children, dow, implants,etc.

[Guest guest]

http://www.plateauconsulting.com/toxicdiscoverynetwork/childrenandthe%20dow%20corning%20bankruptcy.htm

7/14/99

Dow Corning marketed and sold millions of implants to women in the USA and other countries around the world for over 40 years, but never tested or evaluated its implants to determine whether or not there would be any potential adverse effect on infants, either through exposure to materials during pregnancy, or through nursing at the breast of mothers. Today, Dow Corning continues to conduct business in its same facility, using the same employees, continuing to enjoy a large profit (Dow Corning will make over 3 billion dollars this year) while under provisions of the bankruptcy law.

I attended the Dow Corning Bankruptcy Confirmation Hearing the week of June 28, 1999. I was so distraught with the proceedings and the reality, that "we are being taken for a ride". Many have told me it is a "done deal, that Judge Spector has already made up his mind". The Tort Claimants Committee bargained our children's rights away and during this entire time, no one has been concerned with the rights and remedies of the children. They have been underrepresented in this proceeding, despite the fact that claims have been filed against Dow Corning and Dow Chemical for personal injuries , as well as potential class action for medical monitoring testing and funds to treat the children from illnesses and injuries all related to their exposure in utero, or while nursing.

Geoff White, White and Al Levin are the only lawyers representing domestic breast implant women and children who oppose the plan. If it had not been for these three attorney's there would not be one domestic breast implant product liability attorney at the hearing fighting for our rights. Although Al Levin is a new attorney, I give him credit for standing on principle. These three gentlemen have taken a lot of heat and spent an exorbitant amount of money defending those who voted no.

What I learned: Dow Chemical has settled all the New Orleans cases and the Texas cases. I asked Mike (Dow Corning's PR person), "If you can settle all these cases, why can't you take care of the children?" He stated that there was no science to prove the children's cases and the children were not worth their time nor their money"!

Marti s, a breast implant claimant, had filed an objection and went before Judge Spector to defend her objection (she had to release her lawyer to do this). During her questioning of a witness, she introduced a document that was sent to the IOM identifying the number of women who had been paid to date for scleroderma in the Revised Settlement Program (RSP). Those numbers showed a 400% increase in scleroderma alone. Mr. Ed Blizzard stated, first the document was of no value and then he stated it was confidential by Judge Pointer. He truly tried to make a fool of Ms. s, making light of the information. This last February, I attended a hearing before Judge Pointer on Inamed and Judge Cochran was there to present the same number of scleroderma claimants, however, the breast implant manufactures objected to the release. Apparently, the week of June 28, 1999; Judge Pointer released the number of scleroderma claimants in the RSP.

Does it seem strange that the Tort Claimant's Committee makes a deal with Dow Corning for a "Reorganization Plan" and in February of 1999, they hire expert "Mr. Dunbar" who produces a chart "Estimated Nominal Settlement Fund Liability, Breast Implant Benefits, Domestic Claims (RSP Incidence), Settlement Rates of 182 persons for Option 11: level 11 with SS/SLE A, 67 persons for SS/SLE B, 257 persons Ss/SLE C, (*Note: The exact Dunbar Exhibit shown on page 8). Why was he given these numbers and we were not? Mr. Dunbar calculated the children's claims falling into the Litigation Fund of $400 million, but there is a catch, the Litigation Fund only allotted 2 million dollars for the cost of Dow's lawyer's to defend themselves against the children and the physicians. If the children and physicians win their cases, those Moines are not accounted for in the litigation cap of $400 million).

In March of 1999, 3 days after the Dow Corning packets were mailed out to claimants, the 706 Panel comes out with the findings that there is no causation for diseases, then in June, a week before the Conformation hearing is to began the IOM state in their "News Release" that their is no link to diseases of women with silicone breast implants, but in the 500 page report they state their is a need for more "Toxicology Studies". The IOM also stated that it is safe to breast feed and get pregnant. Remember the IOM has never examined women or children , they have only reviewed studies. Both the 706 and the IOM disregarded the eight studies from 1992 to 1998 on more than a hundred children with very rare disorders like "esophageal motility, autoimmune disease and allergies to silicone(s) caused by silicone exposure.

