Sarcoidosis

[Guest guest]

,

Inflammation is undoubtedly one of the symptoms that is consistent with all of the illnesses we've endured associated with our implants. Autoimmune diseases all have inflammation in common, with various organs involved. It would not surprise me in the least if your wife's implants are causing her condition, and I would highly advise removal as soon as possible, with total capsulectomy, NO COMPROMISE on this.

I am not sure what kind of investigation you are alluding to, but I can only help point you in the direction of a post by Dr. Alan Levine, (an immunologist/pathologist turned lawyer), practicing in Incline Village, Nevada. My best to you and your wife. May God bless you as you seek the truth.

SCAR CAPSULE CAN CAUSE CHRONIC

INFLAMATORY PROCESS SYTEMICALLY OR IN YOUR BODYhttp://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/8689/Caps/cap11.html

By: ALAN S. LEVIN, MD, JD

E-Mail: FLITEQUACK@... "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics":

President Harry S. Truman.

In Ellen Goodman's recent "One View" column regarding breast implants she

lambastes the manufacturers for concealing "the terrible effects of liquid

silicone" from the medical community, yet she implies that the "scientific

facts" point to no "villain." From my perspective as a physician, scientist,

and attorney, nothing could be further from the truth. I became an attorney

to fight against the prostitution of American medicine by large corporations

that purchase medicine and science for courtroom purposes. The breast

implant "controversy" is but one example of this dangerous campaign of

medical misinformation. Before the manufacturers' campaign to corrupt medicine and science began, the

breast implant scientific issues were simple. Silicone activates the immune

system, which causes the formation of a scar capsule. This scar capsule often

becomes quiescent and the individual does not get symptoms. However, in some

individuals, the scar capsule does not become quiescent and these people

suffer from a chronic inflammatory process in their bodies. Think of these

people as having a large, inflamed wooden sliver in their bodies producing

inflammation and pus. Comes now the "controversy." Having been burdened by the expensive asbestos

litigation, chemical manufacturers formed a lobby group called the Chemical

Manufacturers Association (CMA). This lobby group employs lawyers and

scientists whose primary job is "spin control" and coverup. The CMA creates

studies which "prove" that their sponsor's products are harmless. One example is the epidemiology study used by Judge Jack B. Weinstein to

claim, in his now discredited ruling, that Agent Orange (containing a poison

named Dioxin) is harmless. That ruling kept vital plaintiff expert testimony

from a jury and resulted in mass dismissals of cases brought by Vietnam

Veterans. The study, designed by Dr. Ralph Cook of Dow Chemical Company (the

manufacturer of Agent Orange) purported to show that there was no

statistically significant difference in the incidence of cancer and immune

disorders between veterans exposed to Agent Orange and those not exposed

(controls). In order for Dow Chemical to accomplish the designs of this

study, the statistics had to be manipulated to remove as many cancer cases

from the exposed population as possible while adding as many cancer patients

to the control population as possible. These manipulations were absurd.

Incredibly, 25 of the exposed population who developed cancer were removed

from the "exposed with cancer" category because they underwent "unexplained"

orchidectomies or thyroidectomies (surgical removal of the testes or

thyroid). Although clearly cancer surgeries, these procedures were

deemed "cosmetic surgery." Thus, Dow Chemical "proved" Dioxin was harmless

and Judge Weinstein presided over this corruption. Dioxin is now recognized

as one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man.

That same cast of characters is being used to create a breast

implant "controversy." Here again, studies designed by Dr. Ralph Cook and

funded by Dow purport show no statistically significant difference in the

incidence of lymphoid cancer and immune disorders between breast implantees

and controls. Again, the statistics were manipulated. As with the

Dioxin "studies," the breast implant statistical manipulations were absurd.

For example, the cut off date for data acquisition was 1992 because the

massive publicity about the dangers of breast implants might taint the data.

So, publicity causes lymphoid cancer, lupus, Scleroderma and autoantibodies?

Again, with little surprise, Judge Jack Weinstein relied on these flawed

studies to rule that breast implants do not cause systemic disease, despite

the solid body of contrary scientific evidence. If these were limited controversies, we could remain aloof and "wish a plague

on both houses." Unfortunately, these controversies are not limited. As more

and more dangerous chemicals are deemed safe by judicial fiat, people become

cavalier about exposures. A result of this cavalier attitude is the

skyrocketing incidence of childhood leukemia, adult lymphoid cancer, and

breast cancer. We must not sit idly by and watch corporate medical

misinformation campaigns corrupt our judicial system, destroy the health of

our children and erode our constitutional rights to trial by jury.

