Re: article in Woman's Day Aug 2, 2005

[Guest guest]

I think the way to argue this would be to write a rebuttal article

siting evidence. Just maybe the publishers would be interesed in it

then.

--- In , " mikat828 " <mikat828@y...>

wrote:

> Hi. I just finished reading an article entitled " Are you at

> Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't " in Woman's Day

> and I am really ticked. Here is what part of the article says:

> " Remember: Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof. Wait for hard

> scientific evidence to come in before you buy into any health

> scare. " For example, everybody just " knows " that silicone breast

> implants cause illness, " says University of Delaware sociologist

> Best, Ph.d., author of Damned lies and statistics. " Weve all

> seen a woman on Oprah saying " I had breast implants and I feel

> lousy. " Then we've seen some lawyer saying, " no, doubt about it.

> The implants are making her sick. " Trouble is , when research on

> breast implants was finally published, scientists couldn't find

any

> evidence it was true. " If you take 10000 women with implants,

some

> of them are going to get sick, not because they have breast

> implants, but because they are people. " The scientific question

to

> ask is this: Do women with implants get sick more often than

women

> without implants? When the scientific evidence came in, the

answer

> was no. "

> Since this magazine doesn't have a forum where they print letters

> from readers, anybody have any suggestions? I hate to let this go

> unchallenged. It makes me so angry. Perhaps the author of Damned

> Lies and statistics should have seen our recent newspaper article

> about researchers and

> how many from prestigious places like Harvard lie about research---

> making up data and changing facts so that they can get research

> grants. apparently it is becoming a big problem. Some of these

> well respected drs made up entire case studies--the people were

> fictitious! How's that for some " damned lies and statistics! "

> kathy

[Guest guest]

Yes, this does beg a rebuttal article....there has to be a way to

write Woman's Day! Is there no address in the section that lists

the publisher and editor? That is where I would write first.

Patty

--- In , " mikat828 " <mikat828@y...>

wrote:

> Hi. I just finished reading an article entitled " Are you at

> Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't " in Woman's Day

> and I am really ticked. Here is what part of the article says:

> " Remember: Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof. Wait for hard

> scientific evidence to come in before you buy into any health

> scare. " For example, everybody just " knows " that silicone breast

> implants cause illness, " says University of Delaware sociologist

> Best, Ph.d., author of Damned lies and statistics. " Weve all

> seen a woman on Oprah saying " I had breast implants and I feel

> lousy. " Then we've seen some lawyer saying, " no, doubt about it.

> The implants are making her sick. " Trouble is , when research on

> breast implants was finally published, scientists couldn't find

any

> evidence it was true. " If you take 10000 women with implants,

some

> of them are going to get sick, not because they have breast

> implants, but because they are people. " The scientific question

to

> ask is this: Do women with implants get sick more often than

women

> without implants? When the scientific evidence came in, the

answer

> was no. "

> Since this magazine doesn't have a forum where they print letters

> from readers, anybody have any suggestions? I hate to let this go

> unchallenged. It makes me so angry. Perhaps the author of Damned

> Lies and statistics should have seen our recent newspaper article

> about researchers and

> how many from prestigious places like Harvard lie about research---

> making up data and changing facts so that they can get research

> grants. apparently it is becoming a big problem. Some of these

> well respected drs made up entire case studies--the people were

> fictitious! How's that for some " damned lies and statistics! "

> kathy

[Guest guest]

Try:

http://www.womansday.com/default.asp?section_id=22

Rogene

--- glory2glory1401 <glory2glory1401@...> wrote:

> Yes, this does beg a rebuttal article....there has

> to be a way to

> write Woman's Day! Is there no address in the

> section that lists

> the publisher and editor? That is where I would

> write first.

> Patty

>

>

>

> > Hi. I just finished reading an article entitled

> " Are you at

> > Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't "

> in Woman's Day

> > and I am really ticked. Here is what part of the

> article says:

> > " Remember: Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof.

> Wait for hard

> > scientific evidence to come in before you buy into

> any health

> > scare. " For example, everybody just " knows " that

> silicone breast

> > implants cause illness, " says University of

> Delaware sociologist

> > Best, Ph.d., author of Damned lies and

> statistics. " Weve all

> > seen a woman on Oprah saying " I had breast

> implants and I feel

> > lousy. " Then we've seen some lawyer saying, " no,

> doubt about it.

