Breast Implant Plaintiff's Attorneys and Clients from Levin 1999

[Guest guest]

Thanks Lea,

---------------------

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 each 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@...