Re: Current success rate for resufacing

[Guest guest]

At 02:45 AM 10/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>

>I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood me. It

>could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to several data

>sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin, &

>Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the FDA

wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it will

approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm just

playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme. Not

slamming any company or country...

Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the FDA

approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years down the

road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually, they have

discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device gets so

frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a THR. That

was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are illegal to

wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered the

problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought back the

purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple polka

dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a real

liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the insurance

companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all these

devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the fake

data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they can

prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now changed

their name in this country (something about a corporate shield), and on and

on...

BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

clarification for those that are just starting the research process. A lot

of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not to take

it for granted.

Friends?

[Guest guest]

FRIENDS

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

At 02:45 AM 10/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>

>I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood me. It

>could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to several data

>sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin, &

>Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the FDA

wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it will

approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm just

playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme. Not

slamming any company or country...

Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the FDA

approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years down the

road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually, they have

discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device gets so

frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a THR. That

was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are illegal to

wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered the

problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought back the

purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple polka

dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a real

liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the insurance

companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all these

devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the fake

data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they can

prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now changed

their name in this country (something about a corporate shield), and on and

on...

BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

clarification for those that are just starting the research process. A lot

of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not to take

it for granted.

Friends?

[Guest guest]

FRIENDS

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

At 02:45 AM 10/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>

>I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood me. It

>could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to several data

>sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin, &

>Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the FDA

wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it will

approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm just

playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme. Not

slamming any company or country...

Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the FDA

approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years down the

road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually, they have

discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device gets so

frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a THR. That

was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are illegal to

wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered the

problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought back the

purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple polka

dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a real

liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the insurance

companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all these

devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the fake

data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they can

prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now changed

their name in this country (something about a corporate shield), and on and

on...

BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

clarification for those that are just starting the research process. A lot

of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not to take

it for granted.

Friends?

[Guest guest]

I posted mail early today which gives a new site for information on all 4

current devices + some of historical interest. This site correlates Data from

the USA, Germany, Belgium and the UK - the first site I've seen with any Data

outside the UK.

I must be getting pretty boring as a good 8 hours have passed and there is

either stunned silence or nobody is bothered.

Please be the first to look and help spread the information.

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

At 02:45 AM 10/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>

>I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood me. It

>could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to several data

>sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin, &

>Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the FDA

wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it will

approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm just

playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme. Not

slamming any company or country...

Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the FDA

approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years down the

road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually, they have

discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device gets so

frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a THR. That

was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are illegal to

wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered the

problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought back the

purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple polka

dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a real

liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the insurance

companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all these

devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the fake

data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they can

prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now changed

their name in this country (something about a corporate shield), and on and

on...

BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

clarification for those that are just starting the research process. A lot

of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not to take

it for granted.

Friends?

[Guest guest]

I posted mail early today which gives a new site for information on all 4

current devices + some of historical interest. This site correlates Data from

the USA, Germany, Belgium and the UK - the first site I've seen with any Data

outside the UK.

I must be getting pretty boring as a good 8 hours have passed and there is

either stunned silence or nobody is bothered.

Please be the first to look and help spread the information.

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

At 02:45 AM 10/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>

>I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood me. It

>could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to several data

>sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin, &

>Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the FDA

wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it will

approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm just

playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme. Not

slamming any company or country...

Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the FDA

approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years down the

road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually, they have

discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device gets so

frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a THR. That

was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are illegal to

wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered the

problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought back the

purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple polka

dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a real

liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the insurance

companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all these

devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the fake

data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they can

prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now changed

their name in this country (something about a corporate shield), and on and

on...

BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

clarification for those that are just starting the research process. A lot

of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not to take

it for granted.

Friends?

[Guest guest]

I posted mail early today which gives a new site for information on all 4

current devices + some of historical interest. This site correlates Data from

the USA, Germany, Belgium and the UK - the first site I've seen with any Data

outside the UK.

I must be getting pretty boring as a good 8 hours have passed and there is

either stunned silence or nobody is bothered.

