Fw: Fw: Dr. Al Levin on: Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement Package ~Repost]

[Guest guest]

More old information.

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

> >

> >

> > > Date: 1999/03/30

> > >

> > > Breast Implant Plaintiff's Attorneys and Clients

> > >

> > > From: Al Levin, M.D., J.D.

> > >

> > > Re: Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement Package

> > >

> > > I am writing to you as an old physician/scientist and a new

> attorney.

> If

> > you

> > > are voting yes to the Bankruptcy Plan because " our science is bad "

> please

> > > consider this letter first.

> > >

> > > As many of you know, before my life as an attorney I served as an

> expert

> > > witness in these and many other cases. I have studied and

> practiced

> > clinical

> > > immunology, immunopathology and clinical medicine for over three

> decades.

> > I

> > > have published extensively in the peer reviewed medical literature

> on

> the

> > > subject of cancer, clinical immunology and immunopathology. I

> have

> been

> > on

> > > the faculty of Harvard Medical School and the University of

> California

> at

> > San

> > > Francisco (UCSF), two of our country's best medical schools. I

> continue

> > to

> > > hold an appointment at UCSF. I am very familiar with silicone, its

> > adjuvant

> > > and immune activation properties.

> > >

> > > I will tell you without reservation that there is no better case

> for

> > disease

> > > causation than the silicone gel breast implant cases. All one

> has to

> do

> > is

> > > look at the patient's biologic response to the implant. The

> patient

> > mounts a

> > > chronic foreign body reaction. This is nature's way of saying

> this

> > material

> > > is not good. It is harmful and offensive and the body needs

> protection by

> > > walling the material off. The granulomatous reaction is identical

> to

> the

> > > human body's response to syphilis and tuberculosis. Syphilis and

> > tuberculosis

> > > are human diseases with systemic consequences. Silicone induced

> > granulomatous

> > > disease is a human disease with systemic consequences. Of this

> there

> is

> > > absolutely no question.

> > >

> > > Why then are the defendants able to convince judges that silicone

> is

> > " inert " ?

> > > The answer is simple. The defense attorneys are paying scientists

> and

> > > physicians to tell half truths and lies. Using lies and deceit as

> well as

> > > word games in their writings, these attorneys are requesting

> judges

> to

> > rule

> > > that foreign body reactions and granulomatous diseases are " normal

> > reactions " .

> > > Absent strong, intelligent objection, some judges are being taken

> in

> by

> > these

> > > deceptive practices.

> > >

> > > What can we do about this problem? We can and will bring these

> people

> to

> > > accountability. We must use new tactics. We must go on the

> offensive.

> > It is

> > > not OK for doctors to lie in court. They will be held to their

> testimony

> > > given under oath. Their testimony will be made public where it

> will

> reach

> > > their peers who assess their competence to practice medicine and

> perform

> > > scientific research. It is not OK for a judge with an eighth

> grade

> > education

> > > in science to rule that a Nobel Laureate's science is flawed.

> This

> > outrages

> > > many physician/scientists I know and should outrage you. The

> recent

> > ruling by

> > > Judge Vining of Georgia is an object example of this travesty of

> justice.

> > > Judge Vining ruled that Professor Gershwin and Professor

> Shanklin's

> > testimony

> > > could not be heard by a jury because their science was flawed.

> These

> are

> > two

> > > full professors at two of our nation's finest medical schools who

> are

> also

> > > currently licensed to practice medicine. These are two men who

> serve

> as

> > > senior editors of our nation's finest peer reviewed medical

> journals.

> > These

> > > are two men who dedicated their professional lives to the study of

> > silicone

> > > gel and its effects on the human body. These men are constantly

> reviewed

> > by

> > > their peers for their competency to teach and practice medicine.