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

From: james dloughy

Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:59 PM

Subject: Sarcoidosis

My wife was diagnosed with Cardiac Sarcoidosis two years ago. Seven

years ago she was implanted with Saline filled Implants. She

does not present classic symptoms of Cardiac Sarcoidosis except the

discovery of inflammation in the thoracic cavity, including the

myocardium and a very small patch of non-caesating grandulomas in her

upper left lung. As a result of this disease, she has been implanted

with a ICD, placed on a dose of 20mg Prednisone or higher to suppress the inflammation and told she

has five years to live transplant free.

Doctors at the University of California, School of Medicine

report that for a woman with debilitating multisystem sarcoidosis

(multi-organ granulomas), her clinical condition dramatically improved,

after her silicone implants were removed. (International Archives of

Allergy and Immunology 105:4 [December 1994], 404-407). This journal

and many others suggest that there is a possibility that Anne Louise’s

inflammation is a result of her implants.

I am of the opinion that if the implants have one scintilla of a chance

of causing this idiopathic inflammation, an investigation is merited.

I would appreciate your thoughts on whether or not the possiblity

exists of the implants being related to the inflammation. And whether

you have knowledge of implants causing imflammation to the heart or any other vital organ.

Thank you.

[Guest guest]

>

Hi james

I see patty already responded about along the lines I would

concerning your questions about the ability of saline implants to

cause imflammation to organs and/or organ damage. Since implant

have been implicated in causing lupus and scleroderma and other

autoimmune illnesses the answer is a definite yes. Lupus and

scleroderma both can have serious organ damage. In fact there are

several ways sarcoidosis is like these illnesses. Also there is

info showing that people with sarcoidosis have evidence of

mycoplasma or nanobacteria or other cellwall deficient bacteria in

their granulomas and areas of imflammation. Antibiotic therapy,

especially using minocin is having some success in treating this

illness. Minocin is also used to treat RA, lupus, scleroderma and

is now being investigated for ms and als. I am on antibiotic

therapy and am doing well. So are some others with autoimmune

illness due to their breast implants. PLEASE consider this. And

please tell your wife to get out the implants including the entire

capsule. I think it is imperative to her recovery. Good luck and

God bless.

kathy

[Guest guest]

Interesting that smoking seemingly protects from this disease.

Sarcoidosis

Dec. 17, 2004 � A case-control study published in the Dec. 15

issue of the American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care

Medicine suggests environmental and occupational risk factors for

sarcoidosis.

" The prevailing view suggests that sarcoidosis occurs as the

consequence of exposure to one or more environmental agents

interacting with genetic factors, " write Lee S. Newman, MD, MA, from

the National Jewish Medical and Research Center and University of

Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver, Colorado, and

colleagues. " Previous investigators have suggested that

environmental exposures to microbial agents may prove causative

because of their infectious and/or antigenic properties. "

At 10 centers, the investigators recruited and interviewed 706

patients newly diagnosed as having sarcoidosis and an equal number

of age-, race-, and sex-matched control subjects, using

questionnaires regarding occupational and nonoccupational exposures.

Univariable analyses demonstrated positive associations between

sarcoidosis and agricultural employment (odds ratio [OR], 1.46;

confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.89), work exposure to insecticides

(OR, 1.52; CI, 1.14-2.04), and work environment containing mold or

mildew with possible exposure to microbial bioaerosols (OR, 1.61;

CI, 1.13-2.31).

Compared with control subjects, those with sarcoidosis were less

likely to have a history of ever smoking cigarettes (OR, 0.62; CI,

0.50-0.77). Multivariable modeling suggested increased sarcoidosis

risk for work in areas with musty odors (OR, 1.62; CI, 1.24-2.11)

and for occupational exposure to insecticides (OR, 1.61; CI, 1.13-

2.28), and a decreased OR related to ever smoking cigarettes (OR,

0.65; CI, 0.51-0.82).

" The study did not identify a single, predominant cause of

sarcoidosis, " the authors write. " We identified several exposures

associated with sarcoidosis risk, including insecticides,

agricultural employment, and microbial bioaerosols. "

Study limitations include potentially missing risk factors not

considered in questionnaire design, the possibility that some of the

statistically significant results may have occurred due to chance

alone, possible ascertainment bias, failure of many potential

control subjects to participate in the study, differential

information bias, and recall bias.

" Sarcoidosis is considered to be a hypersensitivity disorder, in

which an antigen induces a T cell-mediated cellular immune response.

As a result, it is possible that the etiologic agent or agents may

initiate disease at very low doses of exposure, " the authors

conclude. " Efforts should be directed at integrating exposure data

with our emerging understanding of other sarcoidosis risk modifiers

such as tobacco use, genetics, and familial aggregation. "

Two of the authors report a financial relationship with Centocor.

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170:1324-1330

Learning Objectives for This Educational Activity

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

* Identify the differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis based on

clinical and pathologic features.