Please be the first to look and help spread the information.

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

At 02:45 AM 10/17/2002 +0100, you wrote:

>

>I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood me. It

>could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to several data

>sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin, &

>Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the FDA

wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it will

approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm just

playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme. Not

slamming any company or country...

Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the FDA

approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years down the

road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually, they have

discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device gets so

frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a THR. That

was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are illegal to

wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered the

problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought back the

purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple polka

dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a real

liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the insurance

companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all these

devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the fake

data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they can

prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now changed

their name in this country (something about a corporate shield), and on and

on...

BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

clarification for those that are just starting the research process. A lot

of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not to take

it for granted.

Friends?

[Guest guest]

Oh - we didn't ignore you! The information is very

interesting - but probably won't help those in the US with their

fight for resurfacing - I've come to the conclusion that

the " beaurocratic folks " in the FDA decision-making department must

be overweight, but have good hips. They were real quick to approve

a drug called Phen-fen for weight loss, which later proved to be

harmful to one's heart..... but they're obviously going to overlook

all the good information provided by the European Surgeons who

developed the resurfacing devices; and drag on this approval for

years....

I'm fiercely proud to be an American; but must concede that common

sense does not always rule in this country. If I needed a hip

resurfacing right now, I'd probably have the most success in suing

President Kennedy - who insisted that we all get physical exercise

(but this obviously wore my hip out faster). Then I'd take my

$50,000 (out of a settlement of 3 billion dollars - the lawyers got

the rest), pack up my family, go to Belgium and get my hip fixed and

do a little sightseeing

White, blue, and (embarrassed) red - Deb

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have

understood me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR,

Corin, &

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean.

However, the FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before

it will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA,

I'm just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the

extreme. Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and

the FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three

years down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that

actually, they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the

device gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to

a THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas

are illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they

discovered the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and

brought back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on

purple polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have

taken a real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers

the fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all,

they can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by

now changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate

shield), and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a

gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to

remember not to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh - we didn't ignore you! The information is very

interesting - but probably won't help those in the US with their

fight for resurfacing - I've come to the conclusion that

the " beaurocratic folks " in the FDA decision-making department must

be overweight, but have good hips. They were real quick to approve

a drug called Phen-fen for weight loss, which later proved to be

harmful to one's heart..... but they're obviously going to overlook

all the good information provided by the European Surgeons who

developed the resurfacing devices; and drag on this approval for

years....

I'm fiercely proud to be an American; but must concede that common

sense does not always rule in this country. If I needed a hip

resurfacing right now, I'd probably have the most success in suing

President Kennedy - who insisted that we all get physical exercise

(but this obviously wore my hip out faster). Then I'd take my

$50,000 (out of a settlement of 3 billion dollars - the lawyers got

the rest), pack up my family, go to Belgium and get my hip fixed and

do a little sightseeing

White, blue, and (embarrassed) red - Deb

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have

understood me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR,

Corin, &

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean.

However, the FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before

it will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA,

I'm just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the

extreme. Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and

the FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three

years down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that

actually, they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the

device gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to

a THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas

are illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they

discovered the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and

brought back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on

purple polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have

taken a real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers

the fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all,

they can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by

now changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate

shield), and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a

gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to

remember not to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh - we didn't ignore you! The information is very

interesting - but probably won't help those in the US with their

fight for resurfacing - I've come to the conclusion that

the " beaurocratic folks " in the FDA decision-making department must

be overweight, but have good hips. They were real quick to approve

a drug called Phen-fen for weight loss, which later proved to be

harmful to one's heart..... but they're obviously going to overlook

all the good information provided by the European Surgeons who

developed the resurfacing devices; and drag on this approval for

years....

I'm fiercely proud to be an American; but must concede that common

sense does not always rule in this country. If I needed a hip

resurfacing right now, I'd probably have the most success in suing

President Kennedy - who insisted that we all get physical exercise

(but this obviously wore my hip out faster). Then I'd take my

$50,000 (out of a settlement of 3 billion dollars - the lawyers got

the rest), pack up my family, go to Belgium and get my hip fixed and

do a little sightseeing

White, blue, and (embarrassed) red - Deb

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have

understood me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR,

Corin, &

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean.