Dow Corning produced two studies in 1997 and 1998 (1 study was on breast milk samples of 15 women with breast implants, testing for silicon, not silicone, and the other study was a review of reports on children born to mothers with breast implants in Norway and how many times they were hospitalized for esophageal motility disorder). These two studies prompted the Plastic Surgeon Society to claim "These two studies are proof that it is safe to breast feed and have children with breast implants".

There are several questions that need to be answered; 1. did the 706 Panel and the IOM Committee receive the numbers of scleroderma claimants in the RSP as did Mr. Dunbar? Has the Tort Claimants Committee inquired with other law firms how many opt-out clients have been diagnosed with scleroderma? If all of these numbers were taken into account the evidence would clearly link scleroderma to silicone gel breast implants!

There are 2,300 direct children claims and 86,000 in-direct children's claims filed with the Dow Corning Bankruptcy.

Tommy Jacks (a Texas product liability lawyer who settled most of his cases against Dow just before they filed for bankruptcy), represented the Tort Claimants' Committee in the hearing on June 28, 1999. Mr. Jacks stated, "The litigation environment I think is an important factor. It's a -whatever you think about it, it's a more difficult environment for claimants to litigate their claims now than it has been in the past however, much we may disagree with conclusions. For example of the science panel or more recently of the National Institute of Medicine. The fact is that those fairly weighty opinions are there and will be given importance by some courts".

The questions asked by Al Levin to Mr. Jacks about the children is as follows:

Question: "Do you have any idea of how many children will be claiming diseases caused by silicone gel in the next five to ten years?" Answer: "Well, the idea is that just as none have in the last five to ten years, I believe none will in the next five to ten years, unless there is a dramatic change in the state of the evidence and the ability to prove children's claims. There are lost of lawyers around the country, good lawyers who represent children and care about children, none of them has sought to pursue one of those claims to trial. And there are good reason for that. And the reasons are that under the present state of the evidence those claims can't be established."

Question: "Are you aware of the fact that there are many board certified currently licensed physicians who are of the opinion that children aren't damaged by silicone gel in breast milk". Answer: By Mr. Jacks, "I don't know that there are some well qualified physicians who believe that. And there's not a great deal reported in the literature at this time although there are some reports, I know that."

Question: Are you aware of the fact that there are many board certified currently licensed physicians who are of the opinion that children aren't damaged by silicone gel in breast milk and trans placental passage? Answer: There are some physicians who - for whose credential I have respect who passionately believe that, yes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Dunbar was also a witness for Dow Corning and the Tort Claimants Committee and calculated the dollar figures for the Dow Bankruptcy Plan. The Questions and Answers pertaining to the children by Bernick for Dow Corning are as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Next category is physicians and children and other silicone materials and you've got that down as $2 million? Answer: Yes.

Question: Okay. Is that basically the cost of basically litigation and dealing with those claims. Answer: Yes, that's basically administrative costs.

Question: If we go to children, have you determined whether there has been any litigation pursued to the point of verdict brought by the children making claims against Dow Corning? Answer: Yes.

Question: And has there been any such litigation? Answer: Well, against all breast implant manufacturers there has been sometimes an attempt to name children, but they've either been dismissed out of the case or there was never any payment for - for a children's claim.

Question: No settlements? Answer: For settlements as far as I know, no.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross Examination by Al Levin to Mr. Dunbar on behalf of the children are as follows:

Question: You did not calculate in the number of direct children's claims in your number here, 295,152? (Note: This number represents the breast implant claimants). Answer: I don't --these are--to my knowledge these are breast implant users.

Question: So you have not calculated in direct children's claims in terms of the --the cost of the litigation to the debtor? Answer: That's correct for the reasons that we went over before.

