Guest guest Posted January 3, 2006 Report Share Posted January 3, 2006 Thanks Lea! Thanks Lea! Silicone Witch Hunt Cholm Cholm is a Sydney based plastic surgeon and prominent defender of scientific evidence in medical matters is responsible for the fetching dimple in the editor’s nose. Anti-science in the Health Those “unnatural” polymers, the silicones, were synthesized some 100 years ago, but were of little use until WWII when their lubricant properties enabled glass syringes to be used in battlefield first-aid packs, and their extreme chemical and thermal stability and water repellency enabled their use in aviation and electrical applications. They continued to be developed by Dow Corning, an offspring of Dow Chemical and Corning Glass, and exist in many forms, from low viscosity liquids, through gels and putties, to rubbers and hard solids. Since that time, the silicones have become an integral part of our civilisation, in every area, not least medicine, because of their extreme inertness. The first medical implant was as an artificial urethra, later (and ever since) as a life-saving neurosurgical shunt to decompress the brain, and in 1964, as breast implants, to replace many other foreign materials which had produced uniformly disastrous results. These implants consisted of a thin bag of solid silicone, filled with a viscous silicone gel to simulate a normal consistency. Not long afterwards, similar bags filled with saline were devised, but they were less reliable or natural feeling. Elsewhere, a bewildering variety of implants has been utilised to replace body parts, silicones are widely used in skin creams and cosmetics, ingested by all of us in prepared foods and drinks, and in antacids and other medicines. Silicones still lubricate every syringe, and coat the inside of the plumbing in cardiac surgery bypass machines. In short, most humans on this planet continue to have some, and often intimate, daily contact with this evil substance, and many of us have had for about 50 years. Due to widespread silicone use, the US FDA did not require data proving “safety and effectiveness” (whatever that may mean) until 1982. Large numbers of breast prostheses were implanted, in perhaps two million women, and certainly complications ensued, some severe, but these were in general related to technical and surgical problems. Implant failure often occurred, but was not commonly heard of, as the gel was encapsulated by the body, or produced local lumpiness and scarring. Adulterated silicones had been used since the forties, and produced many complications, but the first allegations of immune toxicity of medical-grade silicones occurred with US court cases in the mid 1980s, though these were lost in the growing avalanche of other litigation. The witch hunt began in 1988 with a cancer scare revealed by a “consumer group” actually funded by the US Bar Association. This scare was based on experiments in inbred rats that were long known to get fibrous cancers from many common solid substances. It took some years to “prove” that there was no risk in humans, perhaps even a protective effect. In the meantime certain attorneys began to suspect that they could make silicone the “asbestos of the nineties” and the greatest product liability litigation in history took off, aided by a media which delighted in showing disgusting pictures of leaking silicone gel during the evening meal. Certainly local complications, such as hardening (a normal phenomenon), rupture, displacement, nerve effects etc could occur, and be serious, but these were indiscriminately mixed with other allegations. There were graphic interviews with women, often crippled with severe and recurrent medical problems due to technical complications of surgery, or with specific immune diseases such as lupus, which was now being attributed to silicone. Slowly, scientific evidence has accumulated showing no relationship between silicone and any immune diseases, but the goal-posts have been shifted again, to incriminate common symptoms (insomnia, anxiety, hair loss, joint pains, memory loss etc). These are now attributed to a “new disease” which somehow did not occur until the early nineties. Most of us have some of these symptoms as we age, and they are classically associated with anxiety states, such as those the scare campaign would produce. Epidemics of these symptoms seemed to follow media exposure and varied with the media emphasis. Curiously, no other silicones were targeted, only those of the most vulnerable group; women with their breast implants, and their babies. Silicones used to reconstruct men’s “crown jewels” and in many other areas, were ignored. One of the worst episodes involved allegations of “poisoning” of babies by breast feeding, although one of the most commonly used infant colic medicines contains liquid silicone. A guilt-inspired panic ensued amongst pregnant and nursing mothers, and deliberate abortion of wanted babies was reported. Asthmatic