However, the FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before

it will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA,

I'm just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the

extreme. Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and

the FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three

years down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that

actually, they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the

device gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to

a THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas

are illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they

discovered the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and

brought back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on

purple polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have

taken a real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers

the fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all,

they can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by

now changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate

shield), and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a

gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to

remember not to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What I'm saying is that some of the information is credited to US Hospitals, US

Surgeons and the US Manufacturer (WRIGHT) - how much further away from Europe

can you get. It just happens to be a UK document with accreditations to the

source of the Information.

Now I agree there are other sources of information CORIN & BHR etc

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

Oh - we didn't ignore you! The information is very

interesting - but probably won't help those in the US with their

fight for resurfacing - I've come to the conclusion that

the " beaurocratic folks " in the FDA decision-making department must

be overweight, but have good hips. They were real quick to approve

a drug called Phen-fen for weight loss, which later proved to be

harmful to one's heart..... but they're obviously going to overlook

all the good information provided by the European Surgeons who

developed the resurfacing devices; and drag on this approval for

years....

I'm fiercely proud to be an American; but must concede that common

sense does not always rule in this country. If I needed a hip

resurfacing right now, I'd probably have the most success in suing

President Kennedy - who insisted that we all get physical exercise

(but this obviously wore my hip out faster). Then I'd take my

$50,000 (out of a settlement of 3 billion dollars - the lawyers got

the rest), pack up my family, go to Belgium and get my hip fixed and

do a little sightseeing

White, blue, and (embarrassed) red - Deb

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have

understood me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR,

Corin, &

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean.

However, the FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before

it will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA,

I'm just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the

extreme. Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and

the FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three

years down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that

actually, they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the

device gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to

a THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas

are illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they

discovered the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and

brought back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on

purple polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have

taken a real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers

the fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all,

they can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by

now changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate

shield), and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a

gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to

remember not to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What I'm saying is that some of the information is credited to US Hospitals, US

Surgeons and the US Manufacturer (WRIGHT) - how much further away from Europe

can you get. It just happens to be a UK document with accreditations to the

source of the Information.

Now I agree there are other sources of information CORIN & BHR etc

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

Oh - we didn't ignore you! The information is very

interesting - but probably won't help those in the US with their

fight for resurfacing - I've come to the conclusion that

the " beaurocratic folks " in the FDA decision-making department must

be overweight, but have good hips. They were real quick to approve

a drug called Phen-fen for weight loss, which later proved to be

harmful to one's heart..... but they're obviously going to overlook

all the good information provided by the European Surgeons who

developed the resurfacing devices; and drag on this approval for

years....

I'm fiercely proud to be an American; but must concede that common

sense does not always rule in this country. If I needed a hip

resurfacing right now, I'd probably have the most success in suing

President Kennedy - who insisted that we all get physical exercise

(but this obviously wore my hip out faster). Then I'd take my

$50,000 (out of a settlement of 3 billion dollars - the lawyers got

the rest), pack up my family, go to Belgium and get my hip fixed and

do a little sightseeing

White, blue, and (embarrassed) red - Deb

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have

understood me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR,

Corin, &

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean.

However, the FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before

it will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA,

I'm just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the

extreme. Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and

the FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three

years down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that

actually, they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the

device gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to

a THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas

are illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they

discovered the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and

brought back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on

purple polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have

taken a real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers

the fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all,

they can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by

now changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate

shield), and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a

gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to

remember not to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What I'm saying is that some of the information is credited to US Hospitals, US

Surgeons and the US Manufacturer (WRIGHT) - how much further away from Europe

can you get. It just happens to be a UK document with accreditations to the

source of the Information.

Now I agree there are other sources of information CORIN & BHR etc

Re: Current success rate for resufacing

Oh - we didn't ignore you! The information is very

interesting - but probably won't help those in the US with their

fight for resurfacing - I've come to the conclusion that

the " beaurocratic folks " in the FDA decision-making department must

be overweight, but have good hips. They were real quick to approve

a drug called Phen-fen for weight loss, which later proved to be

harmful to one's heart..... but they're obviously going to overlook

all the good information provided by the European Surgeons who

developed the resurfacing devices; and drag on this approval for

years....

