Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

DDD-Sized Lies
David Menzies writes in the Western Standard that claims about breast implant dangers are as inflated as Pamela Anderson's cup size:

Stories about supposedly dangerous implants got their start in the early nineties, following a multibillion-dollar class action lawsuit against silicone implant manufacturers. The suit, joined by tens of thousands of women worldwide, claimed patients suffered all manner of health problems--from rheumatoid arthritis and lupus to fibromyalgia--due to leaky implants. The US$3.2-billion settlement offered by prosthetic manufacturer Dow Corning Corp. forced that company into bankruptcy protection.

But since then, no fewer than 18 different epidemiological studies have failed to find any link between implants and increased risk of disease, says Dr. Walter Peters, a Toronto cosmetic plastic surgeon and a professor of plastic surgery at the University of Toronto. "The lawyers just assumed [illnesses resulted] from the breast implants. And several of the suits were settled in court with juries before it was realized that [ill health] had nothing to do with implants," says Peters. "One woman won a suit of US$25 million, and all she had were flu-like symptoms."

The Washington, D.C.-based Institute of Medicine conducted the most thorough report debunking the silicone link. In a 560-page paper released in 1999, the institute looked into whether implants increased risks of cancer, rheumatoid diseases, neurological diseases, risks to pregnancies and lactation and more--and found no significant risks. Shortly after, Health Canada lifted its moratorium on silicone breast implants.

Today, silicone implants are used in at least half of breast augmentation surgeries, mainly because the alternative--saline implants--is considered inferior by most doctors and patients. "Silicone feels better, it's softer, it's more natural," says Peters. "If someone has very, very little breast tissue and you put a saline implant in, it's like water and you get these ripples and folds on the surface of the implant. You don't get those with [silicone] gel."

...Last year, more than 300,000 North American chests were artificially enlarged, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons--a 24 per cent increase over 2001. So it's no wonder that some feminists are increasingly desperate to spook women away from the procedure.

Not even scientific evidence has managed to extinguish the myths about the dangers of implants. Right now, another class action suit against implant manufacturers is pending in Canada. "There is a group of women still, who, regardless of the science or facts, firmly believe [their ailments] are from breast implants," says Peters.

To what, I wonder, do they attribute their gullibility and stupidity?

Posted by aalkon at June 18, 2006 6:28 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1426

Comments

I've never understood the need for either sex to magnify in a cartoonish manner their body parts; whether boobs, lips, shoulders, butt, ...

Posted by: Oligonicella at June 18, 2006 9:13 AM

To what, I wonder, do they attribute their gullibility and stupidity?

Surely you're not implying that women with fake breasts are stupid? I am shocked, I tellya.

Speaking of breasts and stupid, though...you missed your chance to meet Annn Coulter yesterday. I would have loved to see that go down.

Posted by: LYT at June 18, 2006 5:40 PM

Implants may not be a great risk to a woman's health, but they're an unnecessary one. A woman who walks into the bank with fake hooters gets the same attention as if she'd sounded a Bozo horn at the door; a glance in her direction, and then back to business. Beyond that it's a draw in erotic terms, right? Guys who really, really like tits seem to prefer real ones. Yes? No? It's like how Yanni and Tesh and Kenny G make albums for people who don't like music. Your milage may vary, but I think fake tits are tits for guys who don't like tits. Or maybe for guys who don't like women.

Friends, play along for a minute...

Years ago Paglia talked about how children are drawn to horror movies and violent stuff no matter how safe and loving their homes are. Fathers who'd seen friends killed in WWII made it a point to shelter their families from violence. Postwar parents were surprised that children raised in comfort and plenitude were still drawn to stories of gore and poverty. (Horror movies got really bold depicting gore in the 70's as mainstream films turned to high-concept, less-threatening narratives. White frat boys who've never had so much as a schoolyard fistfight like to listen to rap songs about driveby shootings.) Everybody knows there's blood in their veins, and they want to deal with that nature on a strong level of feeling, even if that feeling is fear or pain.

