stuff that 's gone on, after having been through all this> > controversy and gone to court as a witness on all these cases and all this> > research we 've done, [silicone] implants are back on the market again. It> > just boggles my mind to no end. "> >> > (He testified for the manufacturers, NOT the sick women, so he promotes> > implants. Now he is blown away with his own promotion and has this boggled> > mind?)> >> > The new "cohesive " gel implants, which also have a thicker shell, look> > more like the inside of a Gummi Bear. "We cut one in half, and it> doesn't> > pour out. It doesn't stick to anything, " Dr. De Lorenzi says. (Is he> > now admitting the other gels were not desirable in a woman's body?)> >> > Dr. Blais states that these new Gummi implants are the same old ones they> > had in the sixties. Nothing is new, the silicone gel or the silicone> > shell. They were found to be so unsatisfactory that they were> discontinued.> >> > The National Post quoted studies: The Harvard Nurses Epidemiological Study> > in 1995 and a study by Mayo Clinic investigators in 1994 -- found no> > evidence linking silicone implants with connective tissue diseases and> > other problems, reports s.> >> > Dr. s has implanted many women with the new Gummi, and boasts of an> > American actress coming to him in Canada. For now, the silicone breast> > implants are available in Canada through special use in specific cases, a> > regulatory hurdle doctors say requires little more than filling out a few> > forms. "A lot of women who we took {silicone}gel implants out of,> because> > they were scared of them, and we replaced them with saline implants,> ended> > up having suboptimal results. Now they're coming back to get gel ones put> > back in. "> >> > Do we doubt the documented records that many plastic surgeons earn over> one> > million a year on breast implants alone. Not counting other procedures.> >> > Joyce Attis, a co-founder and spokesperson for Breast Implant Line Of> > Canada states in her letter to The National Post, "The statement by Dr.> > Walter s that he is now doing something that he finds "totally> > mind-boggling " is, in itself mind boggling. What does he mean? Is he> > surprised that marketing efforts by unscrupulous manufacturers are luring> > unsuspecting and naive young women into his office? Or is his mind> boggled> > by the fact that he continues to implant women with devices that have> > NEVER been proven safe? "> >> > Joyce adds, "If connective tissue diseases, scleroderma, lupus, etc., are> > not caused by silicone gel breast implants then why did implant> > manufacturers place implant recipients in a grid on such diseases and> then> > disburse payments to them? " Joyce, who has been diagnosed with several> > silicone related diseases, asks The National Post and Dr. s, "Who> > funded these studies that found no diseases relating to breast implants?> "> > The manufacturers funded them in 1994!> >> > Word for word from the International Journal of Occupational Medicine and> > Toxicology, Special Issue on Silicone Toxicity, Volume 4, Number 1,> > January-March 1995, with peer-reviewed papers edited by 28 doctors,> > published by Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., Inc, page 11:> >> > It is very clear that causation has been established. One naturally then> > asks the question, "If causation has been established, why is the> > scientific medical community divided? " To answer this question, one must> > look at the studies published by those who claim that "there is no> > causation, " and that "silicone implants are safe. "> >> > 1. Mayo Clinic study by et al. (1994): This study is severely> > flawed, and one wonders how it came to be published. Not even one patient> > was examined. The study did not evaluate even one sick patient, and> > examined only connective tissue disease in nonsymptomatic patients. This> > is like trying to answer "What causes diarrhea? " in a group of patients> > who do not have diarrhea. Furthermore, this study did not address a> > multisystem disease (which afflicts 80% of the patients), but limited the> > record review to only 20% of the silicone-symptomatic patients.> >> > 2. Recent "Harvard " study: In this study, not one patient was examined;> > only charts were reviewed. No charts were examined for lung disease,> > nervous system disease, or abnormalities of T- and B-cells.> Unfortunately,> > the medical doctors who examined the charts did not understand that this> > is a multisystem disease, and did not understand that to establish> > causation they need probability, meaning, more likely than not, a 51%> > probability, not a 95% probability.