Fw: Al Levin, M.D., J.D. on Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement Package

[Guest guest]

More from my files:

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

From: " by way of ilena rose " <FLITEQUACK@...>

<Recipient List Suppressed:>

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 5:28 PM

Subject: Al Levin, M.D., J.D. on Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement Package

> Breast Implant Plaintiff's Attorneys and Clients

>

> From: Al Levin, M.D., J.D.

>

> Re: Dow Corning/Dow Chemical Settlement Package

>

> I am writing to you as an old physician/scientist and a new attorney. If

you

> are voting yes to the Bankruptcy Plan because " our science is bad " please

> consider this letter first.

>

> As many of you know, before my life as an attorney I served as an expert

> witness in these and many other cases. I have studied and practiced

clinical

> immunology, immunopathology and clinical medicine for over three decades.

I

> have published extensively in the peer reviewed medical literature on the

> subject of cancer, clinical immunology and immunopathology. I have been

on

> the faculty of Harvard Medical School and the University of California at

San

> Francisco (UCSF), two of our country's best medical schools. I continue

to

> hold an appointment at UCSF. I am very familiar with silicone, its

adjuvant

> and immune activation properties.

>

> I will tell you without reservation that there is no better case for

disease

> causation than the silicone gel breast implant cases. All one has to do

is

> look at the patient's biologic response to the implant. The patient

mounts a

> chronic foreign body reaction. This is nature's way of saying this

material

> is not good. It is harmful and offensive and the body needs protection by

> walling the material off. The granulomatous reaction is identical to the

> human body's response to syphilis and tuberculosis. Syphilis and

tuberculosis

> are human diseases with systemic consequences. Silicone induced

granulomatous

> disease is a human disease with systemic consequences. Of this there is

> absolutely no question.

>

> Why then are the defendants able to convince judges that silicone is

" inert " ?

> The answer is simple. The defense attorneys are paying scientists and

> physicians to tell half truths and lies. Using lies and deceit as well as

> word games in their writings, these attorneys are requesting judges to

rule

> that foreign body reactions and granulomatous diseases are " normal

reactions " .

> Absent strong, intelligent objection, some judges are being taken in by

these

> deceptive practices.

>

> What can we do about this problem? We can and will bring these people to

> accountability. We must use new tactics. We must go on the offensive.

It is

> not OK for doctors to lie in court. They will be held to their testimony

> given under oath. Their testimony will be made public where it will reach

> their peers who assess their competence to practice medicine and perform

> scientific research. It is not OK for a judge with an eighth grade

education

> in science to rule that a Nobel Laureate's science is flawed. This

outrages

> many physician/scientists I know and should outrage you. The recent

ruling by

> Judge Vining of Georgia is an object example of this travesty of justice.

> Judge Vining ruled that Professor Gershwin and Professor Shanklin's

testimony

> could not be heard by a jury because their science was flawed. These are

two

> full professors at two of our nation's finest medical schools who are also

> currently licensed to practice medicine. These are two men who serve as

> senior editors of our nation's finest peer reviewed medical journals.

These

> are two men who dedicated their professional lives to the study of

silicone

> gel and its effects on the human body. These men are constantly reviewed

by

> their peers for their competency to teach and practice medicine. Both of

these

> men have sterling reputations in their fields and hold current medical

> licenses and professorships. Judge Vining's biography shows no evidence of

any

> scientific training. There is no rational way this man with his limited

grasp

> on immunology could assess the credibility of Gershwin or Shanklin's

> testimony. This is precisely why our founding fathers developed the jury

> system. It is far less likely that 9 or 12 independent citizens would be

> wrongly influenced by lies than one political appointee. This type of

judicial

> conduct represents either corruption or irrational reasoning. In either

case,

> these Justices must be called to answer for their conduct.

>

> If these were limited controversies we could allow this conduct to pass.

> Unfortunately this controversy is not limited. This litigation has not

only

> prostituted breast implant related science, it has corrupted the entire

field

> of immunology. When I was one of the original developers of the automated

> anti-nuclear antibody assay (ANA), the normal range was 1:10. To be

ultra

> conservative we considered an ANA of less than 1:20 as non-diagnostic.

The

> other day I ordered an ANA on a 14 year old boy with a history of

rheumatic

> fever to see if he may have a more serious autoimmune disorder. I was

> relieved to see the ANA come back as negative until I read the reference

> range. The new reference range is 1:80, an 800% increase. This means

that

> children with smoldering kidney disease and ANA titer of 1:40 would go

> undetected until they began to suffer permanent kidney damage. This is a

> direct result of the prostitution of immunology caused by breast implant

> litigation.

>

> Before this litigation there was no controversy regarding the dangers of

> silicone gel. The haze of misinformation laid by the defense in this

> litigation is clearing. As in the Agent Orange litigation, the truth

about

> these dangers is becoming harder and harder to suppress. We must not

admit

> defeat at this time. We will prevail.

>

> If you base your decision on a fear that you will lose your cases because

the

> scientific support for causation is lacking, you are mistaken. In the long

> run, therefore, it probably in your client's best interest to vote no on

the

> Bankruptcy plan. A five figure settlement for a lifetime of disease is

simply

> obscene.

>

> Alan S. Levin, M.D., J.D.

> Diplomate: American Board of Allergy/Immunology

> Diplomate: American Board of Pathology

> Attorney at Law

> PO Box 4703

> Incline Village, Nevada 89450

> email: flitequack@...

>

>