Plastic surgery is so often either meaningless or detrimental to a woman's attractiveness that I think it's more about connecting to these grander themes. Women who really don't know how beauty works (or how ANYTHING works) want to say they've shed a little blood in the service of The Grand Human Machine. Getting sedated and having people cut into you with knives at least gives you a narrative to talk about, as if you've suffered for your art. I have no numbers, but wouldn't you bet that plastic surgery plunges with education and individual achievement?

Posted by: Crid at June 18, 2006 10:16 PM

I would imagine you're right. While I think it's okay to improve yourself (even surgically), too many people who do look simply freakish or clownish, and in turn, pathetic. In other words, surgical improvement may not be an improvement. A lot of older women these days are fat, so their facial features aren't very visible, but a "woman of consequence" who ages without bloating out can be very beautiful in my opinion. I saw a woman...probably about 75...at a play in Los Angeles recently. She had her hair pulled straight back, and was wearing big jewelry, and was rather wrinkled -- and just gorgeous. She looked like somebody -- and I found out why in talking to her: she was "somebody"...from within. And I don't mean "somebody famous" (although she may have been famous or known). Just "somebody," as in somebody of consequence as a person. She was clearly very beautiful in her youth, but even with wrinkles, she was something to stare at.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 18, 2006 11:52 PM

Yup, just another case of "I don't care what science and reality say! I know what I FEEL and I know I'm right!!" You know, like those people who refuse to have their kids vaccinated because they're convinced it gives them the disease, or refuse to get a blood transfusion because it violates a religious commandment (that they're completely misinterpreting, anyway). Anyway, I worry about aging, because I see so many older women who have just turned into caricatures of who they might once have been in their attempt to stay looking 21 forever. I don't want to end up like that! By the way, on the subject of implants...everyone can tell. They never look right.

Posted by: amh18057 at June 19, 2006 6:02 AM

Where was Ann Coulter? I did hear Bill Clinton on Saturday, but I haven't had time to blog his talk yet. I took his picture (he was shaking the hand of this very cool Thai immigrant, Bo, who's been here for only a year), but I didn't join in the crush of people waiting to shake his hand and get autographs. Just not that kind of girl.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 19, 2006 6:39 AM

Ann Coulter was in Cathy Seipp's backyard, as Mickey Kaus' guest for Maia's graduation.

Posted by: LYT at June 19, 2006 12:56 PM

ARe you retarded?
Silicone is poison.
There is indisputable scientific evidence that silicone is unfit for human implantation.
So who's to blame? Perhaps the greedy morons who are implanting them into women....
be informed!

Posted by: saphoe at June 21, 2006 10:27 AM

Yes now, Something that I would really like to have believe it or not is a true (D) cup set of woman's breasts. Even though I'm a man, They (breasts) would make me feel so complete; just like a woman does. Yes, I know that I would be laughed at but I just don't care!!!!!! I would just love to experience the softness and gentle movement of a womens breasts protruding out on my chest. If only......

Posted by: Glenda Tillson at June 28, 2006 8:43 AM

What evidence? Poison mushrooms are poison, too, but if you don't eat them you're fine.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 29, 2006 8:03 AM

So Hiv/Aids victims are to blame for having Hiv/Aids? So cancer victims are to blame for having cancer?
When an 18 year old teenager is implanted in 1978 before she even finishes high school and she's never heard of the word 'silicone' let alone understands how it will eat away at her body - oh well, I guess, she's to blame.
Research:
Pubmed - silicone and health status of women,systemic lupus erythematosus and scleroderma patients, systemic silicone related disease, rupture of implants and symptoms of pain and fatigue, etc etc.
Frank B. Vasey, Journal of Rheumatology, Where there's smoke there's fire --A new disease that needs to be defined;
Aleina Tweed, Health Implications from Breast Implant Surgery---
Dr. Pierre Blais - Innoval Ltd, Ottawa, ON, Can.
(Dr. Blais is the chemical scientist who blew the whistle on the Meme implant and has studied thousands of implants for fungi, bacteria, mould,chemical toxins,etc ) - ask him if silicone is harmless...."Residual Capsule and Intercapsular Debris as long term risk factors"
WWW.plastikos.com
Ask Dr. Kolb, Dr. Melmed, Dr. Feng - the few specialists who only remove implants because they know that silicone makes you sick.