> >> > For the doctor who sees patients with a certain pattern of exposure and> > disease presentation, all that is needed is medical probability. To claim> > that "we need large-scale studies " is to let the bodies fall and the> > patients die in the name of statistics, and not in the name of medicine.> >> > If the Hill criteria, described above, (These criteria were set forth by> > Sir Bradford Hill in 1965 and have been relied on since then.) are> > fulfilled, one can conclude that causation has been established. And> > indeed, the data clearly document that these criteria have been> fulfilled.> >> > In summary, the data show that:> >> > 1. Silicone leaks from breast implants;> >> > 2. The leaked silicone causes a local and systemic immunological> reaction;> >> > 3. This reaction presents in a clinical spectrum of diseases;> >> > 4. Based on animal studies, patient case reports, and population case> > studies, causation has been established; and> >> > 5. The practicing clinician must not overlook organs that are not joints.> >> > Drs. N. Brautbar and A. .> >> > From this we can clearly see that the National Post article featuring Dr.> > Walter s was an promotional advertisement in the guise of news. Let> us> > not be duped by these features any longer. Enough is enough, and shame on> > the National Post.> >> > Zuckerman, Ph.D., quoting Louise Brinton, Ph. D., of the National> > Cancer Institute, states on her website:> > http://www.cpr4womenandfamilies.org/implantgovstdy.html "One of the> > studies found that women with breast implants are more likely to die from> > brain tumors, lung cancer, other respiratory diseases, and suicide> > compared to other plastic surgery patients. The other study found a 21%> > overall increased risk of cancer for women with implants, compared to> > women of the same age in the general population. There was a four-fold> > increase in suicide for breast implant patients, which seems to> contradict> > the manufacturers' assertion that implants improve a woman's feeling of> > self-worth. "> >> > Dr. Zuckerman states, "FDA scientists found a statistically significant> > link between implants and fibromyalgia and several connective-tissue> > diseases. The study of patients who had silicone breast implants for at> > least 8 years found that women with ruptured silicone implants may be at> > risk for several painful and debilitating diseases. When the silicone had> > migrated outside of the scar tissue surrounding the implant, women were> > significantly more likely to report a diagnosis of disease such as> > fibromyalgia, dermatomyositis, polymyositis, Hashimoto's thyroiditis,> > mixed connective-tissue disease, pulmonary fibrosis, eosinophilic> > fasciitis, and polymyalgia. "> >> > "Women can't make informed choices if manufacturers and plastic surgeons> > provide inaccurate information to them. Women getting implants at the age> > of 20 might need at least six more operations just to replace broken> > implants - which multiplies the expense and the risks of surgery. "> >> > On her fact sheet on safety she declares: "The IOM report does not> > conclude that breast implants are safe, but instead concludes that local> > complications "occur frequently enough to be a cause for concern " and> > are "the primary safety issue" with breast implants. "> >> > Geoffrey White, Esq., of the Law Offices of White & Meany writes: "Two> > latest studies including the NIH study demonstrate that breast implants DO> > indeed CAUSE disease (i.e., fibromyalgia, connective tissue disease, etc.)> > in certain susceptible women, so even if we ignore the great pathology> > evidence (and we shouldn't) and treating doctor 's evidence, now we have> > epidemiology on our side. "> >> > Cornelia Baines MD, MSc, FACE, states in ls Of The Royal College of> > Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Volume 33, Number 1, Feb. 2000:> > "Regardless of indication, SBIs are associated with local and mechanical> > side effects, fibrous capsule formation, discomfort, altered nipple> > sensation, and implant dislocation and rupture. Such problems are> > experienced by many and cause indisputable morbidity. "> >> > Getting breast implants was the greatest insult I could have given my> body.> > My health today is severely compromised from the wonderful Dow Corning> > implants I had for 21 years. The fill holes were never properly sealed> and> > they had many ruptures. This was determined on explantation. I will not> go> > for this gimmick again.> >> > I invite all enquiries.> >> > Adella > >> >> > > >