> > The implants are making her sick. " Trouble is ,

> when research on

> > breast implants was finally published, scientists

> couldn't find

> any

> > evidence it was true. " If you take 10000 women

> with implants,

> some

> > of them are going to get sick, not because they

> have breast

> > implants, but because they are people. " The

> scientific question

> to

> > ask is this: Do women with implants get sick more

> often than

> women

> > without implants? When the scientific evidence

> came in, the

> answer

> > was no. "

> > Since this magazine doesn't have a forum where

> they print letters

> > from readers, anybody have any suggestions? I

> hate to let this go

> > unchallenged. It makes me so angry. Perhaps the

> author of Damned

> > Lies and statistics should have seen our recent

> newspaper article

> > about researchers and

> > how many from prestigious places like Harvard lie

> about research---

> > making up data and changing facts so that they can

> get research

> > grants. apparently it is becoming a big problem.

> Some of these

> > well respected drs made up entire case

> studies--the people were

> > fictitious! How's that for some " damned lies and

> statistics! "

> > kathy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Rogene!

Here's the full address and email address:

For any questions or comments to the editors, email:

womansday@...

Or write to:

Reader Mail

Woman's Day

1633 Broadway, 42nd Floor

New York, NY 10019

Please include your full name, address, telephone number, fax number

(if available) and e-mail address in the body of your e-mail along

with a brief description of the suggestion, comment, problem or

question.

The more information you provide, the faster we can process your

query.

Thanks Kathy! Let's make a difference and tell that what we know!

Patty

> > > Hi. I just finished reading an article entitled

> > " Are you at

> > > Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't "

> > in Woman's Day

> > > and I am really ticked. Here is what part of the

> > article says:

> > > " Remember: Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof.

> > Wait for hard

> > > scientific evidence to come in before you buy into

> > any health

> > > scare. " For example, everybody just " knows " that

> > silicone breast

> > > implants cause illness, " says University of

> > Delaware sociologist

> > > Best, Ph.d., author of Damned lies and

> > statistics. " Weve all

> > > seen a woman on Oprah saying " I had breast

> > implants and I feel

> > > lousy. " Then we've seen some lawyer saying, " no,

> > doubt about it.

> > > The implants are making her sick. " Trouble is ,

> > when research on

> > > breast implants was finally published, scientists

> > couldn't find

> > any

> > > evidence it was true. " If you take 10000 women

> > with implants,

> > some

> > > of them are going to get sick, not because they

> > have breast

> > > implants, but because they are people. " The

> > scientific question

> > to

> > > ask is this: Do women with implants get sick more

> > often than

> > women

> > > without implants? When the scientific evidence

> > came in, the

> > answer

> > > was no. "

> > > Since this magazine doesn't have a forum where

> > they print letters

> > > from readers, anybody have any suggestions? I

> > hate to let this go

> > > unchallenged. It makes me so angry. Perhaps the

> > author of Damned

> > > Lies and statistics should have seen our recent

> > newspaper article

> > > about researchers and

> > > how many from prestigious places like Harvard lie

> > about research---

> > > making up data and changing facts so that they can

> > get research

> > > grants. apparently it is becoming a big problem.

> > Some of these

> > > well respected drs made up entire case

> > studies--the people were

> > > fictitious! How's that for some " damned lies and

> > statistics! "

> > > kathy

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I am sure I can find one. It is just it would be so nice if they

actually had the reader's opinions like they do in other magazines

because those actually get read by the readers! If we could get

several people to write in that would be great.

Hugs, kathy

> > Hi. I just finished reading an article entitled " Are you at

> > Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't " in Woman's

Day

> > and I am really ticked. Here is what part of the article says:

> > " Remember: Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof. Wait for hard

> > scientific evidence to come in before you buy into any health

> > scare. " For example, everybody just " knows " that silicone

breast

> > implants cause illness, " says University of Delaware sociologist

> > Best, Ph.d., author of Damned lies and statistics. " Weve

all

> > seen a woman on Oprah saying " I had breast implants and I feel

> > lousy. " Then we've seen some lawyer saying, " no, doubt about

it.