children were paraded in the media, and were told they were irretrievably poisoned by their mother’s implants. The effect on their disease management can only be imagined, but to my mind, using children as media fodder is gross child abuse. Extremist feminists became involved, as their worst fears about cosmetic surgery were confirmed, seriously likening this vol untary surgery to foot binding, genital mutilation, and female infanticide! In early 1992, ignoring recommendations from its own scientific advisors, the FDA banned gel filled implants despite the fact that newer implants seemed much less likely to produce the technical complications which generated most concern ( sweating, rupture, hardening etc). The ban was followed in Canada and Australia and, temporarily, in New Zealand. The UK never saw cause to ban them. Our TGA told us privately that they had no concerns about cancer or immune disease, but “political and media imperatives” forced the ban. The effect on the two million or so women with implants was catastrophic, but they were told not to have these “time bombs” removed until after they had problems! Local taxpayer-funded consumer groups who began the campaign here were often closely aligned with certain legal firms who competed to generate most clients for vast class actions, with outrageous and unscientific publicity. Anxious women who contacted “support groups” were passed on to the lawyers, often without their consent. Some women patients have been approached by lawyers who appeared to have had illegal access to their private medical records. Dow Corning, under pressure from its shareholders, abandoned the medical silicone market, and tried to help recipients of its implants, thus “proving its guilt”. Smarter manufacturers kept a low profile. US court cases resulted in huge settlements, but even winning a case could cost a manufacturer more than $1 million. An army of “Plaintiff’s Experts” were recruited, who saw claimants on referral from lawyers, provided supportive reports and presented junk science to sympathetic juries. Described as “pariahs” by mainstream science, they still form a travelling circus in the USA, since so much legal money has been outlaid that the campaign cannot be allowed to die. A “Malleus Siliconarum” now exists, in the form of a vast computerised database, to kick-start any plaintiff’s litigation. The Witchfinder General should have been so lucky! The deliberate and unconscionable fomenting of public anxiety, under the catch cry “you can’t prove they are safe” resulted in so many litigants that a “global settlement” was formed in the USA, with a kitty of about $5 billion promised by the manufacturers, with the legal take limited to 25%. No proof of damage was required. When 440,000 women applied, the settlement collapsed, although a more limited settlement is in place, which at least requires some medical justification. Dow Corning, faced with large numbers of law suits, applied for bankruptcy. Other manufacturers moved off-shore. As hard evidence of the safety of silicones accumulates, the panic is receding, and a new generation of women is requesting breast augmentation, many of them too young to have fully comprehended the anti-silicone campaign at its height. In Australia, saline implants are freely available, but gel implants are usually only available if the patient has had them in before! Most other countries still allow unrestricted use. Slowly, science is gaining the upper hand, but now the scientists and journal editors who dare to publish such data are being personally attacked by the plaintiff’s bar as lackeys of the manufacturers, as are respected institutions such as the Mayo Clinic. Not much is said about the amplexus between the plaintiff’s lawyers, their tame experts, and the self-styled “silicone survivors” support groups. Recently, however, a US judge has refused to allow plaintiff’s experts to testify about a “hypothetical disease”, so there is some hope. Lessons can be drawn from this campaign, which serves as a paradigm of recent anti-scientific, litigation- driven attacks on modern technology. A witchhunt of this type may include such attributes as: *A minority of real and severe problems, preferably with great visual impact, plus other minor problems, whether related or not, which are exacerbated by a pervasive media, hungry for sensation. An accusatory media one-liner may take ten minutes to refute. How can anyone ever concisely answer the remark “can you guarantee that silicone is safe”, let alone in the world of the 30 second sound-bite? *A suggestible population, bred to believe that if anything goes wrong, someone must be to blame, someone must pay, and under no circumstances must any adult be responsible for their own decisions or actions. *Some official support. This campaign only really took off where Government bureaucracies, for political or other reasons, lent their authority to the allegations, or were unable or unwilling to stand