Brown, Dianne; Wilson, Linda "A Woman in My Position"
Guthrie, Randolph "The Truth About Breast Implants"
Lappe, Marc "Chemical Deception"
Regush, Nicholas "Safety Last: The Failure of the Consumer Health Protection System in Canada"
Bruning, Nancy "Breast Implants - Everything You Need to Know"
Wolfe, Sidney "Women's Health Alert - What Most Doctors Won't Tell You About"
Zimmermann, Susan "Silicone Survivors"
Bondurant, Ernster, Herdman "Safety of Silicone Implants"
Explantation.com
BreastImplantinfo.com
Implant Info Net

But maybe some people think it's perfectly alright for a butcher to implant a teenager, then not tell her anything about the risks for 28 years, then refuse to remove the poisonous bags even though she is suffering from human adjuvant disease, autoimmune disease,fibromyalgia, chronic chest inflammations, sinusitis, longstanding flu/colds, chronic choking and coughing on the excessive phlegm all caused by the body's reaction to the silicone that started to bleed from day one.
But maybe she deserves it because, well, how could she be so stupid as to believe a doctor?

Posted by: saphoe at June 29, 2006 5:27 PM

"So Hiv/Aids victims are to blame for having Hiv/Aids?"

If you're at high-risk for AIDs and you have risky, unprotected sex, and catch AIDs, of course you're to blame.

"So cancer victims are to blame for having cancer?"

If you smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer, chances are, you're to blame.

I know, that doesn't sit well with the PC crowd, the notion that you're accountable for your actions, but you are. Accepting responsibility is the first step toward not being a victim.

Parents are supposed to prevent their minor children from doing dumb, unsafe stuff. Sadly, it doesn't take much to become one.

Regarding the stuff you note above, is it good data or simply scare tactics? Are these recent studies or the old discredited ones? People believe in astrology and god, too -- entirely without proof. It's midnight and I'm on the radio tomorrow at 6:35am, not going to research this stuff. But, FYI, simply throwing out a bunch of names isn't defending a point. It's just...boring. Do your homework, don't just take up blog real estate with lists.

There are risks from many, many things in life. Perhaps it's worth it to some women to risk rupture of implants. We all have a choice, and we make our own choices. If you're an idiot, well, don't pass laws to impinge upon the freedoms of the rest of us because you're too lazy to think for yourself.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 30, 2006 12:28 AM

Apologies if the truth is boring.

If you wish to be known for irresponsible blogging/reporting than go ahead.

I know Walter Peters is a bonafide moron from first hand experience so if that is your only reliable source of information than you're sadly out of touch with the issue of silicone poisoning.

Try:

http://implants.clic.net/tony/Blais/index.html

I don't know your radio program but you're hostile response is of a very cruel, callous individual.

Or maybe you're still too young to have developed any real sense of social responsibility.

If youth is the reasoning behind the ignorance here then you're on your own or you can make a decision to BE INFORMED.

Cancer victims deserve our compassion just as Hiv/Aids victims don't deserve the cruel notions that it's all their fault.

Where have you been these last years under a rock? Times have changed and the days of completely blindly trusting the medical community are behind us.

Young guns untouched by tragedy often have no hearts.

We are forced to take charge of our own medical well being and to do that we must take the initiative to be informed.

This individual's blog space is completely out of touch with reality and hints that it is sponsored by the plastic surgeon lobbyists.

Maybe your dad is an invasive surgeon for profit (like Walter Peters) so it's understandable why you'd defend such a cruel practice.

Perhaps you have an agenda to hide adverse research results too like the surgeons lobbyists.


Posted by: saphoe at July 1, 2006 5:32 PM

You didn't print "the truth" -- you printed a list. If you have a passion for "the truth," why not tell it, using data, and explain why the studies you reference are valid.

Regarding what my father does for a living, it's never had any influence on my thinking, save for the fact that I thought better as a child because he could afford to put food on the table.

