Re: bio-alcamid and 7%

[Guest guest]

,I'm sure the Doc was referencing this direct quote from the Facial Wasting website:"In the interview of Dr. Casavantes, who has performed more Bio-Alcamid implants than any other doctor, expressed his view that the high complication rate for these implants, perhaps 7% to 10%, stem from 2 main causes: a not-fully sterile field on the skin surface and the concomitant capture and injection, at the time of the procedure, of pathogenic skin bacteria (staphylococcus aureus, micrococcus luteus, staphylococcus epidermis and methicilin resistant staph aureus) and poor placement of the implant by not well trained practitioners."The doc was pretty unambiguous in his answer " The magnitude of this problem is not well documented. The overall infection rate (early and late) in Toronto (personal communication - Dr. Beninger) is less than one percent in over 2000 treated patients. " He's just stating what most doctors would agree with, that anecdotal statements by a few individuals don't constitute "research". (and that goes for his reference of less than 1%, too). Bio Alcamid has been widely tried/convicted/condemned on this board by a few individuals who cite anecdotal reports of people having complications, but they have no objective scientific studies to base their claims on. This Doc is simply asking where that statistic comes from? Because he knows fully well no studies have been done to support it. And where does the 7% figure come from? From a doctor stating his opinion, who clearly has a vested interest providing PMMA-- a competing filler. This is one of the dangers of the internet and blog groups. Things get repeated so often that people accept them as truth, when they very well may not be at all. That's pretty much what this doctor is saying: don't get all your info in one place. And just like Wikipedia, you can't always believe everything you read online, so don't.>> Umm, I wonder what information is simply wrong at facialwasting.org. We are > going through some edits right now but it really bothers me when people > criticize instead of telling us their comments so that we can change or edit > content.> > If anyone in this list sees anything that they think is wrong anywhere, > please be kind and let the writers know. It helps everyone.> > > > Regards,> > Vergel> Director> Program for Wellness Restoration> powerusa dot org > > In a message dated 5/10/2008 10:09:33 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > hoppefaith@... writes:> > Response from Dr. Pierone :> > > > Facialwasting.Facialwasting.<WBR>org is a terrific web site and it must be > visited for anyone interested in facial wasting. However, it would be an > overstatement to suggest that one will get all the information needed to make > informed decisions. Some of the content is out of date and some of it is simply > wrong. That said, it is a v> > > > **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)>

[Guest guest]

I truly think the rate is higher than 7%. I probably get more emails and see more information about facial wasting than anyone in the world with my web site and blog. I would not put that stuff in my face in 2008.

We do not hard data and yes, I probably see a biased sample of patients since many with bad experiences email me, but I have also been a user of the product. If you donot get infections eventually, hardening could also be a problem. We have community experience for the past 6 years and that counts for something. Just because a doctor from thebody.com who does not have experience on fillers makes a phone call to Canada does not mean that he is right.

Yes, the problems with BioAlcamid or any other product are also tied to the provider's technique. I just do not want to have a "pocket" of anything in my body that could be a great growing media for bacteria in the future if it gets punctured or disturbed. We used the product back then because we had no other permanent option.

The problems with acrylamides have been documented for years in other countries. I will try to get references soon to show you guys.

I think many people with BioAlcamid will never have problems. But to argue against a 7% rate of complications and to say that it is only 1% is crazy after all we have seen and heard during the past 6 years in this list. We are irresponsible if we at least do not warn people about what we have seen, no matter what the rate is. This applies to all products in HIV

Regards, VergelDirectorProgram for Wellness Restorationpowerusa dot org

In a message dated 5/10/2008 6:23:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jim98122x@... writes:

This is one of the dangers of the internet and blog groups. Things get repeated so often that people accept them as truth, when they very well may not be at all. That's pretty much what this doctor is saying: don't get all your info in one place. And just like Wikipedia, you can't always believe everything you read online, so don'tWondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.

[Guest guest]

"Have you had your BA removed? What are the risks of removing it when there is no infection present? Or is it better to wait until you get an infection?"Personally, I would probably leave it the hell alone, if I had ever allowed this stuff to be injected into my body. Let sleepings dogs lie. If you see any evidence of infection, or fibrosis, I'd go to get help quickly, though.I have no idea what the complication rate is, but I'm certain it is significant. The problems with BA were perfectly predicatable and predicted. The problem is that people who are hurting from life changing disfigurement are susceptible to the sales pitches of people selling snake oil.There are no surveys reported on this list that could possibly generate an accurate measure of complication rates. It is obvious that there is one, though. I think I've seen more problems with BA than with drag queen silicone.JB