I'm fiercely proud to be an American; but must concede that common

sense does not always rule in this country. If I needed a hip

resurfacing right now, I'd probably have the most success in suing

President Kennedy - who insisted that we all get physical exercise

(but this obviously wore my hip out faster). Then I'd take my

$50,000 (out of a settlement of 3 billion dollars - the lawyers got

the rest), pack up my family, go to Belgium and get my hip fixed and

do a little sightseeing

White, blue, and (embarrassed) red - Deb

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have

understood me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR,

Corin, &

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean.

However, the FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before

it will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA,

I'm just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the

extreme. Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and

the FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three

years down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that

actually, they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the

device gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to

a THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas

are illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they

discovered the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and

brought back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on

purple polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have

taken a real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers

the fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all,

they can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by

now changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate

shield), and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a

gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to

remember not to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm new to surfacehippy and enjoying hearing your views on BHR

approval etc.

I've just begun researching the surgical possibilities for hips and I

believe that statistics published on success rates versus failures

are clearly a tool with which to reassure the guinneapigs!I have

finally decided to do something with my own hip and so I feel a

little too close to the time where I will have to put my trust in a

surgeon and subsequent choice of implant, or believe data published

which may or may not be for real. Hence the research.

I am 31 years old so I am initially inclined to consider resurfacing

as a worthwhile risk bearing in mind that it is fundamental that as

much bone is preserved as possible in order to increase the

possibility of success in the event of revisions. In the event of a

subsequent THR I understand that the porous Mayo Conservative hip

prothesis would also allow considerable bone preservation. Between

the two I would hope to get close to at least 55-60 years of age. I

am also lead to believe that at that point, after one resurfacing and

one THR as previously described, I would still have a good prognosis

in the event of a third THR (cemented). Have I been mislead? or

simply misunderstood?

I would also note that the head of my femur is severely deformed as a

result of Perthes disease at the age of seven, but the bone and

cartilage is healthy. I am still not clear as to whether or not this

is a greater advantage than the disadvantage is of waiting for

degeneration. Where is the line drawn on this?

What perspective are you coming from on this topic? Patient or Prof?

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood

me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin,

&

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the

FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it

will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm

just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme.

Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the

FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years

down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually,

they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device

gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a

THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are

illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered

the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought

back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple

polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a

real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the

fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they

can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now

changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate shield),

and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not

to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm new to surfacehippy and enjoying hearing your views on BHR

approval etc.

I've just begun researching the surgical possibilities for hips and I

believe that statistics published on success rates versus failures

are clearly a tool with which to reassure the guinneapigs!I have

finally decided to do something with my own hip and so I feel a

little too close to the time where I will have to put my trust in a

surgeon and subsequent choice of implant, or believe data published

which may or may not be for real. Hence the research.

I am 31 years old so I am initially inclined to consider resurfacing

as a worthwhile risk bearing in mind that it is fundamental that as

much bone is preserved as possible in order to increase the

possibility of success in the event of revisions. In the event of a

subsequent THR I understand that the porous Mayo Conservative hip

prothesis would also allow considerable bone preservation. Between

the two I would hope to get close to at least 55-60 years of age. I

am also lead to believe that at that point, after one resurfacing and

one THR as previously described, I would still have a good prognosis

in the event of a third THR (cemented). Have I been mislead? or

simply misunderstood?

I would also note that the head of my femur is severely deformed as a

result of Perthes disease at the age of seven, but the bone and

cartilage is healthy. I am still not clear as to whether or not this

is a greater advantage than the disadvantage is of waiting for

degeneration. Where is the line drawn on this?

What perspective are you coming from on this topic? Patient or Prof?

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood

me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin,

&

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the

FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it

will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm

just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme.

Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the

FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years

down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually,

they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device

gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a

THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are

illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered

the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought

back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple

polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a

real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the

fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they

can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now

changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate shield),

and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not

to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm new to surfacehippy and enjoying hearing your views on BHR

approval etc.