[Guest guest]

This totally blows my mind. How can these awful things

be allowed to " make a comeback??? " After all the

hearings and the money being paid out from Dow, you'd

think some of these docs would have learned something

(and women). Obviously not. What will it take for all

implants to be banned and regarded as unsafe and

dangerous? More deaths? More women being dx'd with

connective tissue diseases? More lawsuits? Highly

unlikely. As long as women are willing to pay to have

implants, and their are unscrupulous ps out there, we

are going to have implants til the end of time. What a

shame and a disgrace on our medical ethics and scruples,

as well as our medical culture.

e

> From: " Adella (by way of ilena rose) " <adellaem@...>

> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:22 PM

> Subject: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~ Newsletter>

>

> > I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY

> >

> > 102 - 6086 Boundary Drive West

> > Surrey, B.C., Canada V3X 2B3

> >

> > Telephone: (604) 572-8486

> >

> > Website: http://www.info-implants.com/BC/index.html

> >

> > e-mail: implantas@...

> >

> > Dear Silicone Sisters,

> >

> > This letter is all about the NEW SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS. Now you can

> > decide how great they are.

> >

> > On June 16, 2001, an article in The National Post Canada read: Silicone

> > implants making a comeback. Years of alarm washed away by new research and

> > a gel like Gummi Bears. " You would never have believed it, " says Dr.

> > Walter s, a professor of plastic surgery at the University of

> Toronto

> > and a self-styled international expert on silicone breast implants. Dr.

> > Walter s has been involved as an expert witness for manufacturers

> and

> > plastic surgeons in about 25 liability cases.

> >

> > " After all the stuff that 's gone on, after having been through all this

> > controversy and gone to court as a witness on all these cases and all this

> > research we 've done, [silicone] implants are back on the market again. It

> > just boggles my mind to no end. "

> >

> > (He testified for the manufacturers, NOT the sick women, so he promotes

> > implants. Now he is blown away with his own promotion and has this boggled

> > mind?)

> >

> > The new " cohesive " gel implants, which also have a thicker shell, look

> > more like the inside of a Gummi Bear. " We cut one in half, and it

> doesn't

> > pour out. It doesn't stick to anything, " Dr. De Lorenzi says. (Is he

> > now admitting the other gels were not desirable in a woman's body?)

> >

> > Dr. Blais states that these new Gummi implants are the same old ones they

> > had in the sixties. Nothing is new, the silicone gel or the silicone

> > shell. They were found to be so unsatisfactory that they were

> discontinued.

> >

> > The National Post quoted studies: The Harvard Nurses Epidemiological Study

> > in 1995 and a study by Mayo Clinic investigators in 1994 -- found no

> > evidence linking silicone implants with connective tissue diseases and

> > other problems, reports s.

> >

> > Dr. s has implanted many women with the new Gummi, and boasts of an

> > American actress coming to him in Canada. For now, the silicone breast

> > implants are available in Canada through special use in specific cases, a

> > regulatory hurdle doctors say requires little more than filling out a few

> > forms. " A lot of women who we took {silicone}gel implants out of,

> because

> > they were scared of them, and we replaced them with saline implants,

> ended

> > up having suboptimal results. Now they're coming back to get gel ones put

> > back in. "

> >

> > Do we doubt the documented records that many plastic surgeons earn over

> one

> > million a year on breast implants alone. Not counting other procedures.

> >

> > Joyce Attis, a co-founder and spokesperson for Breast Implant Line Of

> > Canada states in her letter to The National Post, " The statement by Dr.

> > Walter s that he is now doing something that he finds " totally

> > mind-boggling " is, in itself mind boggling. What does he mean? Is he

> > surprised that marketing efforts by unscrupulous manufacturers are luring

> > unsuspecting and naive young women into his office? Or is his mind

> boggled

> > by the fact that he continues to implant women with devices that have

> > NEVER been proven safe? "

> >

> > Joyce adds, " If connective tissue diseases, scleroderma, lupus, etc., are

> > not caused by silicone gel breast implants then why did implant

> > manufacturers place implant recipients in a grid on such diseases and

> then

> > disburse payments to them? " Joyce, who has been diagnosed with several

> > silicone related diseases, asks The National Post and Dr. s, " Who

> > funded these studies that found no diseases relating to breast implants?

> "

> > The manufacturers funded them in 1994!