Every medical procedure has risks. I don't want breast implants (perish the thought, I'd frighten people and cause car crashes), but if you do, it's up to you to research whether the risks are real, and outweight the benefits.

"Young guns untouched by tragedy often have no hearts."

People who write like that have no taste.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 1, 2006 5:49 PM

I clicked on the link you provided - it's old - 2000, 2001. I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't see support for your points. Perhaps you're just energized by raging in print on a blog.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 1, 2006 5:54 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/cron.html

Here's another old link - one which doesn't support your point:

June 1999
The Institute of Medicine releases a 400-page report prepared by an independent committee of 13 scientists. They conclude that although silicone breast implants may be responsible for localized problems such as hardening or scarring of breast tissue, implants do not cause any major diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization. Congress had asked the Institute to set up the committee. The committee did not conduct any original research; they examined past research and other materials, and conducted public hearings to hear all sides of the issue.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 1, 2006 5:55 PM

And here's another old link disproving your point:

http://reason.com/sullum/120998.shtml

"There is no evidence that silicone breast implants precipitate novel immune responses or induce systemic inflammation," the report concludes. Furthermore, "Women with silicone breast implants do not display a silicone-induced systemic abnormality in the types or functions of the cells of the immune system."

In studies looking at the incidence of illnesses allegedly caused by implants, "No association was evident between breast implants and any of the individual connective tissue diseases, all definite connective diseases combined, or other autoimmune/rheumatic conditions." The panel notes that many of the complaints from women with implants "are common in the general population," and "no distinctive features relating to silicone breast implants could be identified."

The report highlights the shoddiness of the approach favored by litigants and activists who blame implants for just about any symptom reported by a woman who has them. According to The New York Times, a leading lawyer/activist/implant recipient complained that the panel "had focused too closely on scientific studies and had not paid enough attention to the experiences of individual women."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 1, 2006 5:58 PM

Why don't they conduct original research? If they did their research properly they would study women with longer 'dwell times' (longer than 10-20 years) not recently implanted subjects (1-5 years). Silicone disease is 'progressive' and implants are guaranteed to rupture within 10 years.


That's because the evidence has been deliberately hidden from the public.
Do you want to back the 'limited professional oversight, poor record keeping and low standards' of the present day cosmetic surgeon industry?


There is an 'aura of acceptability and popularity' which obscures medical,technical publications and dramatically rising rates of adverse reactions to breast prosthesis.
Although negative publications and reports have been increasing since the mid-seventies the large volume of promotional quasi-scientific material provide a dense cover for the medical repercussions of faulty plastic surgery of the breast.
Fearing loss of revenue and legal repercussions speciality journals and professional associations exercise a degree of selectivity and discourage the submission of negative results.
Plastic surgery has become more unlike the other medical specialities because of aggressive promotion and secrecy with respect to their practices and procedures.
Implants have been failing at endemic rates.
Surgeons rarely bother to report the events.
Control of bad publicity and management of adverse effects become progressively more difficult as the number of affected users and the severity of seqelae increase.


The promotion of lucrative but controversial invasive cosmetic surgery practices has increased dramatically.


The fact is that abuses of the technology of breast prosthesis are rampant with deviant medico-surgical practices,inadequate standards of care, and borderline technologies that disregard basic principles of anatomy and physiology.

Even with the wider publicity surrounding adverse effects aggressive coercive promotion of augmentation and replacement will continue with predictable results.

Mainstream medical practitioners will have limited success in treating patients affected by the broad range of iatrogenic diseases associated with these faulty elective cosmetic technologies.

When surgeons agree to use their own bodies as 'investigational subject-patients' and have themselves implanted with a known carcinogenic substance unfit for human implantation - silicone- then maybe we'll hear the truth about how injurious to the health is a 'large foreign object in the vicinity of the upper chest.'

In the end it's just commonsense.
Why would a neurotoxic pharmaceutical in silicone - Platinol - be good for making prosthesis?

But if you wish to perpetrate the untruths and toe the line with the psychopathic surgical 'business before health' crowd - if that's cool - then fine.

Ignorance thy name is Amy.