> Both

> of

> > these

> > > men have sterling reputations in their fields and hold current

> medical

> > > licenses and professorships. Judge Vining's biography shows no

> evidence of

> > any

> > > scientific training. There is no rational way this man with his

> limited

> > grasp

> > > on immunology could assess the credibility of Gershwin or

> Shanklin's

> > > testimony. This is precisely why our founding fathers developed

> the

> jury

> > > system. It is far less likely that 9 or 12 independent citizens

> would

> be

> > > wrongly influenced by lies than one political appointee. This type

> of

> > judicial

> > > conduct represents either corruption or irrational reasoning. In

> either

> > case,

> > > these Justices must be called to answer for their conduct.

> > >

> > > If these were limited controversies we could allow this conduct to

> pass.

> > > Unfortunately this controversy is not limited. This litigation

> has

> not

> > only

> > > prostituted breast implant related science, it has corrupted the

> entire

> > field

> > > of immunology. When I was one of the original developers of the

> automated

> > > anti-nuclear antibody assay (ANA), the normal range was 1:10. To

> be

> > ultra

> > > conservative we considered an ANA of less than 1:20 as

> non-diagnostic.

> > The

> > > other day I ordered an ANA on a 14 year old boy with a history of

> > rheumatic

> > > fever to see if he may have a more serious autoimmune disorder. I

> was

> > > relieved to see the ANA come back as negative until I read the

> reference

> > > range. The new reference range is 1:80, an 800% increase. This

> means

> > that

> > > children with smoldering kidney disease and ANA titer of 1:40

> would go

> > > undetected until they began to suffer permanent kidney damage.

> This is

> a

> > > direct result of the prostitution of immunology caused by breast

> implant

> > > litigation.

> > >

> > > Before this litigation there was no controversy regarding the

> dangers

> of

> > > silicone gel. The haze of misinformation laid by the defense in

> this

> > > litigation is clearing. As in the Agent Orange litigation, the

> truth

> > about

> > > these dangers is becoming harder and harder to suppress. We must

> not

> > admit

> > > defeat at this time. We will prevail.

> > >

> > > If you base your decision on a fear that you will lose your cases

> because

> > the

> > > scientific support for causation is lacking, you are mistaken. In

> the

> long

> > > run, therefore, it probably in your client's best interest to vote

> no

> on

> > the

> > > Bankruptcy plan. A five figure settlement for a lifetime of

> disease is

> > simply

> > > obscene.

> > >

> > > Alan S. Levin, M.D., J.D.

> > > Diplomate: American Board of Allergy/Immunology

> > > Diplomate: American Board of Pathology

> > > Attorney at Law

> > > PO Box 4703

> > > Incline Village, Nevada 89450

> > > email: flitequack@...

> > >

> > >

> >

>

> __

> This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it

> is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged

> information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended

> recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take

> action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or

> subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

> ---

>

[Guest guest]

More sage advice from our Dr. Al Levin:

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

I will write a bit later. Dr. Al Levin has been monitoring my e-mails and

has helped me many times. He has been there for all women for several years.

Please read what he has to say. Thank you. Bye for now...Lea

Dr. Al Levin on: Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement Package ~

Repost Date: 1999/03/30

Breast Implant Plaintiff's Attorneys and Clients

From: Al Levin, M.D., J.D. Re: Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement

Package I am writing to you as an old physician/scientist and a new

attorney. If you are voting yes to the Bankruptcy Plan because " our science

is bad " please consider this letter first. As many of you know, before my

life as an attorney I served as an expert witness in these and many other

cases. I have studied and practiced clinical immunology, immunopathology

and clinical medicine for over thre decades. I have published extensively in

the peer reviewed medical literature on the subject of cancer, clinical

immunology and immunopathology. I have been on the faculty of Harvard

Medical School and the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), two

of our country's best medical schools. I continue to hold an appointment at

UCSF. I am very familiar with silicone, its adjuvant and immune activation

properties. I will tell you without reservation that there is no better case

for disease causation than the silicone gel breast implant cases. All one

has to do is look at the patient's biologic response to the implant. The

patient mounts a chronic foreign body reaction. This is nature's way of

saying this material is not good. It is harmful and offensive and the body

needs protection by walling the material off. The granulomatous reaction is

identical to the human body's response to syphilis and tuberculosis.

