Fw: Comment c. Toxic substances and disease

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Kathi " <pureheart@...>

Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 6:28 PM

Subject: Re: Comment c. Toxic substances and disease

> Kathi,

>

> I read Toxic substances and disease and found the below to be of

> greatest

> interest.

>

> Brings to my mind many questions about the studies to date and the

> criteria

> the practioners have had to meet or else be ridiculed. There have been

> many

> in epidemiology who have found a causal relationship between silicone

> and

> the immune system illnesses we suffer from.

>

> I also find that the lack of intrest in studing us has certainly not

> helped

> our case.

>

> It brings to my mind if we have been duped not only by Dow's researchers

> but

> the courts also.

> ET

>

> They are not interested in us because of age. They have gotten the

> younger generations to swallow their propoganda and be duped, now they

> sit back and wait several years for the toll to take place. Funny how

> all the studies that are represented to the public are almost entirely

> paid for by the manufacturers! The FDA study that came out post IOM

> report, was not given any hype and most doctors are not even awaare of

> it. We on the other hand, are older, there are less and less of us

> everyday so there is no money in it for them. It has taken far too many

> years, as with Agent Orange.........over twenty years later and now the

> truth is starting to come out but many are dead and no one is listening

> anymore............out of sight out of mind....As for the courts, I

> don't think they were duped, probably padded the pockets a bit, Judge

> Pointer is not working for THEM!

>

> Kathi

>

>

> However, even when epidemiology finds an association, the observational

> (rather than experimental) nature of these studies requires an

> examination

> of whether the association is truly causal or spurious and due to random

>

> error or deficiencies in the study (bias).The same problems may produce

> a

> study that does not find an association when there truly is a causal

> relationship between the agent and the disease in question. See

> D.

> Green et al. Reference Guide on Epidemiology, in Federal Judicial

> Center,

> Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 333, 374-75 (2d ed. 2000); Berry

> v.

> CSX Transp., Inc., 709 So.2d 552, 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998);

> Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 631 N.W.2d 862, 871 (Neb. 2001). Criteria

> for

> assessing whether an association is causal were proposed by Sir Austin

> Bradford Hill. One formulation of these criteria is:

> (1) Is the temporal relationship correct? Does the " effect " follow the

> " cause " ?

> (2) Is there evidence from true experiments in humans?

> (3) Is the association a strong one?

> (4) Is the association consistent from study to study?

> (5) Is there a dose-response gradient?

> (6) Is the association specific?

> (7) Does the association make biological sense?

> (8) Is there an appropriate analogy to other known causal relationships?

>

> See Austin Bradford Hill, The Environment and Disease: Association or

> Causation? 58 Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. 295 (1965). For discussion of these

> criteria and their respective strengths in informing a causal inference,

> see

> 2 L. Faigman et al., Modern Scientific Evidence § 28-2.2.3 (1997);

>

> Leon Gordis, Epidemiology 176-81 (1996); E. Lilienfeld & D.

> Stolley, Foundations of Epidemiology 263-66 (3d ed. 1994).

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Kathi <pureheart@...>

> Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:23 AM

> Subject: Comment c. Toxic substances and disease.

>

>

> > I couldn't find a date on this bbut found it very interesting.

> > kl

> >

> > REPORTERS' NOTE

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Comment c. Toxic substances and disease.

> >

> >

> >

> > (1) Introduction. Since the mid-1970s when asbestos litigation began,

> > there has been a steady stream of toxic substances litigation. Some of

>

> > it is large-scale, exemplified by such well-known case congregations

> as

> > asbestos, Agent Orange, DES, Bendectin, silicone gel breast implants,

> > and fen-Phen. There are also more limited or localized cases, such as

> > hazardous waste cases. In addition to agents such as those identified

> > above, an activity, such as continual use of a keyboard, may be

> > responsible for a person's disease, posing similar difficulties of

> > proof. Thes

>