Posted by: saphoe at July 2, 2006 7:55 AM

{The committee did not conduct any original research; they examined past research and other materials, and conducted public hearings to hear all sides of the issue.}

Why don't they conduct original research? If they did their research properly they would study women with longer 'dwell times' (longer than 10-20 years) not recently implanted subjects (1-5 years). Silicone disease is 'progressive' and implants are guaranteed to rupture within 10 years.

{weakness of evidence}
That's because the evidence has been deliberately hidden from the public.
Do you want to back the 'limited professional oversight, poor record keeping and low standards' of the present day cosmetic surgeon industry?

{credulous press; overbearing FDA}
There is an 'aura of acceptability and popularity' which obscures medical,technical publications and dramatically rising rates of adverse reactions to breast prosthesis.
Although negative publications and reports have been increasing since the mid-seventies the large volume of promotional quasi-scientific material provide a dense cover for the medical repercussions of faulty plastic surgery of the breast.
Fearing loss of revenue and legal repercussions speciality journals and professional associations exercise a degree of selectivity and discourage the submission of negative results.
Plastic surgery has become more unlike the other medical specialities because of aggressive promotion and secrecy with respect to their practices and procedures.
Implants have been failing at endemic rates.
Surgeons rarely bother to report the events.
Control of bad publicity and management of adverse effects become progressively more difficult as the number of affected users and the severity of seqelae increase.

{foes of silicone succeeded in destroying the industry}
The promotion of lucrative but controversial invasive cosmetic surgery practices has increased dramatically.

{3 decades of use with little evidence of substantial hazards}
The fact is that abuses of the technology of breast prosthesis are rampant with deviant medico-surgical practices,inadequate standards of care, and borderline technologies that disregard basic principles of anatomy and physiology.

Even with the wider publicity surrounding adverse effects aggressive coercive promotion of augmentation and replacement will continue with predictable results.

Mainstream medical practitioners will have limited success in treating patients affected by the broad range of iatrogenic diseases associated with these faulty elective cosmetic technologies.

When surgeons agree to use their own bodies as 'investigational subject-patients' and have themselves implanted with a known carcinogenic substance unfit for human implantation - silicone- then maybe we'll hear the truth about how injurious to the health is a 'large foreign object in the vicinity of the upper chest.'

In the end it's just commonsense.
Why would a neurotoxic pharmaceutical in silicone - Platinol - be good for making prosthesis?

But if you wish to perpetrate the untruths and toe the line with the psychopathic surgical 'business before health' crowd - if that's cool - then fine.

Ignorance thy name is Amy.

Posted by: saphoe at July 2, 2006 7:58 AM

The committee did not conduct any original research; they examined past research and other materials, and conducted public hearings to hear all sides of the issue.

Why don't they conduct original research? If they did their research properly they would study women with longer 'dwell times' (longer than 10-20 years) not recently implanted subjects (1-5 years). Silicone disease is 'progressive' and implants are guaranteed to rupture within 10 years.

weakness of evidence
That's because the evidence has been deliberately hidden from the public.
Do you want to back the 'limited professional oversight, poor record keeping and low standards' of the present day cosmetic surgeon industry?

credulous press; overbearing FDA
There is an 'aura of acceptability and popularity' which obscures medical,technical publications and dramatically rising rates of adverse reactions to breast prosthesis.
Although negative publications and reports have been increasing since the mid-seventies the large volume of promotional quasi-scientific material provide a dense cover for the medical repercussions of faulty plastic surgery of the breast.
Fearing loss of revenue and legal repercussions speciality journals and professional associations exercise a degree of selectivity and discourage the submission of negative results.
Plastic surgery has become more unlike the other medical specialities because of aggressive promotion and secrecy with respect to their practices and procedures.
Implants have been failing at endemic rates.
Surgeons rarely bother to report the events.
Control of bad publicity and management of adverse effects become progressively more difficult as the number of affected users and the severity of seqelae increase.
foes of silicone succeeded in destroying the industry
The promotion of lucrative but controversial invasive cosmetic surgery practices has increased dramatically.