> > The implants are making her sick. " Trouble is , when research

on

> > breast implants was finally published, scientists couldn't find

> any

> > evidence it was true. " If you take 10000 women with implants,

> some

> > of them are going to get sick, not because they have breast

> > implants, but because they are people. " The scientific question

> to

> > ask is this: Do women with implants get sick more often than

> women

> > without implants? When the scientific evidence came in, the

> answer

> > was no. "

> > Since this magazine doesn't have a forum where they print

letters

> > from readers, anybody have any suggestions? I hate to let this

go

> > unchallenged. It makes me so angry. Perhaps the author of

Damned

> > Lies and statistics should have seen our recent newspaper

article

> > about researchers and

> > how many from prestigious places like Harvard lie about research-

--

> > making up data and changing facts so that they can get research

> > grants. apparently it is becoming a big problem. Some of these

> > well respected drs made up entire case studies--the people were

> > fictitious! How's that for some " damned lies and statistics! "

> > kathy

[Guest guest]

Thanks.

kathy

> > > > Hi. I just finished reading an article entitled

> > > " Are you at

> > > > Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't "

> > > in Woman's Day

> > > > and I am really ticked. Here is what part of the

> > > article says:

> > > > " Remember: Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof.

> > > Wait for hard

> > > > scientific evidence to come in before you buy into

> > > any health

> > > > scare. " For example, everybody just " knows " that

> > > silicone breast

> > > > implants cause illness, " says University of

> > > Delaware sociologist

> > > > Best, Ph.d., author of Damned lies and

> > > statistics. " Weve all

> > > > seen a woman on Oprah saying " I had breast

> > > implants and I feel

> > > > lousy. " Then we've seen some lawyer saying, " no,

> > > doubt about it.

> > > > The implants are making her sick. " Trouble is ,

> > > when research on

> > > > breast implants was finally published, scientists

> > > couldn't find

> > > any

> > > > evidence it was true. " If you take 10000 women

> > > with implants,

> > > some

> > > > of them are going to get sick, not because they

> > > have breast

> > > > implants, but because they are people. " The

> > > scientific question

> > > to

> > > > ask is this: Do women with implants get sick more

> > > often than

> > > women

> > > > without implants? When the scientific evidence

> > > came in, the

> > > answer

> > > > was no. "

> > > > Since this magazine doesn't have a forum where

> > > they print letters

> > > > from readers, anybody have any suggestions? I

> > > hate to let this go

> > > > unchallenged. It makes me so angry. Perhaps the

> > > author of Damned

> > > > Lies and statistics should have seen our recent

> > > newspaper article

> > > > about researchers and

> > > > how many from prestigious places like Harvard lie

> > > about research---

> > > > making up data and changing facts so that they can

> > > get research

> > > > grants. apparently it is becoming a big problem.

> > > Some of these

> > > > well respected drs made up entire case

> > > studies--the people were

> > > > fictitious! How's that for some " damned lies and

> > > statistics! "

> > > > kathy

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

I'm going to buy a copy of that Woman's Day magazine so I can read

the article (even though I hate to give them my money) and I will

DEFINITELY be writing to give them my 2 cents!! I'm really amazed

that any " woman's " magazine would print something so one-sided, in

favor of doctors and manufacturers. I'm sure they were paid very

well for doing it!! Thanks, Kathy, for letting us all know about

this.

Maybe we should e-mail everyone we know, especially our families and

friends, who've watched us all suffer, and ask them to write in too.

We need to bombard them with letters...e-mails and letters BOTH so

they know we mean business.

Dianne in PA

[Guest guest]

Dianne

That would be great! The more the better. It is amazing how many

more people come to this site everytime someone gets interviewed about

implant illness. There are still so many women out there who don't

have a clue that their implants are causing their sickness.

Hugs, kathy

> I'm going to buy a copy of that Woman's Day magazine so I can read

> the article (even though I hate to give them my money) and I will

> DEFINITELY be writing to give them my 2 cents!! I'm really amazed

> that any " woman's " magazine would print something so one-sided, in

> favor of doctors and manufacturers. I'm sure they were paid very

> well for doing it!! Thanks, Kathy, for letting us all know about

> this.

>

> Maybe we should e-mail everyone we know, especially our families and

> friends, who've watched us all suffer, and ask them to write in

too.

> We need to bombard them with letters...e-mails and letters BOTH so

> they know we mean business.

