Fw: An implant too far? went way too far! ~ Response to Washington Times

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

<letter@...>; <wtnews@...>

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:18 AM

Subject: " An implant too far? " went way too far! ~ Response to Washington

Times

> Eleam

> Letters Editor

> The Washington Times

> 3600 New York Avenue, NW

> Washington, DC 20002-1996

> fax: 202/832-2982

> letter@...,wtnews@...

>

> To the Editor:

>

> Mr. 's is shown publicly prematurely congratulating France on

> something that has not happened -- the lifting of the ban on dangerous

> silicone gel implants.

>

> It appears that the silicone manufacturers and their PR corps have now

> exported their disinformation campaign to Europe.

>

> Claiming that " Neither silicone gel nor implants using silicone are a

threat to

> health " ignores an enormous body of evidence which show that 2/3 women

> with silicone gel implants have at least one rupture at 17 years. The

> serious consequences often include additional surgeries, life threatening

> infections, loss of natural breast tissue and necrosis. Over 200,000 women

> have reported serious complications to the FDA which have threatened their

> health.

>

> Please correct this irresponsible reporting.

>

> Ilena Rosenthal

> Director: The Humantics Foundation for Women

> Breast Implants: Recovery & Discovery

> 1380 Garnet #444

> San Diego, CA 92109

> 858/270-0680

>

> ~~~~~~~~

>

> An implant too far?

> s

> Published 3/15/01

>

>

> -------------------------------------------------------

>

> Are French health care authorities irresponsible - or are their

> American counterparts simply mired in red tape, ignorance and politics?

>

> This is the question that springs to mind when one considers the news

> that French authorities have lifted the ban on silicone gel implants while

> here in America, the federal Food and Drug Administration continues to

> peddle the line that silicone gel is dangerous and to be avoided.

>

> Either the French are crazy or the FDA has become politicized, using

> its regulatory clout to deny Americans treatment options and scare them

with

> unscientific bogeymen about dangers that don't exist.

>

> So, which is it?

>

> If the exhaustive studies of the matter are any guide, the French

are

> not crazy. Neither silicone gel nor implants using silicone are a threat

to

> health. But this is not news - or shouldn't be.

>

> The most authoritative inquiry on the relationship, if any, between

> silicone gel and reported illnesses was conducted by the Institute of

> Medicine (IOM), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, at the behest

of

> Congress last year. It did not get anywhere near the attention it should

> have.

>

> Perhaps this was because the IOM's findings regarding silicone gel

were

> uniformly positive. The researchers found " no evidence that silicone

> implants are responsible for any major diseases of the whole body " -

> including the so-called " auto-immune " diseases alleged by trial lawyers

> representing some women who had implants. Of the 1.5 million women who've

> had breast implant surgery, fully two-thirds have said they are " very

> satisfied " with their supposedly dangerous implants, according to the IOM.

>

> Unfortunately, a false connection was established by the lawyers

> between the facts that some women who had implants later became ill in

some

> way. Yet the fallacy becomes obvious when one considers that in any group

of

> people, over a period of time, at least some will become ill or develop

> maladies. But are these facts related? Not necessarily.

>

> The " cause " and " effect " are no more " connected " to one another than

is

> the crowing of the rooster to the rising of the sun each morning.

>

> It was this false relationship - between silicone gel and serious

> diseases - that the IOM report (and many previous studies, including one

> done by the New England Journal of Medicine) exposed. Those interested in

> reading the facts for themselves can download the full text of the IOM

> report at www.nap.edu on the Internet.

>

> Still, silicone gel and silicone implants continue to suffer from a

bad

> " rep " in the United States. There has been billion-dollar litigation, with

> huge monetary awards - the lion's share of which has gone - you guessed

it -

> straight into the alligator skin wallets of trial lawyers.

>

> The bad " rep " is due in part to the media being spoon-fed false and

> alarming misinformation by those very same trial lawyers - and also as a

> consequence of the overzealousness of former Food and Drug Administration

> (FDA) Administrator Kessler. It was Mr. Kessler who peremptorily

> banned the gel implants back in 1992 on the same specious grounds as the

> courtroom rants of the trial lawyers and their paid " expert witnesses. "

>

> For Mr. Kessler, like other political appointees before him, the

> ginned-up hysteria enhanced his prestige as " protector of the public " -

just

> as other federal bureaucracies, such as the Environmental Protection

Agency,

> often overstate or even manufacture " problems " that only more money and

> resources for the agency in question can solve. As regards the EPA, the

> bogeyman of " global warming " (a theory based on hypothetical scenarios

using

> computer models, not actual data from the real world) is a prime example

of

> science taking a back seat to politics and bureaucratic self-preservation.

>

> As regards the FDA and Mr. Kessler, it never seemed to bother the

man

> too very much that he needlessly terrified tens of thousands of women -

many

> of whom are breast cancer survivors who had the implant surgery done for

> reconstructive purposes following mastectomies - or that he set in motion

a

> legal feeding frenzy that established a dangerous precedent for future

> shakedowns of private business by government. The lawsuits against the

> tobacco and firearms industries being two cases in point.

>

> We all pay for the explosion in spurious litigation and

> pseudo-science - in terms of higher prices, decreased innovation and, in

the

> case of medical products such as silicone gel implants, fewer treatment

> options. No one's interests are served - except, of course, those of the

> trial bar.

>

> The French, having reviewed the evidence, have wisely rethought the

> ban on silicone gel. The health interests of women won out over fear and

> hysteria. Hopefully U.S. health authorities will follow the example of

their

> " crazy " colleagues overseas.

>

> s is an editorial writer for The Washington Times and a

nationally

> syndicated columnist.

>

>