Syphilis and tuberculosis are human diseases with systemic consequences.

Silicone induced granulomatous disease is a human disease with systemic

consequences. Of this there is absolutely no question.

Why then are the defendants able to convince judges that silicone is

" inert " ? The answer is simple. The defense attorneys are paying scientists

and physicians to tell half truths and lies. Using lies and deceit as well

as word games in their writings, these attorneys are requesting judges to

rule that foreign body reactions and granulomatous diseases are " normal

reactions " . Absent strong, intelligent objection, some judges are being

taken in by these deceptive practices.

What can we do about this problem? We can and will bring these people to

accountability. We must use new tactics. We must go on the offensive. It

is not OK for doctors to lie in court. They will be held to their testimony

given under oath. Their testimony will be made public where it will reach

their peers who assess their competence to practice medicine and perform

scientific research. It is not OK for a judge with an eighth grade

education in science to rule that a Nobel Laureate's science is flawed.

This outrages many physician/scientists I know and should outrage you. The

recent ruling by Judge Vining of Georgia is an object example of this

travesty of justice. Judge Vining ruled that Professor Gershwin and

Professor Shanklin's testimony could not be heard by a jury because their

science was flawed. These are two full professors at two of our nation's

finest medical schools who are also currently licensed to practice medicine.

These are two men who serve as senior editors of our nation's finest peer

reviewed medical journals. These are two men who dedicated their

professional lives to the study of silicone gel and its effects on the human

body. These men are constantly reviewed by their peers for their competency

to teach and practice medicine. Both of these men have sterling reputations

in their fields and hold current medical licenses and professorships. Judge

Vining's biography shows no evidence of any scientific training. There is no

rational way this man with his limited grasp on immunology could assess the

credibility of Gershwin or Shanklin's testimony. This is precisely why our

founding fathers developed the jury system. It is far less likely that 9 or

12 independent citizens would be wrongly influenced by lies than one

political appointee. This type of judicial conduct represents either

corruption or irrational reasoning. In either case, these Justices must be

called to answer for their conduct.

If these were limited controversies we could allow this conduct to pass.

Unfortunately this controversy is not limited. This litigation has not only

prostituted breast implant related science, it has corrupted the entire

field of immunology. When I was one of the original developers of the

automated anti-nuclear antibody assay (ANA), the normal range was 1:10. To

be ultra conservative we considered an ANA of less than 1:20 as

non-diagnostic. The other day I ordered an ANA on a 14 year old boy with a

history of rheumatic fever to see if he may have a more serious autoimmune

disorder. I was relieved to see the ANA come back as negative until I read

the reference range. The new reference range is 1:80, an 800% increase.

This means that children with smoldering kidney disease and ANA titer of

1:40 would go undetected until they began to suffer permanent kidney damage.

This is a direct result of the prostitution of immunology caused by breast

implant litigation.

Before this litigation there was no controversy regarding the dangers of

silicone gel. The haze of misinformation laid by the defense in this

litigation is clearing. As in the Agent Orange litigation, the truth about

these dangers is becoming harder and harder to suppress. We must not admit

defeat at this time. We will prevail. If you base your decision on a fear

that you will lose your cases because the scientific support for causation

is lacking, you are mistaken. In the long run, therefore, it probably in

your client's best interest to vote no on the Bankruptcy plan. A five figure

settlement for a lifetime of disease is simply obscene.

Alan S. Levin, M.D., J.D.

Diplomate: American Board of Allergy/Immunology Diplomate: American Board

of Pathology Attorney at Law

PO Box 4703

Incline Village, Nevada 89450

email: flitequack@...

> This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it

> is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged

> information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended

> recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take

> action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or

> subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

> ---

>