> >

> > Word for word from the International Journal of Occupational Medicine and

> > Toxicology, Special Issue on Silicone Toxicity, Volume 4, Number 1,

> > January-March 1995, with peer-reviewed papers edited by 28 doctors,

> > published by Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., Inc, page 11:

> >

> > It is very clear that causation has been established. One naturally then

> > asks the question, " If causation has been established, why is the

> > scientific medical community divided? " To answer this question, one must

> > look at the studies published by those who claim that " there is no

> > causation, " and that " silicone implants are safe. "

> >

> > 1. Mayo Clinic study by et al. (1994): This study is severely

> > flawed, and one wonders how it came to be published. Not even one patient

> > was examined. The study did not evaluate even one sick patient, and

> > examined only connective tissue disease in nonsymptomatic patients. This

> > is like trying to answer " What causes diarrhea? " in a group of patients

> > who do not have diarrhea. Furthermore, this study did not address a

> > multisystem disease (which afflicts 80% of the patients), but limited the

> > record review to only 20% of the silicone-symptomatic patients.

> >

> > 2. Recent " Harvard " study: In this study, not one patient was examined;

> > only charts were reviewed. No charts were examined for lung disease,

> > nervous system disease, or abnormalities of T- and B-cells.

> Unfortunately,

> > the medical doctors who examined the charts did not understand that this

> > is a multisystem disease, and did not understand that to establish

> > causation they need probability, meaning, more likely than not, a 51%

> > probability, not a 95% probability.

> >

> > For the doctor who sees patients with a certain pattern of exposure and

> > disease presentation, all that is needed is medical probability. To claim

> > that " we need large-scale studies " is to let the bodies fall and the

> > patients die in the name of statistics, and not in the name of medicine.

> >

> > If the Hill criteria, described above, (These criteria were set forth by

> > Sir Bradford Hill in 1965 and have been relied on since then.) are

> > fulfilled, one can conclude that causation has been established. And

> > indeed, the data clearly document that these criteria have been

> fulfilled.

> >

> > In summary, the data show that:

> >

> > 1. Silicone leaks from breast implants;

> >

> > 2. The leaked silicone causes a local and systemic immunological

> reaction;

> >

> > 3. This reaction presents in a clinical spectrum of diseases;

> >

> > 4. Based on animal studies, patient case reports, and population case

> > studies, causation has been established; and

> >

> > 5. The practicing clinician must not overlook organs that are not joints.

> >

> > Drs. N. Brautbar and A. .

> >

> > From this we can clearly see that the National Post article featuring Dr.

> > Walter s was an promotional advertisement in the guise of news. Let

> us

> > not be duped by these features any longer. Enough is enough, and shame on

> > the National Post.

> >

> > Zuckerman, Ph.D., quoting Louise Brinton, Ph. D., of the National

> > Cancer Institute, states on her website:

> > http://www.cpr4womenandfamilies.org/implantgovstdy.html " One of the

> > studies found that women with breast implants are more likely to die from

> > brain tumors, lung cancer, other respiratory diseases, and suicide

> > compared to other plastic surgery patients. The other study found a 21%

> > overall increased risk of cancer for women with implants, compared to

> > women of the same age in the general population. There was a four-fold

> > increase in suicide for breast implant patients, which seems to

> contradict

> > the manufacturers' assertion that implants improve a woman's feeling of

> > self-worth. "

> >

> > Dr. Zuckerman states, " FDA scientists found a statistically significant

> > link between implants and fibromyalgia and several connective-tissue

> > diseases. The study of patients who had silicone breast implants for at

> > least 8 years found that women with ruptured silicone implants may be at

> > risk for several painful and debilitating diseases. When the silicone had

> > migrated outside of the scar tissue surrounding the implant, women were

> > significantly more likely to report a diagnosis of disease such as

> > fibromyalgia, dermatomyositis, polymyositis, Hashimoto's thyroiditis,

> > mixed connective-tissue disease, pulmonary fibrosis, eosinophilic

> > fasciitis, and polymyalgia. "

> >

> > " Women can't make informed choices if manufacturers and plastic surgeons

> > provide inaccurate information to them. Women getting implants at the age

> > of 20 might need at least six more operations just to replace broken

> > implants - which multiplies the expense and the risks of surgery. "

> >

> > On her fact sheet on safety she declares: " The IOM report does not

> > conclude that breast implants are safe, but instead concludes that local

> > complications " occur frequently enough to be a cause for concern " and

> > are " the primary safety issue " with breast implants. "

> >

> > Geoffrey White, Esq., of the Law Offices of White & Meany writes: " Two

> > latest studies including the NIH study demonstrate that breast implants DO

> > indeed CAUSE disease (i.e., fibromyalgia, connective tissue disease, etc.)