Question: Did we go over the reasons why you didn't calculate the direct children's claims before? Answer: Yes.

Question: And that's because the children's claims are worth zero? Answer: That's because there's --that's because that's what the data show. That there have been no verdicts on children's claims. There's been no resolutions of which I am aware which paid for children's claims.

Question: And so you have not calculated in any funds for children's claims, is that correct? Answer: Correct. We only have administrative costs for children's claims.

Question: Would that be nuisance costs? Answer: Pardon?

Question: Nuisance costs? Answer: No, administrative costs.

Question: Administration costs deal with the nuisance of children's claims? Answer: I didn't say they were nuisance costs. I said they were administrative costs in the litigation facility.

Question: Do you know how many children's claims will be filed in the next 15 years? Answer: I do not know the answer to that.

Question: Do you know the nature of illnesses that these children are going to --these children are going to allege? Answer: I do not know what the allegations will be for children's claims.

Question: Do you know the cost of care for children who have been made sick by silicone gel? Answer: I presume that's zero because there hasn't been any indication that children are made sick by silicone gel.

Question: Okay. You --is it your testimony that there have been no children made sick by silicone gel? Answer: It's my testimony that there is no epidemiology that I've ever seen that indicates that children have been made sick by.

Question: And the epidemiology is the manner in which doctors identify diseases? Answer: It's - doctors identify diseases through diagnosis.

Question: You know that there are board certified currently licensed pediatricians and other physicians who are treating children who have been made ill by silicone breast implants? Answer: Well, I would dispute that.

Question: Say again, you would dispute that. Answer: I would dispute that.

Question: So it's your testimony that there are no board certified pediatricians who are treating children who are made ill by silicone gel? Answer: But it's my understanding that there is no support for the proposition that breast implants caused sickness in second generation.

Question: And what's your evidence on that? Answer: I haven't seen any epidemiology on it first. Second, there's been chances for litigation and litigation outcomes have been negative to the extent that they've reached any resolution. And, I thank Mr. Jacks testified that he didn't find children's claims to be plausible.

Question: So it's your testimony that Mr. Jacks testified that there will be no children's claims filed or no children's claims adjudicated in the next 15 years? Answer: He said basically that, and this is my take as an economist, that it's legitimate to value the children's claims at zero at this point.

Question: Okay. And do you have children? Answer: I do.

Question: And if your child had a sore throat would you take her to an economist?

*******************************************************************************

The Long-Term Effect, Setting Precedence

Children have been determined by the Dow Bankruptcy as valued less than women of third world countries. If Judge Spector confirms this plan and the children's rights are locked into and limited by the litigation cap, this will set back children's rights by 40 years. Even if a child's exposure to another manufacturer like Baxter or 3M, and the child has the right to proceed in court, the number "ZERO" for their claim will be touted by the defense lawyers, stating, "look what Dow paid". This will be used against all children exposed to harmful chemicals, just as Dow used the A.H. Robins Company where women received $750.00 for their claims and the family members of A.H. Robins walked away with millions of dollars in stock. It was stated, "claimant's received fair compensation for their suffering". Ask yourself, can you take care of your and your child's health needs or a mere few thousand dollars?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This week it war reported by NBC News in New York, "A study out this week is causing concerns among new mothers and medical professionals alike. For years doctors have been saying that breast milk is best for newborn babies. While that's still true, mother's milk is not as natural as it should be." The study found up to 350 different chemicals in a variety of breast milk samples. The problem is being attributed to pollution, along with cosmetics, toiletries, even sunscreens. Those chemicals are absorbed into the body and then secreted in breast milk. Researchers still urge mother's to breast feed. But it wars industries world wide to reduce pollution and warns governments to ban harmful chemicals!