up for the truth. *An attempt by the defendant to be “socially responsible” ie to try to help those perceived to have been harmed. This is invariably read as an admission of guilt, as is any attempt at a financial settlement, no matter how commercially realistic. *Legal avarice within an adversarial system, in courtrooms where legal and scientific “proofs” are incompatible, and where many participants are totally incapable of comprehending evidence from conflicting “experts”. *Courts which see themselves as agents of social redistribution, and initiators of socially desirable laws. Governments may encourage this by funding precedent-setting test cases to avoid the nuisance of defending their agendas in open Parliamentary debate. *True believers, who, like the zealots of old, are psychologically incapable of seeing the other side, are blind to unwelcome evidence, and come to regard their crusade as their ultimate goal in life . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 wrote this to me when he was still working at the Government. The rest is from our darling Ilena. Love to all......Lea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi Babe…….I miss you and the monkeys too! This is the same old story…the used car dealer commenting on the safety and efficacy of the used car! This man is a plastic surgeon, and that says it all. He’s also a “sit-on-the-right-hand-of-God” medical man (if we ignore for the moment that a plastic surgeon doesn’t know anything about forensic medicine at all!) who thinks that they can do no wrong because they practise by divine right. He’s in complete denial, and he has his head buried deep in the sand (silicon?). He’s makes a lot of mistakes, including that he believes erroneously that the hardcore feminists are on the side of women. He’s obviously so untutored in women’s issues that he’s unaware that the Gloria Steinems and Germaine Greers of the female world have never made the foray into the breast implant issue because they are too busy shattering glass ceilings, raising wages for women, and promoting themselves via their books and talk-show appearances. They haven’t graduated to women’s health yet; it takes real women to deal with that. He’s also out to demonize anyone who supports the women as opportunistic, and is trotting out his side as crusading knights, fighting morally and courageously against this monstrous regiment of women. He can’t’ see—not for a second—that he and his kind caused this problem in the first place because they are uncaring, greedy and opportunistic themselves. Love……….Him From: Lea [mailto:devans@...] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Fw: silicone witch hunt Honey, please read this and give me your opinion...miss you.....Me ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` silicone witch hunt silicone witch hunt Cholm Cholm is a Sydney based plastic surgeon and prominent defender of scientific evidence in medical matters. is responsible for the fetching dimple in the editor’s nose. Anti-science in the Health Those “unnatural” polymers, the silicones, were synthesized some 100 years ago, but were of little use until WWII when their lubricant properties enabled glass syringes to be used in battlefield first-aid packs, and their extreme chemical and thermal stability and water repellency enabled their use in aviation and electrical applications. They continued to be developed by Dow Corning, an offspring of Dow Chemical and Corning Glass, and exist in many forms, from low viscosity liquids, through gels and putties, to rubbers and hard solids. Since that time, the silicones have become an integral part of our civilisation, in every area, not least medicine, because of their extreme inertness. The first medical implant was as an artificial urethra, later (and ever since) as a life-saving neurosurgical shunt to decompress the brain, and in 1964, as breast implants, to replace many other foreign materials which had produced uniformly disastrous results. These implants consisted of a thin bag of solid silicone, filled with a viscous silicone gel to simulate a normal consistency. Not long afterwards, similar bags filled with saline were devised, but they were less reliable or natural feeling. Elsewhere, a bewildering variety of implants has been utilised to replace body parts, silicones are widely used in skin creams and cosmetics, ingested by all of us in prepared foods and drinks, and in antacids and other medicines. Silicones still lubricate every syringe, and coat the inside of the plumbing in cardiac surgery bypass machines. In short, most humans on this planet continue to have some, and often intimate, daily contact with this evil substance, and many of us have had for about 50 years. Due to widespread silicone use, the US FDA did not require data proving “safety and effectiveness” (whatever that may mean) until 1982. Large numbers of breast prostheses were implanted, in perhaps two million women, and certainly