I've just begun researching the surgical possibilities for hips and I

believe that statistics published on success rates versus failures

are clearly a tool with which to reassure the guinneapigs!I have

finally decided to do something with my own hip and so I feel a

little too close to the time where I will have to put my trust in a

surgeon and subsequent choice of implant, or believe data published

which may or may not be for real. Hence the research.

I am 31 years old so I am initially inclined to consider resurfacing

as a worthwhile risk bearing in mind that it is fundamental that as

much bone is preserved as possible in order to increase the

possibility of success in the event of revisions. In the event of a

subsequent THR I understand that the porous Mayo Conservative hip

prothesis would also allow considerable bone preservation. Between

the two I would hope to get close to at least 55-60 years of age. I

am also lead to believe that at that point, after one resurfacing and

one THR as previously described, I would still have a good prognosis

in the event of a third THR (cemented). Have I been mislead? or

simply misunderstood?

I would also note that the head of my femur is severely deformed as a

result of Perthes disease at the age of seven, but the bone and

cartilage is healthy. I am still not clear as to whether or not this

is a greater advantage than the disadvantage is of waiting for

degeneration. Where is the line drawn on this?

What perspective are you coming from on this topic? Patient or Prof?

> >

> >I have read your mail again and I don't think you have understood

me. It

> >could be down to me and the fact that I've made references to

several data

> >sources but in the UK there is " NICE " approval for BHR, Corin,

&

> >Sulzer. Therefore the precedence has been set.

>

> I'm with you, and I think I understand what you mean. However, the

FDA

> wants its own trials using its own particular protocols before it

will

> approve a device. DISCLAIMER----I am not defending the FDA, I'm

just

> playing devil's advocate now and telling a story in the extreme.

Not

> slamming any company or country...

>

> Let's say that we do take the data without our own studies and the

FDA

> approves one or all of the resurfacing devices. Then three years

down the

> road, they discover the data has all been faked, that actually,

they have

> discovered that if you wear purple polka dotted pajamas, the device

gets so

> frightened that it breaks, and everyone has to be converted to a

THR. That

> was fine in that country because purple polka dotted pajamas are

illegal to

> wear, so none of the devices were going to fail--they discovered

the

> problem only when a few traveled to another country and brought

back the

> purple pajamas. However, Target had a huge sale here on purple

polka

> dotted pajamas, and for some reason the surfacehippies have taken a

real

> liking to them. Suddenly we have a rash of failures, and the

insurance

> companies are up in arms because they have paid dearly for all

these

> devices, and now are having to pay again. The FDA discovers the

fake

> data, but they can't sue the other country because, after all, they

can

> prove that they didn't have any failures. The company has by now

changed

> their name in this country (something about a corporate shield),

and on and

> on...

>

> BTW-I wasn't picking on you or anything close to it. Just a gentle

> clarification for those that are just starting the research

process. A lot

> of this is old knowledge to many of us, and we need to remember not

to take

> it for granted.

>

> Friends?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I personally would hope you will see 50 without any revision to the BHR

actually............. I am hoping to get 15-20 yrs from mine given I am 53

and a THR is too risky for me............. by then one could hope some other

technology has been developed that relates to having most of the femur

intact........... probably be difficult to get the metal bit off the head I

guess.........

To me anything that keeps bone intact and the body functioning as close to

normal as possible is the bottom line........ Though I realise some folk

have to have a THR, it does get involved in the area of bone that keeps the

bone marrow......... which of course has to have some impact on bone

integrity........... I am finding evidence post BHR that my body was

suffering from having the circulation restricted to the leg with a fused

hip, so I would think very long term invasion of bone marrow would have to

have some impact........ Thus if choice were available one would do the

less intrusive process.......... and I am definately a patient..............

Edith

>

> Hi, I'm new to surfacehippy and enjoying hearing your views on BHR

> approval etc.

>

> I've just begun researching the surgical possibilities for hips and I

> believe that statistics published on success rates versus failures

> are clearly a tool with which to reassure the guinneapigs!I have

> finally decided to do something with my own hip and so I feel a

> little too close to the time where I will have to put my trust in a

> surgeon and subsequent choice of implant, or believe data published

> which may or may not be for real. Hence the research.