Through my research, I have identified silicone widely used in these products listed above.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I filed an objection in court, asking the children's claims be severed from the bankruptcy proceedings, and have their rights preserved outside of bankruptcy, so that if further scientific study reveals a correlation between their conditions and their exposure to silicone while nursing or during fetal development, then they would be permitted to sue for these damages in the future and not barred by bankruptcy. Again, children born to mothers with any other manufacture of implant are not locked into any kind of settlement grid.

I am willing to fight, but I can not do it alone. If you want to be heard, you need to write letters to Judge Spector or if you really want to make an impression to show your concern you need to go to Bay City on July 27yh, and join us for a rally and see with your own eyes, and remember it is obvious that the Tort Claimants Committee only represents those who voted yes.

There are over 70,000 votes not accounted for, yet Dow and the Tort Claimants Committee states their was a 95% yes vote.

Hundreds of thousands of new and old chemicals, pesticides, drugs, devices and produces are marketed, exposing our children. New technologies are so vast, it is difficult for governmental agencies like the EPA, and the FDA to keep up. Consumers have put their faith in Corporate America, that they will do their due-diligence in testing and providing SAFE products. When a consumer is harmed, they have a "Constitutional Right" to file a law suite against the company(s) that caused HARM. Today the large corporations have created a and Goliath situation spending millions on bias studies and hiding in bankruptcy, protecting the corporations, not the consumer who used their hard working dollars to purchase the product in the first place.

We need to send a message loud and clear! "THE BUCK STOPS HERE AND WE WILL FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTS OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN!"

To all concerned, we need to work together and now is the time! The new hearing starts on July 27th in Bay City, Michigan. Please, be there for our children and yours. Regardless, if your child is healthy or sick, we need to hear from you by mail. Please send a self addressed envelope to C.A.T.S. for our questionnaire, or if you have filled on out, please write for an up-date and remember it is important to fill out Med-Watch Forms on your children. These can be obtained by call the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088.

We would be grateful if you could pitch-in any amount of money to assist with the cost of litigation so that we can continue to fight the fight and help preserve the right of our children. Help us Help YOU!

Sincerely,

Jama Russano - Director

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Estimated Nominal Settlement Fund Liability

Breast Implant Benefits

Domestic Claims (RSP Incidence)

Preliminary and Unchecked

Privileged and Confidential

6/22/99

Settlement Rates

Total Claims Base Per Claim - Premium Per Claim - Settlement Payout with Premium -Discounted

Children Afflicted By Toxic Substances

C.A.T.S.

413 Fort Salonga Road - Suite 2

Northport, New York 11768

Phone: (516) 757-4829

Fax: (516) 757-4872

____________________________________

FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR CHILDREN TODAY AND TOMORROW

_____________________________________

No Breast Implant Has EVER Been Proven Safe!

Expedited Release - 36,858 2,000 73,715,439 73.715,439

Disease Option I: Level 1

A 5,723 50,000 10,000 343,408,428 343,828,237

B 17,123 20,000 4,000 410,950,447 387,519,199

C/D 16,905 10,000 2,000 202,860,694 191,294,143

Option II: Level II - SS/SLE A 182 250,000 50,000 54,581,92 51,469,823

B 67 200,000 40,000 16,136,871 15,216,792

C 257 150,000 30,000 46,252,718 43,615,517

GCTS/PM/DM A 73 110,000 22,000 9,611,929 9,063,884

B 134 75,000 15,000 12,019,305 11,333,998

Rupture 21,602 20,000 5,000 540,047,008 540,047,008

Explant 40,739 5,000 203,696,672 203,696,672

Total 139,000 1,913,281,443 1,850,800,711

Discount is due to Multi-Manufacturer benefit reduction of 50% (see calculation below) The Multi-Manufacturer Discount only applies to Disease Payment Option Claims and is not applied to Expedited, Rupture or Explant Claims. Disclosure Statement, Annex A-13

Breakdown of DCC Claims Claims Percent of known Dow Claims Discount Factor

DCC Only + DCC and Others (non RSP) 104,862 89% 100%

DCC and Others (RSP) 13,497 11% 50%

118,359 100% 0.94