> > in certain susceptible women, so even if we ignore the great pathology

> > evidence (and we shouldn't) and treating doctor 's evidence, now we have

> > epidemiology on our side. "

> >

> > Cornelia Baines MD, MSc, FACE, states in ls Of The Royal College of

> > Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Volume 33, Number 1, Feb. 2000:

> > " Regardless of indication, SBIs are associated with local and mechanical

> > side effects, fibrous capsule formation, discomfort, altered nipple

> > sensation, and implant dislocation and rupture. Such problems are

> > experienced by many and cause indisputable morbidity. "

> >

> > Getting breast implants was the greatest insult I could have given my

> body.

> > My health today is severely compromised from the wonderful Dow Corning

> > implants I had for 21 years. The fill holes were never properly sealed

> and

> > they had many ruptures. This was determined on explantation. I will not

> go

> > for this gimmick again.

> >

> > I invite all enquiries.

> >

> > Adella

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Martha,

I agree with you 100%. But I have written my CO reps

and never get any response whatsoever. And as you and

everyone else on this site knows, I am very persistent

and don't give up easily!!

e

> Hi e,

>

> Thanks for your accurate & provacative comments on this issue. Once again, I

> believe we need to launch a very dedicated letter-writing campaign to our

state

> & federal representatives ---'like " flood' their mailboxes, emails, &

> phonelines!!!

>

> Hugs,

> MM / NSIF

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: eRene@...

>

> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 11:39 PM

> Subject: Re: Fw: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~

Newsletter

>

>

> This totally blows my mind. How can these awful things

> be allowed to " make a comeback??? " After all the

> hearings and the money being paid out from Dow, you'd

> think some of these docs would have learned something

> (and women). Obviously not. What will it take for all

> implants to be banned and regarded as unsafe and

> dangerous? More deaths? More women being dx'd with

> connective tissue diseases? More lawsuits? Highly

> unlikely. As long as women are willing to pay to have

> implants, and their are unscrupulous ps out there, we

> are going to have implants til the end of time. What a

> shame and a disgrace on our medical ethics and scruples,

> as well as our medical culture.

>

> e

> > From: " Adella (by way of ilena rose) " <adellaem@...>

> > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 5:22 PM

> > Subject: I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY ~ Newsletter>

> >

> > > I.A.S. IMPLANT AWARENESS SOCIETY

> > >

> > > 102 - 6086 Boundary Drive West

> > > Surrey, B.C., Canada V3X 2B3

> > >

> > > Telephone: (604) 572-8486

> > >

> > > Website: http://www.info-implants.com/BC/index.html

> > >

> > > e-mail: implantas@...

> > >

> > > Dear Silicone Sisters,

> > >

> > > This letter is all about the NEW SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS. Now you can

> > > decide how great they are.

> > >

> > > On June 16, 2001, an article in The National Post Canada read: Silicone

> > > implants making a comeback. Years of alarm washed away by new research

and

> > > a gel like Gummi Bears. " You would never have believed it, " says Dr.

> > > Walter s, a professor of plastic surgery at the University of

> > Toronto

> > > and a self-styled international expert on silicone breast implants. Dr.

> > > Walter s has been involved as an expert witness for manufacturers

> > and

> > > plastic surgeons in about 25 liability cases.

> > >

> > > " After all the stuff that 's gone on, after having been through all

this

> > > controversy and gone to court as a witness on all these cases and all

this

> > > research we 've done, [silicone] implants are back on the market again.

It

> > > just boggles my mind to no end. "

> > >

> > > (He testified for the manufacturers, NOT the sick women, so he promotes

> > > implants. Now he is blown away with his own promotion and has this

boggled

> > > mind?)

> > >

> > > The new " cohesive " gel implants, which also have a thicker shell, look

> > > more like the inside of a Gummi Bear. " We cut one in half, and it

> > doesn't

> > > pour out. It doesn't stick to anything, " Dr. De Lorenzi says. (Is he

> > > now admitting the other gels were not desirable in a woman's body?)