* Describe environmental and occupational exposures that can

increase the risk of developing sarcoidosis.

Clinical Context

Sarcoidosis is thought to be the result of an antigen-specific cell-

mediated immune response, and the authors of the current study note

that sarcoidosis can be difficult to distinguish in terms of

clinical and histologic clues from other disease states associated

with antigen exposure. These antigen-related disorders include

chronic beryllium disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis due to

inhaled antigens, and fungal and mycobacterial antigen-induced

granulomatous lung disease.

An increased risk of sarcoidosis has been associated with those

working in multiple occupations, including firefighting and health

care, and environmental exposures to mold or agricultural products.

Because the significance of these possible risk factors remains

controversial, the authors of the current study performed a

multicenter case-control examination of patients with sarcoidosis.

Study Highlights

* Ten centers participated in the study. Subjects with

sarcoidosis were included if they had tissue confirmation of

noncaseating granulomas on biopsy within 6 months of study

enrollment, clinical signs and symptoms of sarcoidosis, and if they

were older than 18 years. Subjects with tuberculosis were excluded,

as were most patients with a history of beryllium exposure.

* Control subjects were recruited by randomized dialing of

telephone numbers.

* All participants received questionnaires regarding specific

jobs, hobbies, and exposures at home and work. They were interviewed

regarding all jobs held within the previous 6 months, and smoking

status was ascertained.

* 736 patients with sarcoidosis were recruited into the study,

and they were compared with 706 controls. 64% of cases were women,

and 53% of all subjects were white. 44% of participants were black.

The median age of cases was 42.1 years.

* On univariable analysis, occupations associated with an

increased risk of sarcoidosis included agricultural employment,

physician, jobs involving raising birds, automotive manufacturing,

and middle and secondary school teacher.

* Exposures more frequently associated with sarcoidosis included

insecticides, pesticides, mold and mildew, and musty odors. All of

these exposures were related to the subject's occupation, but the

use of home central air conditioning was also associated with an

increased risk of sarcoidosis.

* Location in urban vs rural areas did not affect the risk of

sarcoidosis, and other health care workers besides physicians did

not have an increased risk of disease.

* A reduced risk of sarcoidosis was associated with either active

or passive smoking, and subjects with occupations that limited

exposure to other people, such as motor vehicle operator or computer

programmer, were also at reduced risk of sarcoidosis.

* Multivariable analysis confirmed most of the univariable

conclusions of the study. In the multivariable model, the occupation

of physician was no longer associated with an increased risk of

sarcoidosis.

* The authors did not confirm previous reports of an increased

risk of sarcoidosis related to exposure to wood dust, metals,

silica, or talc. They also did not demonstrate that employment as a

firefighter or in the U.S. Navy was associated with sarcoidosis,

although the researchers note that their study may not have been

adequately powered to appropriately analyze these possible risk

factors.

Pearls for Practice

* Sarcoidosis can be mistaken on clinical and pathologic findings

for exposure diseases such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, chronic

beryllium disease, and mycobacterial and fungal granulomatous

disease.

* The current study found an increased risk of sarcoidosis

associated with agricultural employment and exposure to pesticides,

but smoking conferred protection against the development of

sarcoidosis.

Post Test

1. Which of the following is least likely to be part of the

differential diagnosis of a patient with pulmonary sarcoidosis who

has undergone a lung biopsy?

a. Chronic beryllium disease

b. Fungal granulomatous disease

c. Mycobacterial granulomatous disease

d. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis

e. Mesothelioma

2. Which of the following risk factors was not associated with a

higher risk of sarcoidosis in the current study by Newman and

colleagues?

a. Agricultural employment

b. Smoking

c. Employment in automotive manufacturing

d. Pesticide exposure

e. Mold exposure

About News CME

News CME is designed to keep physicians abreast of current research

and related clinical developments that are likely to affect

practice, as reported by the Medscape Medical News group. Send

comments or questions about this program to cmenews@....

Medscape Medical News 2004. © 2004 Medscape

Legal Disclaimer

The material presented here does not reflect the views of Medscape

or the companies providing unrestricted educational grants. These

materials may discuss uses and dosages for therapeutic products that

have not been approved by the United States Food and Drug

Administration. A qualified health care professional should be

consulted before using any therapeutic product discussed. All

readers or continuing education participants should verify all

information and data before treating patients or employing any

therapies described in this educational activity.

[Guest guest]

InfectionandInflammation group; The Marshall Protocol

InfectionAndInflammation/

Unfortunately, I've been watching these folks for years and the

avoidance strategy is working better for me than the therapies these

people have tried have worked for them.

They've all spurned the avoidance lifestyle in favor of experimenting

with various drugs.

But I'm certainly willing to let them be the guinea pigs and see if

anything helps.

I'm not going to take up smoking though.

-