3 decades of use with little evidence of substantial hazards
The fact is that abuses of the technology of breast prosthesis are rampant with deviant medico-surgical practices,inadequate standards of care, and borderline technologies that disregard basic principles of anatomy and physiology.

Even with the wider publicity surrounding adverse effects aggressive coercive promotion of augmentation and replacement will continue with predictable results.

Mainstream medical practitioners will have limited success in treating patients affected by the broad range of iatrogenic diseases associated with these faulty elective cosmetic technologies.

When surgeons agree to use their own bodies as 'investigational subject-patients' and have themselves implanted with a known carcinogenic substance unfit for human implantation - silicone- then maybe we'll hear the truth about how injurious to the health is a 'large foreign object in the vicinity of the upper chest.'

In the end it's just commonsense.
Why would a neurotoxic pharmaceutical in silicone - Platinol - be good for making prosthesis?

But if you wish to perpetrate the untruths and toe the line with the psychopathic surgical 'business before health' crowd - if that's cool - then fine.

Ignorance thy name is Amy.

Posted by: saphoe at July 2, 2006 7:59 AM

You present no proof for your side of the argument. You're just really huffy. That's not good enough.

And a look at number other studies is called a meta-analysis, and the fact that the people doing it didn't do the studies themselves is meaningless.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 2, 2006 8:00 AM

The committee did not conduct any original research; they examined past research and other materials, and conducted public hearings to hear all sides of the issue.

Why don't they conduct original research? If they did their research properly they would study women with longer 'dwell times' (longer than 10-20 years) not recently implanted subjects (1-5 years). Silicone disease is 'progressive' and implants are guaranteed to rupture within 10 years.

weakness of evidence
That's because the evidence has been deliberately hidden from the public.
Do you want to back the 'limited professional oversight, poor record keeping and low standards' of the present day cosmetic surgeon industry?

credulous press; overbearing FDA
There is an 'aura of acceptability and popularity' which obscures medical,technical publications and dramatically rising rates of adverse reactions to breast prosthesis.
Although negative publications and reports have been increasing since the mid-seventies the large volume of promotional quasi-scientific material provide a dense cover for the medical repercussions of faulty plastic surgery of the breast.

Fearing loss of revenue and legal repercussions speciality journals and professional associations exercise a degree of selectivity and discourage the submission of negative results.
Plastic surgery has become more unlike the other medical specialities because of aggressive promotion and secrecy with respect to their practices and procedures.

Implants have been failing at endemic rates and surgeons rarely bother to report the events.

Control of bad publicity and management of adverse effects become progressively more difficult as the number of affected users and the severity of sequelae increase.

foes of silicone succeeded in destroying the industry

The promotion of lucrative but controversial invasive cosmetic surgery practices has increased dramatically.

3 decades of use with little evidence of substantial hazards

The fact is that abuses of the technology of breast prosthesis are rampant with deviant medico-surgical practices,inadequate standards of care, and borderline technologies that disregard basic principles of anatomy and physiology.

Even with the wider publicity surrounding adverse effects aggressive coercive promotion of augmentation and replacement will continue with predictable results.

Mainstream medical practitioners will have limited success in treating patients affected by the broad range of iatrogenic diseases associated with these faulty elective cosmetic technologies.

When surgeons agree to use their own bodies as 'investigational subject-patients' and have themselves implanted with a known carcinogenic substance unfit for human implantation - silicone- then maybe we'll hear the truth about how injurious to the health is a 'large foreign object in the vicinity of the upper chest.'

In the end it's just commonsense.
Why would a neurotoxic pharmaceutical in silicone - Platinol - be good for making prosthesis?

But if you wish to perpetrate the untruths and toe the line with the psychopathic surgical 'business before health' crowd - if that's cool - then fine.

Ignorance thy name is Amy.

Posted by: saphoe at July 2, 2006 8:03 AM

OOOPS!