complications ensued, some severe, but these were in general related to technical and surgical problems. Implant failure often occurred, but was not commonly heard of, as the gel was encapsulated by the body, or produced local lumpiness and scarring. Adulterated silicones had been used since the forties, and produced many complications, but the first allegations of immune toxicity of medical-grade silicones occurred with US court cases in the mid 1980s, though these were lost in the growing avalanche of other litigation. The witch hunt began in 1988 with a cancer scare revealed by a “consumer group” actually funded by the US Bar Association. This scare was based on experiments in inbred rats that were long known to get fibrous cancers from many common solid substances. It took some years to “prove” that there was no risk in humans, perhaps even a protective effect. In the meantime certain attorneys began to suspect that they could make silicone the “asbestos of the nineties” and the greatest product liability litigation in history took off, aided by a media which delighted in showing disgusting pictures of leaking silicone gel during the evening meal. Certainly local complications, such as hardening (a normal phenomenon), rupture, displacement, nerve effects etc could occur, and be serious, but these were indiscriminately mixed with other allegations. There were graphic interviews with women, often crippled with severe and recurrent medical problems due to technical complications of surgery, or with specific immune diseases such as lupus, which was now being attributed to silicone. Slowly, scientific evidence has accumulated showing no relationship between silicone and any immune diseases, but the goal-posts have been shifted again, to incriminate common symptoms (insomnia, anxiety, hair loss, joint pains, memory loss etc). These are now attributed to a “new disease” which somehow did not occur until the early nineties. Most of us have some of these symptoms as we age, and they are classically associated with anxiety states, such as those the scare campaign would produce. Epidemics of these symptoms seemed to follow media exposure and varied with the media emphasis. Curiously, no other silicones were targeted, only those of the most vulnerable group; women with their breast implants, and their babies. Silicones used to reconstruct men’s “crown jewels” and in many other areas, were ignored. One of the worst episodes involved allegations of “poisoning” of babies by breast feeding, although one of the most commonly used infant colic medicines contains liquid silicone. A guilt-inspired panic ensued amongst pregnant and nursing mothers, and deliberate abortion of wanted babies was reported. Asthmatic children were paraded in the media, and were told they were irretrievably poisoned by their mother’s implants. The effect on their disease management can only be imagined, but to my mind, using children as media fodder is gross child abuse. Extremist feminists became involved, as their worst fears about cosmetic surgery were confirmed, seriously likening this vol untary surgery to foot binding, genital mutilation, and female infanticide! In early 1992, ignoring recommendations from its own scientific advisors, the FDA banned gel filled implants despite the fact that newer implants seemed much less likely to produce the technical complications which generated most concern ( sweating, rupture, hardening etc). The ban was followed in Canada and Australia and, temporarily, in New Zealand. The UK never saw cause to ban them. Our TGA told us privately that they had no concerns about cancer or immune disease, but “political and media imperatives” forced the ban. The effect on the two million or so women with implants was catastrophic, but they were told not to have these “time bombs” removed until after they had problems! Local taxpayer-funded consumer groups who began the campaign here were often closely aligned with certain legal firms who competed to generate most clients for vast class actions, with outrageous and unscientific publicity. Anxious women who contacted “support groups” were passed on to the lawyers, often without their consent. Some women patients have been approached by lawyers who appeared to have had illegal access to their private medical records. Dow Corning, under pressure from its shareholders, abandoned the medical silicone market, and tried to help recipients of its implants, thus “proving its guilt”. Smarter manufacturers kept a low profile. US court cases resulted in huge settlements, but even winning a case could cost a manufacturer more than $1 million. An army of “Plaintiff’s Experts” were recruited, who saw claimants on referral from lawyers, provided supportive reports and presented junk science to sympathetic juries. Described as “pariahs” by mainstream science, they still form a travelling circus in the USA, since so much legal money has been outlaid that the campaign cannot be allowed to die. A “Malleus Siliconarum” now exists, in the form of a vast computerised database, to kick-start any plaintiff’s litigation. The Witchfinder General should have been so lucky! The deliberate and unconscionable fomenting of public anxiety, under the catch cry “you can’t prove they are safe” resulted in so many litigants that a “global settlement” was formed in the USA, with a kitty of about $5 billion promised by the manufacturers, with the legal take limited to 25%. No proof of damage was required. When 440,000 women applied, the settlement collapsed, although a more limited settlement is in place, which at least requires some medical justification. Dow Corning, faced with large numbers of law suits, applied for bankruptcy. Other manufacturers moved off-shore. As hard evidence of the safety of silicones accumulates, the panic is receding, and a new generation of women is requesting breast augmentation, many of them too young to have fully comprehended the anti-silicone campaign at its height. In Australia, saline implants are freely available, but gel implants are usually only available if the patient has had them in before! Most other countries still allow unrestricted use. Slowly, science is gaining the upper hand, but now the scientists and journal editors who dare to publish such data are being personally attacked by the plaintiff’s bar as lackeys of the manufacturers, as are respected institutions such as the Mayo Clinic. Not much is said about the amplexus between the plaintiff’s lawyers, their tame experts, and the self-styled “silicone survivors” support groups. Recently, however, a US judge has refused to allow plaintiff’s experts to testify about a “hypothetical disease”, so there is some hope. Lessons can be drawn from this campaign, which serves as a paradigm of recent anti-scientific, litigation- driven attacks on modern technology. A witchhunt of this type may include such attributes as: *A minority of real and severe problems, preferably with great visual impact, plus other minor problems, whether related or not, which are exacerbated by a pervasive media, hungry for sensation. An accusatory media one-liner may take ten minutes to refute. How can anyone ever concisely answer the remark “can you guarantee that silicone is safe”, let alone in the world of the 30 second sound-bite? *A suggestible population, bred to believe that if anything goes wrong, someone must be to blame, someone must pay, and under no circumstances must any adult be responsible for their own decisions or actions. *Some official support. This campaign only really took off where Government bureaucracies, for political or other reasons, lent their authority to the allegations, or were unable or unwilling to stand up for the truth. *An attempt by the defendant to be “socially responsible” ie to try to help those perceived to have been harmed. This is invariably read as an admission of guilt, as is any attempt at a financial settlement, no matter how commercially realistic. *Legal avarice within an adversarial system, in courtrooms where legal and scientific “proofs” are incompatible, and where many participants are totally incapable of comprehending evidence from conflicting “experts”. *Courts which see themselves as agents of social redistribution, and initiators of socially desirable laws. Governments may encourage this by funding precedent-setting test cases to avoid the nuisance of defending their agendas in open Parliamentary debate. *True believers, who, like the zealots of old, are psychologically incapable of seeing the other side, are blind to unwelcome evidence, and come to regard their crusade as their ultimate goal in life . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 wrote this to me when he was still working at the Government. The rest is from our darling Ilena. Love to all......Lea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hi Babe…….I miss you and the monkeys too! This is the same old story…the used car dealer commenting on the safety and efficacy of the used car! This man is a plastic surgeon, and that says it all. He’s also a “sit-on-the-right-hand-of-God” medical man (if we ignore for the moment that a plastic surgeon doesn’t know anything about forensic medicine at all!) who thinks that they can do no wrong because they practise by divine right. He’s in complete denial, and he has his head buried deep in the sand (silicon?). He’s makes a lot of mistakes, including that he believes erroneously that the hardcore feminists are on the side of women. He’s obviously so untutored in women’s issues that he’s unaware that the Gloria Steinems and Germaine Greers of the female world have never made the foray into the breast implant issue because they are too busy shattering glass ceilings, raising wages for women, and promoting themselves via their books and talk-show appearances. They haven’t graduated to women’s health yet; it takes real women to deal with that. He’s also out to demonize anyone who supports the women as opportunistic, and is trotting out his side as crusading knights, fighting morally and courageously against this monstrous regiment of women. He can’t’ see—not for a second—that he and his kind caused this problem in the first place because they are uncaring, greedy and opportunistic themselves. Love……….Him From: Lea [mailto:devans@...] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Fw: silicone witch hunt Honey, please read this and give me your opinion...miss you.....Me ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` silicone witch hunt silicone witch hunt Cholm Cholm is a Sydney based plastic surgeon and prominent defender of scientific evidence in medical matters. is responsible for the fetching dimple in the editor’s nose. Anti-science in the Health Those “unnatural” polymers, the silicones, were synthesized some 100 years ago, but were of little use until WWII when their lubricant properties enabled glass syringes to be used in battlefield first-aid packs, and their extreme chemical and thermal stability and water repellency enabled their use in aviation and electrical applications. They continued to be developed by Dow Corning, an offspring of Dow Chemical and Corning Glass, and exist in many forms, from low viscosity liquids, through gels and putties, to rubbers and hard solids. Since that time, the silicones have become an integral part of our civilisation, in every area, not least medicine, because of their extreme inertness. The first medical implant was as an artificial urethra, later (and ever since) as a life-saving neurosurgical shunt to decompress the brain, and in 1964, as breast implants, to replace many other foreign materials which had produced uniformly disastrous results. These implants consisted of a thin bag of solid silicone, filled with a viscous silicone gel to simulate a normal consistency. Not long afterwards, similar bags filled with saline were devised, but they were less reliable or natural feeling. Elsewhere, a bewildering variety of implants has been utilised to replace body parts, silicones are widely used in skin creams and cosmetics, ingested by all of us in prepared foods and drinks, and in antacids and other medicines. Silicones still lubricate every syringe, and coat the inside of the plumbing in cardiac surgery bypass machines. In short, most humans on this planet continue to have some, and often intimate, daily contact with this evil substance, and many of us have had for about 50 years. Due to widespread silicone use, the US FDA did not require data proving “safety and effectiveness” (whatever that may mean) until 1982. Large numbers of breast prostheses were implanted, in perhaps two million women, and certainly complications ensued, some severe, but these were in general related to technical and surgical problems. Implant failure often occurred, but was not commonly heard of, as the gel was encapsulated by the body, or produced local lumpiness and scarring. Adulterated silicones had been used since the forties, and produced many complications, but the first allegations of immune toxicity of medical-grade silicones occurred with US court cases in the mid 1980s, though these were lost in the growing avalanche of other litigation. The witch hunt began in 1988 with a cancer scare revealed by a “consumer group” actually funded by the US Bar Association. This scare was based on experiments in inbred rats that were long known to get fibrous cancers from many common solid substances. It took some years to “prove” that there was no risk in humans, perhaps even a protective effect. In the meantime certain attorneys began to suspect that they could make silicone the “asbestos of the nineties” and the greatest product liability litigation in history took off, aided by a media which delighted in showing disgusting pictures of leaking silicone gel during the evening meal. Certainly local complications, such as hardening (a normal phenomenon), rupture, displacement, nerve effects etc could occur, and be serious, but these were indiscriminately mixed with other allegations. There were graphic interviews with women, often crippled with severe and recurrent medical problems due to technical complications of surgery, or with specific immune diseases such as lupus, which was now being attributed to silicone. Slowly, scientific evidence has accumulated showing no relationship between silicone and any immune diseases, but the goal-posts have been shifted again, to incriminate common symptoms (insomnia, anxiety, hair loss, joint pains, memory loss etc). These are now attributed to a “new disease” which somehow did not occur until the early nineties. Most of us have some of these symptoms as we age, and they are classically associated with anxiety states, such as those the scare campaign would produce. Epidemics of these symptoms seemed to follow media exposure and varied with the media emphasis. Curiously, no other silicones were targeted, only those