> > >

> > > Dr. Blais states that these new Gummi implants are the same old ones

they

> > > had in the sixties. Nothing is new, the silicone gel or the silicone

> > > shell. They were found to be so unsatisfactory that they were

> > discontinued.

> > >

> > > The National Post quoted studies: The Harvard Nurses Epidemiological

Study

> > > in 1995 and a study by Mayo Clinic investigators in 1994 -- found no

> > > evidence linking silicone implants with connective tissue diseases and

> > > other problems, reports s.

> > >

> > > Dr. s has implanted many women with the new Gummi, and boasts of an

> > > American actress coming to him in Canada. For now, the silicone breast

> > > implants are available in Canada through special use in specific cases,

a

> > > regulatory hurdle doctors say requires little more than filling out a

few

> > > forms. " A lot of women who we took {silicone}gel implants out of,

> > because

> > > they were scared of them, and we replaced them with saline implants,

> > ended

> > > up having suboptimal results. Now they're coming back to get gel ones

put

> > > back in. "

> > >

> > > Do we doubt the documented records that many plastic surgeons earn over

> > one

> > > million a year on breast implants alone. Not counting other procedures.

> > >

> > > Joyce Attis, a co-founder and spokesperson for Breast Implant Line Of

> > > Canada states in her letter to The National Post, " The statement by

Dr.

> > > Walter s that he is now doing something that he finds " totally

> > > mind-boggling " is, in itself mind boggling. What does he mean? Is he

> > > surprised that marketing efforts by unscrupulous manufacturers are

luring

> > > unsuspecting and naive young women into his office? Or is his mind

> > boggled

> > > by the fact that he continues to implant women with devices that have

> > > NEVER been proven safe? "

> > >

> > > Joyce adds, " If connective tissue diseases, scleroderma, lupus, etc.,

are

> > > not caused by silicone gel breast implants then why did implant

> > > manufacturers place implant recipients in a grid on such diseases and

> > then

> > > disburse payments to them? " Joyce, who has been diagnosed with several

> > > silicone related diseases, asks The National Post and Dr. s, " Who

> > > funded these studies that found no diseases relating to breast

implants?

> > "

> > > The manufacturers funded them in 1994!

> > >

> > > Word for word from the International Journal of Occupational Medicine

and

> > > Toxicology, Special Issue on Silicone Toxicity, Volume 4, Number 1,

> > > January-March 1995, with peer-reviewed papers edited by 28 doctors,

> > > published by Princeton Scientific Publishing Co., Inc, page 11:

> > >

> > > It is very clear that causation has been established. One naturally then

> > > asks the question, " If causation has been established, why is the

> > > scientific medical community divided? " To answer this question, one

must

> > > look at the studies published by those who claim that " there is no

> > > causation, " and that " silicone implants are safe. "

> > >

> > > 1. Mayo Clinic study by et al. (1994): This study is severely

> > > flawed, and one wonders how it came to be published. Not even one

patient

> > > was examined. The study did not evaluate even one sick patient, and

> > > examined only connective tissue disease in nonsymptomatic patients.

This

> > > is like trying to answer " What causes diarrhea? " in a group of

patients

> > > who do not have diarrhea. Furthermore, this study did not address a

> > > multisystem disease (which afflicts 80% of the patients), but limited

the

> > > record review to only 20% of the silicone-symptomatic patients.

> > >

> > > 2. Recent " Harvard " study: In this study, not one patient was

examined;

> > > only charts were reviewed. No charts were examined for lung disease,

> > > nervous system disease, or abnormalities of T- and B-cells.

> > Unfortunately,

> > > the medical doctors who examined the charts did not understand that

this

> > > is a multisystem disease, and did not understand that to establish

> > > causation they need probability, meaning, more likely than not, a 51%

> > > probability, not a 95% probability.

> > >

> > > For the doctor who sees patients with a certain pattern of exposure and

> > > disease presentation, all that is needed is medical probability. To

claim

> > > that " we need large-scale studies " is to let the bodies fall and the

> > > patients die in the name of statistics, and not in the name of

medicine.