Posted by: saphoe at July 2, 2006 8:26 AM

Why don't they do this, why don't they do that? They've done research and it doesn't show what these women claim. I don't want silicone breast implants, nor do I plan on having my face shot up with spoiled cow ass. Because the surgeons (some or many or most of whom are men) don't want to unnecessarily stuff their bodies with silicone bags doesn't mean women can't judge the risks or potential detrminents from doing so as worth it to them. I take Ritalin. There are side effects from doing this, and possible detriments. For me, the side effects seem to be slim; therefore, it seems worth it to me to take the drug, which measurably improves my ability to focus on my work. You have yet to present a shred of evidence to prove your point. You just keep repeating these quotes, like "Ignorance thy name is Amy," which are supposed to sound ominous, I guess.

This is a bit old, but it's by Gary Taubes, one of the best investigative science journalists out there.

http://www.discover.com/issues/dec-95/features/siliconeinthesys598/

For example (from the huge Harvard nurses study):

This one was the largest yet: a 14-year study of 87,501 nurses, of whom 876 had silicone implants. The researchers, led by Harvard epidemiologist Graham Colditz, found no association between silicone breast implants and autoimmune disease. Kossovsky claimed that maybe silicone caused some kind of unidentified illness, characterized not by the usual symptoms of autoimmune disorders but by a collection of symptoms such as dry mouth, hair loss, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. But the Harvard study showed no evidence to support that contention either.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 2, 2006 11:15 PM

Apparently my evidence with referenced source citations isn't as valuable as your evidence names of unknowns and 'they'.

Nicholas Regush was one of the 'best scientific journalists out there'
From 'Safety Last-The Failure of the Consumer Health Protection System in Canada' wrote:

An Ottawa Citizen editorial referred to the 'too-little, too-late moves' as a staggering dereliction of public responsibility over silicone breast implants.
Obviously I can't agree more.
Silicone-gel breast implants have joined thalidomide and the Dalkon Shield as the major tragedies of health protection gone awry.

But as a post-grad with critical thinking skills I'd prefer the empirical research of professionally trained scientists to 'scribblers.'

New research studies are coming out every day on the adverse affects of silicone.
Coercive breast augmentation is nothing short of reprehensible.

Dr Vasey University S Florida, Division of Rheumatology states:

...a Dow-Corning funded study has documented that all 28 symptoms were increased in silicone patients.
...In women with defined diseases, case reports and case series showed a suspiciously high improvement rate post implant removal.
...the literature suggests that the vast majority of symptomatic women had a fibromyalgia/chronic fatifue-like illness, which has still not been defined. It is time for organized medicine to convene a group of clinicians who understand the disease (rheumatologists, plastic surgeons, others) and epidemiologists who know how to define the disease in order to document the medical necessity of implant removal.
...we propose criteria to be tested for silicone-related disorder.


Aleina Tweed, The British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's Health, 'Health Complications from Breast Implant Surgery':

...a new study by researchers finds relatively high complication rates for breast implantation.
...the complications were enough to convince these women that they no longer wanted breast implants.
...serious local complication rates are at least 50% or higher and these women are using greater health care resources as a result of this surgery and their health and well-being are at risk.

As a teenager I had no knowledge of the 'risks' and if I had been told there was a possibility that I would lose my prime years to chronic chest inflammations, sinusitis, muscle pains, numerous bone fractures, etc then no I wouldn't have allowed myself to be butchered and mutilated by a surgeon. I was a healthy child and teenager before being implanted by a coercive surgeon.

Just look at the facts why hasn't there been a public registry of BA?,
why hasn't there been an established monitoring follow-up for integrity of the silicone envelope?,
why has the plastic surgery industry become more secretive and remote from the mainstream medical community?,
why have they purchased the adverse reactions results keeping the truth from the public?,
why do they leave women imprisoned refusing to remove implants but rather lecture her when she comes to them with pleas to release her from the excuciaating agony of silicone disease?

When you look at the coercive,deceptive behaviour of the surgeons who profit from keeping women oppressed, entombed in silicone implants it's baffling why you remain so biased for those who deny the debilitating effects of silicone.

I suppose you would say that the 20,000 people who were infected with HIV/Hepatitis C tainted blood in the '80's in Canada deserved it.


Posted by: saphoe at July 3, 2006 8:47 AM

Leave a comment