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

[Guest guest]

Ilena, you are too! I love you girlfriend!

I did see your list from the PR campaign....thought it was very eye-

opening. We should be paying attention to that list, no? (As

in " no buy! " )

I wish I had the article for you....Kathy was the one who originally

posted about it...Kathy, can you fax it, possibly?

Patty

> > 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

[Guest guest]

-

Patty

Just got back from st. louis, I have to find it first. Can you

send me the fax number? By the way, we had a good time even though

it was like 110 at six flags. The five teens stayed the whole 12

hours. Dale and I couldn't take the heat any longer and left around

supper time. But even so, I had enough energy to put in 2 really

long and exhausting days with five teenagers. So for those of you

who wonder if you will ever be able to enjoy a vacation again, the

answer is yes!

Hugs, kathy

-- In , " glory2glory1401 "

<glory2glory1401@y...> wrote:

> Ilena, you are too! I love you girlfriend!

>

> I did see your list from the PR campaign....thought it was very

eye-

> opening. We should be paying attention to that list, no? (As

> in " no buy! " )

>

> I wish I had the article for you....Kathy was the one who

originally

> posted about it...Kathy, can you fax it, possibly?

> Patty

>

>

>

>

> > > 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

[Guest guest]

Kathie,

It's thrilling to know you are doing soooooo good!

I know you've worked very hard to get to this point!

Love, Rogene