>

> Dianne in PA

[Guest guest]

I read the article at the grocery store. I refused to buy the

magazine! I will certainly write a letter letting them know what I

think!

Patty

> I'm going to buy a copy of that Woman's Day magazine so I can read

> the article (even though I hate to give them my money) and I will

> DEFINITELY be writing to give them my 2 cents!! I'm really amazed

> that any " woman's " magazine would print something so one-sided, in

> favor of doctors and manufacturers. I'm sure they were paid very

> well for doing it!! Thanks, Kathy, for letting us all know about

> this.

>

> Maybe we should e-mail everyone we know, especially our families and

> friends, who've watched us all suffer, and ask them to write in

too.

> We need to bombard them with letters...e-mails and letters BOTH so

> they know we mean business.

>

> Dianne in PA

[Guest guest]

Oooh....I just had to write one more time! thanks for the link about

the arsenic Rogene!

womansday@...

Reader Mail

Woman's Day

1633 Broadway, 42nd Floor

New York, NY 10019

Dear Woman's Day,

I recently wrote regarding your article, " Are you at

Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't " expressing my

dismay at your obvious lack of research into the complex issue of

breast implant associated illnesses. I am only writing again

because I had failed to include my full contact information in my

first letter.

I continue to be incensed at the propaganda and misinformation that

is marketed by manufacturer's and media about " safety " when the

facts surrounding sicknesses associated with implants is clearly

contradictory. Your article was obviously biased toward those who

pay you advertising funds--the manufacturers.

Your article claimed that scientific evidence showed that implanted

women do not get sick more often than women without implants.

However, there are certainly studies that clearly refute your

contention, which I outlined in my original letter to you. I will

include a copy of my previous letter at the end of this one.

I want to now add further information to that letter, with

information about the Adjunct Study from this source:

http://www.mesotheliomaresource.org/news/cancer-support/cancer-

support-p-818.htm

The largest study, called the Adjunct Study, enrolled 15,465

reconstruction patients and 9,881 " revision " patients (who had

replaced their previous breast implants with new Inamed silicone gel

implants). The Adjunct Study was the compromise developed by the FDA

to enable large numbers of mastectomy patients and women with broken

gel implants to use silicone gel implants at a time when the company

had not proven that their product was safe. Although women wanting

silicone breast implants were required to participate in the Adjunct

Study, the company apparently made little effort to comply with this

requirement: barely half (54%) of the breast cancer patients who

received Inamed implants stayed in the study for one year. Even fewer

-- 27% -- stayed in the study for three years.

Women who wanted silicone gel implants to replace broken gel implants

were also required to participate in the Adjunct Study, but they were

even less likely to stay in the study than breast cancer patients.

Less than half (44%) stayed in the study for one year and only one in

five (20%) stayed for three years.

" Most women did not stay in these studies for even one year, making

the largest study useless in determining whether the implants are

safe " explains Dr. Zuckerman, president of the National Center

for Policy Research for Women & Families. " Inamed was told that they

were supposed to study the safety of implants as a condition of sale.

The main concern about silicone implants is the health risks when

they

break, but the company did not study women long enough to find out

what those risks are. "

Inamed also gathered data about health symptoms experienced by their

patients. In the FDA review of Inamed''s data, FDA scientists noted

the following:

-- Muscle pain, joint pain, hair loss, rashes, and fatigue all

increased within two years of getting implants. -- In terms of their

quality of life, almost every measure of emotional and physical

health, including social interactions and self-esteem, declined

within two years of getting implants. The improvements were in self-

reported sexual attractiveness.

In its description of the components of the implant shell, the FDA

noted the presence of 24 potentially toxic metals, including arsenic,

lead, mercury, and platinum. (FDA Review Team Memo, p. 9)

In its review of scientific studies conducted by other researchers,

FDA scientists noted:

Cancer -- " The finding of excesses in lung (or respiratory),

cervical,

vulvar, and leukemia have been reported in more than one study. These

findings are difficult to interpret, and further research is needed

to

clarify this issue. " (FDA Review Team Memo, p. 35) (slide #100)

Mammography - " The possibility that implants may delay cancer

detection

is of concern. " (Id p. 38) Silicone Migration - " Cases of distant

migration of gel to breasts, axillary lymph nodes, abdomen, groin,

arm, and fingers have been reported, some with serious consequences

and deformities... " (FDA Review Team Memo, p. 37)

Inamed also reported results from a 5-year study started in 1990, but

it included only 29 reconstruction patients. The study started with

547 augmentation patients, but most were not studied for all five

years. Since most of the patients dropped out of the study and most

had breast implants that the company is no longer selling, results

from this study were not useful.

" The findings show many areas of concerns and unanswered safety

questions, and provide worrisome evidence that women with silicone

gel

implants will face numerous complications directly related to the

implants, symptoms such as pain and fatigue, and declines in health

and mental health, " concludes Dr. Zuckerman. " Although the rupture

rate is low during the first two years, it is expected to increase

every year, as it has in other studies. "

You owe it to your readers to include unbiased, factual information

about breast implants as many women will treat this decision without

careful consideration of the true risks. I know, because I did. I

had breast implants that made me very, very ill, and those health

concerns have resolved since removal of my implants. I KNOW that

implants made me SICK, in direct contradiction to your article.

I am not alone, as I have a support group ( on

groups) that has included thousands of women like me over the past 5

years. Don't make the mistake of printing poor information for the

world to see, because you are going to be refuted. Truth always

wins out.

Sincerely,

Patty Faussett

Email: glory2glory1401@...

Previous letter:

glory2glory1401 " <glory2glory1401@...>

Date: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:01 pm

Subject: My Woman's Day rebuttal glory2glory1401

Dear Woman's Day,

I was greatly offended at your recent article in which you included

a sloppy discussion regarding risks associated with breast

implants.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of journalistic

integrity found with your magazine? It just strengthens my resolve

never to buy your magazine again, nor stock them in our business

waiting rooms.

The author of this poorly researched article states, " " Remember:

Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof. Wait for hard scientific

evidence to come in before you buy into any health scare. " For

example, everybody just " knows " that silicone breast implants cause

illness, " says University of Delaware sociologist Best, Ph.d.,

author of Damned lies and statistics. " Weve all seen a woman on

Oprah saying " I had breast implants and I feel lousy. " Then we've

seen some lawyer saying, " no, doubt about it. The implants are

making her sick. " Trouble is , when research on breast implants was

finally published, scientists couldn't find any evidence it was

true. " If you take 10000 women with implants, some of them are going

to get sick, not because they have breast implants, but because they

are people. " The scientific question to ask is this: Do women with

implants get sick more often than women without implants? When the

scientific evidence came in, the answer was no. "

Unfortunately, you got it just plain wrong. There is, in fact,

evidence that implants are associated with illness. You just didn't

look carefully enough, nor pay attention to who is doing the

funding. Everyone knows you can get manufacturer's to pay for a

study to say what they need it to say for their bottom line. Do you

really think that American women are that stupid?

There are some fairly recent studies published in Epidemiology

(2001), American Journal of Epidemiology (2001), Journal of

Rheumatology (May 2001), and ls of Epidemiology (May 2001) that

show an increased risk of undifferentiated connective tissue

disease, brain cancer, lung cancer and suicide associated with

breast implants and other implanted medical devices. Hmmm, I wonder

why you didn't want to make that fact known?

As just as importantly, since we know that breast implants can

induce illness in women across geographical lines, what about data

from other countries? In a recent Canadian study, supported by the

British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health,

epidemiologist Aleina Tweed focused

on the frequency of health-care use by women with implants, and the

financial burden borne by women and by the public-health system as a

consequence of breast-implant surgery. Data collected from a study

group of 147 women who had undergone breast-implant surgery were

compared to data from a group of 583 women without implants.

Ms. Tweed found that women who have or have had breast implants

visited doctors and specialists significantly more often, were more

than four times as likely to be hospitalized than the women without

implants, and were twice as likely to be admitted to hospital

electively.

You and your employees have done a great disservice to women with

your sloppy and misinformed article about the dangers associated

with breast implants. Those dangers are entirely real. I know,

because I experienced them. Perhaps you want to apologize and/or

retract your information to be more truthful? Until then, I will do

my best to correct the information you have given out by publicly

exposing your misinformation on the internet.

Sincerely,

Patty Faussett

Founder of Salinesupport

[Guest guest]

Patty ... you are such an inspiration!

Did you see the list I posted from the humongous PR Campaign begun

in 1992 that listed this publication as one of 'their' side ?

I see they are still doing it ...

Could anyone fax me that article? Let me know if it is possible.

> Oooh....I just had to write one more time! thanks for the link

about

> the arsenic Rogene!

>

> womansday@h...

>

> Reader Mail

> Woman's Day

> 1633 Broadway, 42nd Floor

> New York, NY 10019

>

> Dear Woman's Day,

>

> I recently wrote regarding your article, " Are you at

> Risk " " When You Need to Worry and When you Don't " expressing my

> dismay at your obvious lack of research into the complex issue of

> breast implant associated illnesses. I am only writing again

> because I had failed to include my full contact information in my

> first letter.

>

> I continue to be incensed at the propaganda and misinformation

that

> is marketed by manufacturer's and media about " safety " when the

> facts surrounding sicknesses associated with implants is clearly

> contradictory. Your article was obviously biased toward those who

> pay you advertising funds--the manufacturers.

>

> Your article claimed that scientific evidence showed that

implanted

> women do not get sick more often than women without implants.

> However, there are certainly studies that clearly refute your

> contention, which I outlined in my original letter to you. I will

> include a copy of my previous letter at the end of this one.

>

> I want to now add further information to that letter, with

> information about the Adjunct Study from this source:

> http://www.mesotheliomaresource.org/news/cancer-support/cancer-

> support-p-818.htm

>

> The largest study, called the Adjunct Study, enrolled 15,465

> reconstruction patients and 9,881 " revision " patients (who had

> replaced their previous breast implants with new Inamed silicone

gel

> implants). The Adjunct Study was the compromise developed by the

FDA

> to enable large numbers of mastectomy patients and women with

broken

> gel implants to use silicone gel implants at a time when the

company

> had not proven that their product was safe. Although women wanting

> silicone breast implants were required to participate in the

Adjunct

> Study, the company apparently made little effort to comply with

this

> requirement: barely half (54%) of the breast cancer patients who

> received Inamed implants stayed in the study for one year. Even

fewer

> -- 27% -- stayed in the study for three years.

>

> Women who wanted silicone gel implants to replace broken gel

implants

> were also required to participate in the Adjunct Study, but they

were

> even less likely to stay in the study than breast cancer patients.

> Less than half (44%) stayed in the study for one year and only one

in

> five (20%) stayed for three years.

>

> " Most women did not stay in these studies for even one year, making

> the largest study useless in determining whether the implants are

> safe " explains Dr. Zuckerman, president of the National

Center

> for Policy Research for Women & Families. " Inamed was told that

they

> were supposed to study the safety of implants as a condition of

sale.

> The main concern about silicone implants is the health risks when

> they

> break, but the company did not study women long enough to find out

> what those risks are. "

>

> Inamed also gathered data about health symptoms experienced by

their

> patients. In the FDA review of Inamed''s data, FDA scientists noted

> the following:

>

> -- Muscle pain, joint pain, hair loss, rashes, and fatigue all

> increased within two years of getting implants. -- In terms of

their

> quality of life, almost every measure of emotional and physical

> health, including social interactions and self-esteem, declined

> within two years of getting implants. The improvements were in

self-

> reported sexual attractiveness.

>

> In its description of the components of the implant shell, the FDA

> noted the presence of 24 potentially toxic metals, including

arsenic,

> lead, mercury, and platinum. (FDA Review Team Memo, p. 9)

>

> In its review of scientific studies conducted by other researchers,

> FDA scientists noted:

>

> Cancer -- " The finding of excesses in lung (or respiratory),

> cervical,

> vulvar, and leukemia have been reported in more than one study.

These

> findings are difficult to interpret, and further research is

needed

> to

> clarify this issue. " (FDA Review Team Memo, p. 35) (slide #100)

> Mammography - " The possibility that implants may delay cancer

> detection

> is of concern. " (Id p. 38) Silicone Migration - " Cases of distant

> migration of gel to breasts, axillary lymph nodes, abdomen, groin,

> arm, and fingers have been reported, some with serious consequences

> and deformities... " (FDA Review Team Memo, p. 37)

>

> Inamed also reported results from a 5-year study started in 1990,

but

> it included only 29 reconstruction patients. The study started with

> 547 augmentation patients, but most were not studied for all five

> years. Since most of the patients dropped out of the study and most

> had breast implants that the company is no longer selling, results

> from this study were not useful.

>

> " The findings show many areas of concerns and unanswered safety

> questions, and provide worrisome evidence that women with silicone

> gel

> implants will face numerous complications directly related to the

> implants, symptoms such as pain and fatigue, and declines in health

> and mental health, " concludes Dr. Zuckerman. " Although the rupture

> rate is low during the first two years, it is expected to increase

> every year, as it has in other studies. "

>

> You owe it to your readers to include unbiased, factual

information

> about breast implants as many women will treat this decision

without

> careful consideration of the true risks. I know, because I did.

I

> had breast implants that made me very, very ill, and those health

> concerns have resolved since removal of my implants. I KNOW that

> implants made me SICK, in direct contradiction to your article.

> I am not alone, as I have a support group ( on

> groups) that has included thousands of women like me over the past

5

> years. Don't make the mistake of printing poor information for

the

> world to see, because you are going to be refuted. Truth always

> wins out.

>

> Sincerely,

> Patty Faussett

> Email: glory2glory1401@y...

>

> Previous letter:

> glory2glory1401 " <glory2glory1401@y...>

> Date: Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:01 pm

> Subject: My Woman's Day rebuttal glory2glory1401

>

> Dear Woman's Day,

> I was greatly offended at your recent article in which you included

> a sloppy discussion regarding risks associated with breast

> implants.

>

> Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at the lack of journalistic

> integrity found with your magazine? It just strengthens my resolve

> never to buy your magazine again, nor stock them in our business

> waiting rooms.

>

> The author of this poorly researched article states, " " Remember:

> Heart-wrenching stories aren't proof. Wait for hard scientific

> evidence to come in before you buy into any health scare. " For

> example, everybody just " knows " that silicone breast implants cause

> illness, " says University of Delaware sociologist Best, Ph.d.,

> author of Damned lies and statistics. " Weve all seen a woman on

> Oprah saying " I had breast implants and I feel lousy. " Then we've

> seen some lawyer saying, " no, doubt about it. The implants are

> making her sick. " Trouble is , when research on breast implants was

> finally published, scientists couldn't find any evidence it was

> true. " If you take 10000 women with implants, some of them are

going

> to get sick, not because they have breast implants, but because

they

> are people. " The scientific question to ask is this: Do women with

> implants get sick more often than women without implants? When the

> scientific evidence came in, the answer was no. "

>

> Unfortunately, you got it just plain wrong. There is, in fact,

> evidence that implants are associated with illness. You just didn't

> look carefully enough, nor pay attention to who is doing the

> funding. Everyone knows you can get manufacturer's to pay for a

> study to say what they need it to say for their bottom line. Do you

> really think that American women are that stupid?

>

> There are some fairly recent studies published in Epidemiology

> (2001), American Journal of Epidemiology (2001), Journal of

> Rheumatology (May 2001), and ls of Epidemiology (May 2001) that

> show an increased risk of undifferentiated connective tissue

> disease, brain cancer, lung cancer and suicide associated with

> breast implants and other implanted medical devices. Hmmm, I wonder

> why you didn't want to make that fact known?

>

> As just as importantly, since we know that breast implants can

> induce illness in women across geographical lines, what about data

> from other countries? In a recent Canadian study, supported by the

> British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health,

> epidemiologist Aleina Tweed focused

> on the frequency of health-care use by women with implants, and the

> financial burden borne by women and by the public-health system as

a

> consequence of breast-implant surgery. Data collected from a study

> group of 147 women who had undergone breast-implant surgery were

> compared to data from a group of 583 women without implants.

>

> Ms. Tweed found that women who have or have had breast implants

> visited doctors and specialists significantly more often, were more

> than four times as likely to be hospitalized than the women without

> implants, and were twice as likely to be admitted to hospital

> electively.

>

> You and your employees have done a great disservice to women with

> your sloppy and misinformed article about the dangers associated

> with breast implants. Those dangers are entirely real. I know,

> because I experienced them. Perhaps you want to apologize and/or

> retract your information to be more truthful? Until then, I will do

> my best to correct the information you have given out by publicly

> exposing your misinformation on the internet.

> Sincerely,

> Patty Faussett

> Founder of Salinesupport