> > >

> > > If the Hill criteria, described above, (These criteria were set forth by

> > > Sir Bradford Hill in 1965 and have been relied on since then.) are

> > > fulfilled, one can conclude that causation has been established. And

> > > indeed, the data clearly document that these criteria have been

> > fulfilled.

> > >

> > > In summary, the data show that:

> > >

> > > 1. Silicone leaks from breast implants;

> > >

> > > 2. The leaked silicone causes a local and systemic immunological

> > reaction;

> > >

> > > 3. This reaction presents in a clinical spectrum of diseases;

> > >

> > > 4. Based on animal studies, patient case reports, and population case

> > > studies, causation has been established; and

> > >

> > > 5. The practicing clinician must not overlook organs that are not

joints.

> > >

> > > Drs. N. Brautbar and A. .

> > >

> > > From this we can clearly see that the National Post article featuring

Dr.

> > > Walter s was an promotional advertisement in the guise of news. Let

> > us

> > > not be duped by these features any longer. Enough is enough, and shame

on

> > > the National Post.

> > >

> > > Zuckerman, Ph.D., quoting Louise Brinton, Ph. D., of the National

> > > Cancer Institute, states on her website:

> > > http://www.cpr4womenandfamilies.org/implantgovstdy.html " One of the

> > > studies found that women with breast implants are more likely to die

from

> > > brain tumors, lung cancer, other respiratory diseases, and suicide

> > > compared to other plastic surgery patients. The other study found a 21%

> > > overall increased risk of cancer for women with implants, compared to

> > > women of the same age in the general population. There was a four-fold

> > > increase in suicide for breast implant patients, which seems to

> > contradict

> > > the manufacturers' assertion that implants improve a woman's feeling of

> > > self-worth. "

> > >

> > > Dr. Zuckerman states, " FDA scientists found a statistically significant

> > > link between implants and fibromyalgia and several connective-tissue

> > > diseases. The study of patients who had silicone breast implants for at

> > > least 8 years found that women with ruptured silicone implants may be

at

> > > risk for several painful and debilitating diseases. When the silicone

had

> > > migrated outside of the scar tissue surrounding the implant, women were

> > > significantly more likely to report a diagnosis of disease such as

> > > fibromyalgia, dermatomyositis, polymyositis, Hashimoto's thyroiditis,

> > > mixed connective-tissue disease, pulmonary fibrosis, eosinophilic

> > > fasciitis, and polymyalgia. "

> > >

> > > " Women can't make informed choices if manufacturers and plastic

surgeons

> > > provide inaccurate information to them. Women getting implants at the

age

> > > of 20 might need at least six more operations just to replace broken

> > > implants - which multiplies the expense and the risks of surgery. "

> > >

> > > On her fact sheet on safety she declares: " The IOM report does not

> > > conclude that breast implants are safe, but instead concludes that

local

> > > complications " occur frequently enough to be a cause for concern " and

> > > are " the primary safety issue " with breast implants. "

> > >

> > > Geoffrey White, Esq., of the Law Offices of White & Meany writes: " Two

> > > latest studies including the NIH study demonstrate that breast implants

DO

> > > indeed CAUSE disease (i.e., fibromyalgia, connective tissue disease,

etc.)

> > > in certain susceptible women, so even if we ignore the great pathology

> > > evidence (and we shouldn't) and treating doctor 's evidence, now we

have

> > > epidemiology on our side. "

> > >

> > > Cornelia Baines MD, MSc, FACE, states in ls Of The Royal College of

> > > Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Volume 33, Number 1, Feb. 2000:

> > > " Regardless of indication, SBIs are associated with local and

mechanical

> > > side effects, fibrous capsule formation, discomfort, altered nipple

> > > sensation, and implant dislocation and rupture. Such problems are

> > > experienced by many and cause indisputable morbidity. "

> > >

> > > Getting breast implants was the greatest insult I could have given my

> > body.

> > > My health today is severely compromised from the wonderful Dow Corning

> > > implants I had for 21 years. The fill holes were never properly sealed

> > and

> > > they had many ruptures. This was determined on explantation. I will not

> > go

> > > for this gimmick again.

> > >

> > > I invite all enquiries.

> > >

> > > Adella

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >