Fw: Comments on Storm in a D-Cup

November 6, 2008

Here is an article that wrote a few years ago...love...Lea

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear TLC:

I would like to comment on a program aired by your channel last night. In many respects, and despite some exposure given to those doctors, support group leaders and victims who are working on behalf of the sick women, Storm in a D-Cup was almost a showcase for breast implants! If the uncaring breast implant manufacturers who make these deadly devices and the greedy plastic surgeons who are so eager to put them in didn't pay for the program, they should have! The entire depiction of the breast implant issue in the program raised many questions for me as to just how fair and just how accurate your producers have been in their reporting.

First, the title of the program was not only childish and a weak attempt to be punny but also made light of a terribly serious medical problem that affects many thousands of women worldwide, to say nothing of the slapstick interludes that punctuated the program. There's nothing light-hearted about the consequences of breast implants! You wouldn't have presented a comedic turn in a program on AIDS, why would you feel that it was all right to do so with breast implants? It would suggest that you are as biased and uncaring as the uncompromising implant supporters you presented in the program.

Second, Dr. Brody, your plastic surgeon, is a notorious naysayer when it comes to breast implant problems and is in utter denial as to the effects of silicone on human physiology. He avoided, of course, any mention of rupture rates. If asked, he would have offered that...oh...perhaps as many as 5-7% rupture. He knows that it is at least 70%! But what does he care, because of his performance on your program, another generation of young women will happily but unknowingly jeopardize their health in his and other equally dismissive plastic surgeons' hands. You couldn't have picked a better plastic surgeon to present the view that thousands and thousands of women are wrong. You should ask scientists about the science of breast implants, not plastic surgeons whose yachts and BMWs depend on their continuing use. Ask a chemist what happens to free-flowing silicone in the body, not a scalpel-wielding technician. And, next time you speak to Dr. Brody, with what he really knows about breast implants, be sure to ask him--hypothetically, and just out of curiosity--if he would approve of his own daughter being implanted.

Third, Dr. Angell, your presumed polymath on anything and everything to do with breast implants, is another vexatious performer choice. Incidentally, she is a pathologist by training, which would suggest to me that she knows more about the dead than the living. With her customary fixed smile, Dr. Angell droned on about how the Hopkins case fuelled a feeding frenzy of opportunistic women and their hungry lawyers who, encouraged by extensive media hype, ended up exploiting the breast implant "scare" for all it was worth. Did she ever consider that all these women were telling the truth and that they deserved the same compensation as Hopkins? Never, not for a second. No, using her clout as the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Angell embarked on her own "opportunistic" venture, "exploiting" her peculiarly advantageous editorial position to publish a book (Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case) on breast implants that, in what to my mind was a colossal conflict of interest, married her own pointedly anti-feminine views to those of the fanatical "junk science" proponents from the lunatic fringe of America's mainstream broadcasting corporations. For this, she was revered by her accomplices. Dr. Angell has, however, feet of clay. As the editor of one of America's most prestigious medical journals, she should have maintained a strictly neutral stance, remaining, if not completely impartial, in at least a pretence of disinterestedness. As it is, she has degraded herself into a mere lackey of the manufacturers and the plastic surgeons. Incidentally, ABC's Regush, a journalist who has written extensively and sincerely about the horrors of silicone, challenged Dr. Angell and Kolata, another "scoop"-driven journalist at the New York Times, to a public debate on breast implants. They refused to meet with him. So much for their courage of conviction!

Dr. Angell waxed on in your program about the so-called "exoneration" of breast implants by recent studies carried out at some of America's finest medical research institutions. She failed to mention, of course, that the majority--if not all--these studies were bought and paid for by the manufacturers. She failed to mention, of course, that those same studies were flawed. She failed to mention, of course, that even these studies did not approve implants without qualification and declared that further research had to be carried out. She failed to mention, of course, that researchers who are working to vindicate the women's claims are slowly but surely being silenced by university administrations that, in turn, are being intimidated by the manufacturers, who threaten to cut off the millions of funding handed out to universities each year. She failed to mention, of course, that there is a particularly rich medical literature, going back more than fifty years, of peer-reviewed articles of studies that support categorically the claim that silicone has deadly physiological consequences when inserted into the human body. She failed to mention, of course, that her "exonerating" studies were all pumped out in the last five years. Fifty years versus five years! Have you ever seen such a clear case of damage control on the part of the manufacturers? Dr. Angell knew all these things, or should have known, but decided to stay with the "party line" anyway. If I were the breast implant manufacturers, I would pay her handsomely for her performance on your program. With the disingenuous Dr. Angell there to front for them, why would they go to the expense of paying expensive public-relations firms to promote their lies and disinformation.

I have watched my wife suffer for over twenty years from silicone poisoning. And my wife's complaints and symptoms were all in evidence years before there was any "feeding frenzy" and "media hype" too. As a support group leader here in Canada, she knows that Dr. Brody and Dr. Angell couldn't be more wrong in their views on breast implants. Unfortunately, their biases will prevent them from ever understanding the truth!

sincerely

September 18, 2010

Dear Lea,

wrote an excellent letter....he is very intelligent, it is obvious!

I'm so sorry that your story had to be taken down.. Your voice should have never

been silenced the way it was....tragic and wrong.

Love you,

Patty

>

> This is old; however, it is still happening today. On " The Doctors " the other

day, they had 4 or 5 women all implanted with these deadly devices. This is all

about money, and when we get sick we become Cash Cows for the Pharmaceuticals.

>

> Love and hope to each of you...always....Lea

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

>

> Dear TLC:

>

> I would like to comment on a program aired by your channel last night. In many

respects, and despite some exposure given to those doctors, support group

leaders and victims who are working on behalf of the sick women, Storm in a

D-Cup was almost a showcase for breast implants! If the uncaring breast implant

manufacturers who make these deadly devices and the greedy plastic surgeons who

are so eager to put them in didn't pay for the program, they should have! The

entire depiction of the breast implant issue in the program raised many

questions for me as to just how fair and just how accurate your producers have

been in their reporting.

>

> First, the title of the program was not only childish and a weak attempt to be

punny but also made light of a terribly serious medical problem that affects

many thousands of women worldwide, to say nothing of the slapstick interludes

that punctuated the program. There's nothing light-hearted about the

consequences of breast implants! You wouldn't have presented a comedic turn in a

program on AIDS, why would you feel that it was all right to do so with breast

implants? It would suggest that you are as biased and uncaring as the

uncompromising implant supporters you presented in the program.

>

> Second, Dr. Brody, your plastic surgeon, is a notorious naysayer when it comes

to breast implant problems and is in utter denial as to the effects of silicone

on human physiology. He avoided, of course, any mention of rupture rates. If

asked, he would have offered that...oh...perhaps as many as 5-7% rupture. He

knows that it is at least 70%! But what does he care, because of his performance

on your program, another generation of young women will happily but unknowingly

jeopardize their health in his and other equally dismissive plastic surgeons'

hands. You couldn't have picked a better plastic surgeon to present the view

that thousands and thousands of women are wrong. You should ask scientists about

the science of breast implants, not plastic surgeons whose yachts and BMWs

depend on their continuing use. Ask a chemist what happens to free-flowing

silicone in the body, not a scalpel-wielding technician. And, next time you

speak to Dr. Brody, with what he really knows about breast implants, be sure to

ask him--hypothetically, and just out of curiosity--if he would approve of his

own daughter being implanted.

>

> Third, Dr. Angell, your presumed polymath on anything and everything to do

with breast implants, is another vexatious performer choice. Incidentally, she

is a pathologist by training, which would suggest to me that she knows more

about the dead than the living. With her customary fixed smile, Dr. Angell

droned on about how the Hopkins case fuelled a feeding frenzy of opportunistic

women and their hungry lawyers who, encouraged by extensive media hype, ended up

exploiting the breast implant " scare " for all it was worth. Did she ever

consider that all these women were telling the truth and that they deserved the

same compensation as Hopkins? Never, not for a second. No, using her clout as

the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Angell embarked on her

own " opportunistic " venture, " exploiting " her peculiarly advantageous editorial

position to publish a book (Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and

the Law in the Breast Implant Case) on breast implants that, in what to my mind

was a colossal conflict of interest, married her own pointedly anti-feminine

views to those of the fanatical " junk science " proponents from the lunatic

fringe of America's mainstream broadcasting corporations. For this, she was

revered by her accomplices. Dr. Angell has, however, feet of clay. As the editor

of one of America's most prestigious medical journals, she should have

maintained a strictly neutral stance, remaining, if not completely impartial, in

at least a pretence of disinterestedness. As it is, she has degraded herself

into a mere lackey of the manufacturers and the plastic surgeons. Incidentally,

ABC's Regush, a journalist who has written extensively and sincerely

about the horrors of silicone, challenged Dr. Angell and Kolata, another

" scoop " -driven journalist at the New York Times, to a public debate on breast

implants. They refused to meet with him. So much for their courage of

conviction!

>

> Dr. Angell waxed on in your program about the so-called " exoneration " of

breast implants by recent studies carried out at some of America's finest

medical research institutions. She failed to mention, of course, that the

majority--if not all--these studies were bought and paid for by the

manufacturers. She failed to mention, of course, that those same studies were

flawed. She failed to mention, of course, that even these studies did not

approve implants without qualification and declared that further research had to

be carried out. She failed to mention, of course, that researchers who are

working to vindicate the women's claims are slowly but surely being silenced by

university administrations that, in turn, are being intimidated by the

manufacturers, who threaten to cut off the millions of funding handed out to

universities each year. She failed to mention, of course, that there is a

particularly rich medical literature, going back more than fifty years, of

peer-reviewed articles of studies that support categorically the claim that

silicone has deadly physiological consequences when inserted into the human

body. She failed to mention, of course, that her " exonerating " studies were all

pumped out in the last five years. Fifty years versus five years! Have you ever

seen such a clear case of damage control on the part of the manufacturers? Dr.

Angell knew all these things, or should have known, but decided to stay with the

" party line " anyway. If I were the breast implant manufacturers, I would pay her

handsomely for her performance on your program. With the disingenuous Dr. Angell

there to front for them, why would they go to the expense of paying expensive

public-relations firms to promote their lies and disinformation.

>

> I have watched my wife suffer for over twenty years from silicone poisoning.

And my wife's complaints and symptoms were all in evidence years before there

was any " feeding frenzy " and " media hype " too. As a support group leader here in

Canada, she knows that Dr. Brody and Dr. Angell couldn't be more wrong in their

views on breast implants. Unfortunately, their biases will prevent them from

ever understanding the truth!

>

> You might want to read my wife's story at www.info-implants.com/ALB/001.html.

>

> Sincerely

>

> 2715-124 Street

> Edmonton, AB

> Canada T6J 4T2

>

September 18, 2010

wrote a wonderful letter.

I tried the link to your story, Lea, but I couldn't find it.

TIA

Hugs of support,

M.

>

> You might want to read my wife's story at www.info-implants.com/ALB/001.html.

September 18, 2010

wrote a wonderful letter.

I tried the link to your story, Lea, but I couldn't find it.

TIA

Hugs of support,

M.

>

> You might want to read my wife's story at www.info-implants.com/ALB/001.html.

September 18, 2010

I found this on YouTube;

But this isn't the one with 4 or 5 women, so it isn't the program is

referring to?

I watched this one and felt sick.

Three doctors fawning over the new implants. Ick.

What if the tables were turned and 3 female doctors were describing the latest

pen*l implant and how the 40+ male could/should go for the surgery to regain

that youthful lift? Ick.

All the while ignorant or ignoring the fact that the implants were a major

health risk.

What a sick money-driven situation.

May there be change.