>

> I am 31 years old so I am initially inclined to consider resurfacing

> as a worthwhile risk bearing in mind that it is fundamental that as

> much bone is preserved as possible in order to increase the

> possibility of success in the event of revisions. In the event of a

> subsequent THR I understand that the porous Mayo Conservative hip

> prothesis would also allow considerable bone preservation. Between

> the two I would hope to get close to at least 55-60 years of age. I

> am also lead to believe that at that point, after one resurfacing and

> one THR as previously described, I would still have a good prognosis

> in the event of a third THR (cemented). Have I been mislead? or

> simply misunderstood?

>

> I would also note that the head of my femur is severely deformed as a

> result of Perthes disease at the age of seven, but the bone and

> cartilage is healthy. I am still not clear as to whether or not this

> is a greater advantage than the disadvantage is of waiting for

> degeneration. Where is the line drawn on this?

>

> What perspective are you coming from on this topic? Patient or Prof?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I personally would hope you will see 50 without any revision to the BHR

actually............. I am hoping to get 15-20 yrs from mine given I am 53

and a THR is too risky for me............. by then one could hope some other

technology has been developed that relates to having most of the femur

intact........... probably be difficult to get the metal bit off the head I

guess.........

To me anything that keeps bone intact and the body functioning as close to

normal as possible is the bottom line........ Though I realise some folk

have to have a THR, it does get involved in the area of bone that keeps the

bone marrow......... which of course has to have some impact on bone

integrity........... I am finding evidence post BHR that my body was

suffering from having the circulation restricted to the leg with a fused

hip, so I would think very long term invasion of bone marrow would have to

have some impact........ Thus if choice were available one would do the

less intrusive process.......... and I am definately a patient..............

Edith

>

> Hi, I'm new to surfacehippy and enjoying hearing your views on BHR

> approval etc.

>

> I've just begun researching the surgical possibilities for hips and I

> believe that statistics published on success rates versus failures

> are clearly a tool with which to reassure the guinneapigs!I have

> finally decided to do something with my own hip and so I feel a

> little too close to the time where I will have to put my trust in a

> surgeon and subsequent choice of implant, or believe data published

> which may or may not be for real. Hence the research.

>

> I am 31 years old so I am initially inclined to consider resurfacing

> as a worthwhile risk bearing in mind that it is fundamental that as

> much bone is preserved as possible in order to increase the

> possibility of success in the event of revisions. In the event of a

> subsequent THR I understand that the porous Mayo Conservative hip

> prothesis would also allow considerable bone preservation. Between

> the two I would hope to get close to at least 55-60 years of age. I

> am also lead to believe that at that point, after one resurfacing and

> one THR as previously described, I would still have a good prognosis

> in the event of a third THR (cemented). Have I been mislead? or

> simply misunderstood?

>

> I would also note that the head of my femur is severely deformed as a

> result of Perthes disease at the age of seven, but the bone and

> cartilage is healthy. I am still not clear as to whether or not this

> is a greater advantage than the disadvantage is of waiting for

> degeneration. Where is the line drawn on this?

>

> What perspective are you coming from on this topic? Patient or Prof?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I personally would hope you will see 50 without any revision to the BHR

actually............. I am hoping to get 15-20 yrs from mine given I am 53

and a THR is too risky for me............. by then one could hope some other

technology has been developed that relates to having most of the femur

intact........... probably be difficult to get the metal bit off the head I

guess.........

To me anything that keeps bone intact and the body functioning as close to

normal as possible is the bottom line........ Though I realise some folk

have to have a THR, it does get involved in the area of bone that keeps the

bone marrow......... which of course has to have some impact on bone

integrity........... I am finding evidence post BHR that my body was

suffering from having the circulation restricted to the leg with a fused

hip, so I would think very long term invasion of bone marrow would have to

have some impact........ Thus if choice were available one would do the

less intrusive process.......... and I am definately a patient..............

Edith

>

> Hi, I'm new to surfacehippy and enjoying hearing your views on BHR

> approval etc.

