Fw: Letter to Liv Hoiland (MM)...

[Guest guest]

Has anyone heard from Liv? She has not responded to my last note.

Love....Lea

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`````

" Re: our conversation this morning: " My Dear Liv: Thank you for calling me this morning. It was lovely speaking to you from across the world. I'm so sorry that you have Multiple Myeloma; however, I believe that it can return to MGUS. You seem to be doing all the right things regarding your diet. I'm sending you an article that my lawyer wrote. Please give this to your lawyer, because this will give him an idea of what my lawyer's opinion is on this subject. Our legal system is probably different to yours; however, it is still product liability...no matter where you live. These devices ruptured in our bodies and altered our immune systems. Liv, please let me know what kind of proof you need to help your lawyer. Women who have documented ruptures make more appealing clients to lawyers. Here is Dr. Aristo Vojdani's phone # 310-657-1077; fax # 310-657-1053. He believes that we have atypical MM and/or MGUS; this means that it is not like the real MM...it copies the real disease. Dr. Vojdani said that we need much more research before we can be definitive that silicone does cause MM. We know that mice injected with silicone become positive for MGUS. Dr. Vojdani's website is as follows: immuno-sci-lab.com. His email address is immunosci@.... The medical devices expert who I told you about this morning is Dr. Pierre Blais. He lives in Ottawa. His phone # is 613-728-8688; fax # 613-728-0687. Dr. Blais is an expert on silicone polymers and the damage that they cause in our bodies. I will send you more material once I know that we are connected via e-mail. We will work together, and perhaps you can help me with the alternative medicine route. I look forward to hearing from you...love......Lea

[This article was written by my lawyer in the spring of 1998. He is a partner in his law firm and has represented a diversity of clients. He has appeared before Arbitration Panels, Municipal Council, Administrative Boards, the Provincial Court, the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Appeal of Alberta, the Federal Court Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal.] "MANUFACTURER BEWARE -- Product Liability and Informed Consent The Supreme Court of Canada in Hollis v. Dow Corning (1995) and Arndt v. (1997) warned manufacturers that they must take care to inform consumers of the potential risks and adverse effects of their products, failing which they will be liable for injury or damages suffered. In many product liability actions, the manufacturer will not only concede that its product is hazardous, but also that the damages or injuries suffered were caused by use of its product. The issue is informed consent. In addressing informed consent, the Court must consider three issues:

Duty of Care - does the manufacturer owe a duty of care to inform the consumer of the risks and adverse side effects of its product? Standard of Care - did the manufacturer adequately warn the consumer about the potential risk and adverse effects of using its product? Causation - were the damages or injuries suffered by the consumer caused by the failure of the manufacturer to adequately warn the consumer about the potential risks and adverse effects of its product? Duty of Care A manufacturer has a continuing duty to warn its consumers of dangers inherent in the use of its product of which it has knowledge or ought to have knowledge. The duty applies to dangers known at the point of sale and dangers discovered afterwards. Warnings must be clearly communicated and describe all specific dangers arising from ordinary use. The duty to warn is owed directly to the ultimate consumer. However, the ultimate consumer may purchase the product from a learned intermediary. A manufacturer is entitled to rely upon the physician or hospital to warn patients about potential hazards and thus the duty imposed on a manufacturer can be satisfied by an intermediary. Standard of Care A manufacturer can only discharge its duty when it can be demonstrated both that the intermediary's knowledge approximates that of the manufacturer, and that the intermediary discharged his or her duty. For example, a pharmaceutical company cannot rely on the informed consent obtained by a physician when prescribing a drug to a patient unless it can demonstrate that the physician reasonably knew all of the risks known to the pharmaceutical company associated with its use. A consumer can also learn about the risks of a product from other sources. The information relating to a product need not come directly from a manufacturer or a learned intermediary. Documentaries, books, articles or other sources, such as the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, can be relied upon by a manufacturer. Causation If it is proven that the manufacturer failed to adequately discharge its duty to warn the consumer of risks, the manufacturer can still argue that its failure to disclose the potential risks did not cause the injuries or damages suffered. That is, the consumer would have elected to use its product even if advised of the risks. In a doctor-patient relationship, the Court applies a modified objective test for causation to determine whether the failure of the manufacturer to discharge its duty to warn caused the injuries complained of. The modified objective test requires the Court to consider what a reasonable patient in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have done if faced with the same situation. In the case of a manufacturer, however, the Court applies a purely subjective test for causation. The Court considers only what the plaintiff would have done had he or she been adequately warned of the risks."