>

> I've just begun researching the surgical possibilities for hips and I

> believe that statistics published on success rates versus failures

> are clearly a tool with which to reassure the guinneapigs!I have

> finally decided to do something with my own hip and so I feel a

> little too close to the time where I will have to put my trust in a

> surgeon and subsequent choice of implant, or believe data published

> which may or may not be for real. Hence the research.

>

> I am 31 years old so I am initially inclined to consider resurfacing

> as a worthwhile risk bearing in mind that it is fundamental that as

> much bone is preserved as possible in order to increase the

> possibility of success in the event of revisions. In the event of a

> subsequent THR I understand that the porous Mayo Conservative hip

> prothesis would also allow considerable bone preservation. Between

> the two I would hope to get close to at least 55-60 years of age. I

> am also lead to believe that at that point, after one resurfacing and

> one THR as previously described, I would still have a good prognosis

> in the event of a third THR (cemented). Have I been mislead? or

> simply misunderstood?

>

> I would also note that the head of my femur is severely deformed as a

> result of Perthes disease at the age of seven, but the bone and

> cartilage is healthy. I am still not clear as to whether or not this

> is a greater advantage than the disadvantage is of waiting for

> degeneration. Where is the line drawn on this?

>

> What perspective are you coming from on this topic? Patient or Prof?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Edith,

Watching RPA last night (a reality show based in the Royal Prince

Alfred Hospital) and one of the patients was a man with a fused hip.

He was hoping to receive a THR but when the surgeon (who's name I

didn't get) opened him up there was not enough muscle to support the

prosthesis. The surgeon instead gave him a femoral osteotomy to

improve the angle of his leg and to even the leg length. Next week we

see his progress after the op to see how well it went. A bit scary as

it was a similar osteotomy that I received last year and I was able

to witness it in all it's gory detail. I will watch next week and see

if I can catch the name of the surgeon.

All the best

Dasher

[Guest guest]

Hi Edith,

Watching RPA last night (a reality show based in the Royal Prince

Alfred Hospital) and one of the patients was a man with a fused hip.

He was hoping to receive a THR but when the surgeon (who's name I

didn't get) opened him up there was not enough muscle to support the

prosthesis. The surgeon instead gave him a femoral osteotomy to

improve the angle of his leg and to even the leg length. Next week we

see his progress after the op to see how well it went. A bit scary as

it was a similar osteotomy that I received last year and I was able

to witness it in all it's gory detail. I will watch next week and see

if I can catch the name of the surgeon.

All the best

Dasher

[Guest guest]

Hi Limpinjoe -

I found your post interesting. I had perthes in my right hip when I

was about 11 years old. I'm 46 now and the top of my femur is pretty

messed up and I have very little cartilage left. I have also been

researching the options. I have talked to the surgeon at my HMO and

he recommends a THR (but of course that's what he does). He is

interested in the metal-on-metal devices but is concerned about the

potential for Chromium 6 to be released in the bloodstream. He feels

the current generation of THR devices should last 25-30 years which,

if true, would put me at 71 years old having a revision. My sister's

father-in-law had a Charnley device put in over 30 years ago and

hasn't needed any surgery since - so it is possible. He says he has

done a lot of revisions and thinks I shouldn't be too worried about

that.

I got a more evasive answer about the risks of dislocation - it does

seem clear that the larger ball/socket does reduce risk of

dislocation.

I agree with you about the idea of preserving as much bone as

possible. It seems to make so much sense. Also, I am encouraged by

the activity level of the folks getting the resurfs - I am also pretty

active and I don't want to give that up (well, I'm less active now,

but I would like to return to those activities).

I have not arrived at any decision yet - I'm just trying to learn

everything I can.

Good luck with your research! Keep the group posted.

[Guest guest]

I'm 31 and I'm definitely going in the direction of resurfacing and I

personally will not accept a THR from my surgeon simply because

that's what he does best, and I don't think I would at 46 either.

That thunderball site is wonderful.

regards

> Hi Limpinjoe -

>

> I found your post interesting. I had perthes in my right hip when

I

> was about 11 years old. I'm 46 now and the top of my femur is

pretty

> messed up and I have very little cartilage left. I have also been

> researching the options. I have talked to the surgeon at my HMO

and

> he recommends a THR (but of course that's what he does). He is

> interested in the metal-on-metal devices but is concerned about the

> potential for Chromium 6 to be released in the bloodstream. He

feels

> the current generation of THR devices should last 25-30 years

which,

> if true, would put me at 71 years old having a revision. My

sister's

> father-in-law had a Charnley device put in over 30 years ago and

> hasn't needed any surgery since - so it is possible. He says he

has

> done a lot of revisions and thinks I shouldn't be too worried about

> that.

>

> I got a more evasive answer about the risks of dislocation - it

does

> seem clear that the larger ball/socket does reduce risk of

> dislocation.

>

> I agree with you about the idea of preserving as much bone as

> possible. It seems to make so much sense. Also, I am encouraged

by

> the activity level of the folks getting the resurfs - I am also

pretty

> active and I don't want to give that up (well, I'm less active now,

> but I would like to return to those activities).

>

> I have not arrived at any decision yet - I'm just trying to learn

> everything I can.

>

> Good luck with your research! Keep the group posted.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm 31 and I'm definitely going in the direction of resurfacing and I

personally will not accept a THR from my surgeon simply because

that's what he does best, and I don't think I would at 46 either.

That thunderball site is wonderful.

regards

> Hi Limpinjoe -

>

> I found your post interesting. I had perthes in my right hip when

I

> was about 11 years old. I'm 46 now and the top of my femur is

pretty

> messed up and I have very little cartilage left. I have also been

> researching the options. I have talked to the surgeon at my HMO

and

> he recommends a THR (but of course that's what he does). He is

> interested in the metal-on-metal devices but is concerned about the

> potential for Chromium 6 to be released in the bloodstream. He

feels

> the current generation of THR devices should last 25-30 years

which,

> if true, would put me at 71 years old having a revision. My

sister's

> father-in-law had a Charnley device put in over 30 years ago and

> hasn't needed any surgery since - so it is possible. He says he

has

> done a lot of revisions and thinks I shouldn't be too worried about

> that.

>

> I got a more evasive answer about the risks of dislocation - it

does

> seem clear that the larger ball/socket does reduce risk of

> dislocation.

>

> I agree with you about the idea of preserving as much bone as

> possible. It seems to make so much sense. Also, I am encouraged

by

> the activity level of the folks getting the resurfs - I am also

pretty

> active and I don't want to give that up (well, I'm less active now,

> but I would like to return to those activities).

>

> I have not arrived at any decision yet - I'm just trying to learn

> everything I can.

>

> Good luck with your research! Keep the group posted.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm 31 and I'm definitely going in the direction of resurfacing and I

personally will not accept a THR from my surgeon simply because

that's what he does best, and I don't think I would at 46 either.

That thunderball site is wonderful.

regards

> Hi Limpinjoe -

>

> I found your post interesting. I had perthes in my right hip when

I

> was about 11 years old. I'm 46 now and the top of my femur is

pretty

> messed up and I have very little cartilage left. I have also been

> researching the options. I have talked to the surgeon at my HMO

and

> he recommends a THR (but of course that's what he does). He is

> interested in the metal-on-metal devices but is concerned about the

> potential for Chromium 6 to be released in the bloodstream. He

feels

> the current generation of THR devices should last 25-30 years

which,

> if true, would put me at 71 years old having a revision. My

sister's

> father-in-law had a Charnley device put in over 30 years ago and

> hasn't needed any surgery since - so it is possible. He says he

has

> done a lot of revisions and thinks I shouldn't be too worried about

> that.

>

> I got a more evasive answer about the risks of dislocation - it

does

> seem clear that the larger ball/socket does reduce risk of

> dislocation.

>

> I agree with you about the idea of preserving as much bone as

> possible. It seems to make so much sense. Also, I am encouraged

by

> the activity level of the folks getting the resurfs - I am also

pretty

> active and I don't want to give that up (well, I'm less active now,

> but I would like to return to those activities).

>

> I have not arrived at any decision yet - I'm just trying to learn

> everything I can.

>

> Good luck with your research! Keep the group posted.

>

>