of the most vulnerable group; women with their breast implants, and their babies. Silicones used to reconstruct men’s “crown jewels” and in many other areas, were ignored. One of the worst episodes involved allegations of “poisoning” of babies by breast feeding, although one of the most commonly used infant colic medicines contains liquid silicone. A guilt-inspired panic ensued amongst pregnant and nursing mothers, and deliberate abortion of wanted babies was reported. Asthmatic children were paraded in the media, and were told they were irretrievably poisoned by their mother’s implants. The effect on their disease management can only be imagined, but to my mind, using children as media fodder is gross child abuse. Extremist feminists became involved, as their worst fears about cosmetic surgery were confirmed, seriously likening this vol untary surgery to foot binding, genital mutilation, and female infanticide! In early 1992, ignoring recommendations from its own scientific advisors, the FDA banned gel filled implants despite the fact that newer implants seemed much less likely to produce the technical complications which generated most concern ( sweating, rupture, hardening etc). The ban was followed in Canada and Australia and, temporarily, in New Zealand. The UK never saw cause to ban them. Our TGA told us privately that they had no concerns about cancer or immune disease, but “political and media imperatives” forced the ban. The effect on the two million or so women with implants was catastrophic, but they were told not to have these “time bombs” removed until after they had problems! Local taxpayer-funded consumer groups who began the campaign here were often closely aligned with certain legal firms who competed to generate most clients for vast class actions, with outrageous and unscientific publicity. Anxious women who contacted “support groups” were passed on to the lawyers, often without their consent. Some women patients have been approached by lawyers who appeared to have had illegal access to their private medical records. Dow Corning, under pressure from its shareholders, abandoned the medical silicone market, and tried to help recipients of its implants, thus “proving its guilt”. Smarter manufacturers kept a low profile. US court cases resulted in huge settlements, but even winning a case could cost a manufacturer more than $1 million. An army of “Plaintiff’s Experts” were recruited, who saw claimants on referral from lawyers, provided supportive reports and presented junk science to sympathetic juries. Described as “pariahs” by mainstream science, they still form a travelling circus in the USA, since so much legal money has been outlaid that the campaign cannot be allowed to die. A “Malleus Siliconarum” now exists, in the form of a vast computerised database, to kick-start any plaintiff’s litigation. The Witchfinder General should have been so lucky! The deliberate and unconscionable fomenting of public anxiety, under the catch cry “you can’t prove they are safe” resulted in so many litigants that a “global settlement” was formed in the USA, with a kitty of about $5 billion promised by the manufacturers, with the legal take limited to 25%. No proof of damage was required. When 440,000 women applied, the settlement collapsed, although a more limited settlement is in place, which at least requires some medical justification. Dow Corning, faced with large numbers of law suits, applied for bankruptcy. Other manufacturers moved off-shore. As hard evidence of the safety of silicones accumulates, the panic is receding, and a new generation of women is requesting breast augmentation, many of them too young to have fully comprehended the anti-silicone campaign at its height. In Australia, saline implants are freely available, but gel implants are usually only available if the patient has had them in before! Most other countries still allow unrestricted use. Slowly, science is gaining the upper hand, but now the scientists and journal editors who dare to publish such data are being personally attacked by the plaintiff’s bar as lackeys of the manufacturers, as are respected institutions such as the Mayo Clinic. Not much is said about the amplexus between the plaintiff’s lawyers, their tame experts, and the self-styled “silicone survivors” support groups. Recently, however, a US judge has refused to allow plaintiff’s experts to testify about a “hypothetical disease”, so there is some hope. Lessons can be drawn from this campaign, which serves as a paradigm of recent anti-scientific, litigation- driven attacks on modern technology. A witchhunt of this type may include such attributes as: *A minority of real and severe problems, preferably with great visual impact, plus other minor problems, whether related or not, which are exacerbated by a pervasive media, hungry for sensation. An accusatory media one-liner may take ten minutes to refute. How can anyone ever concisely answer the remark “can you guarantee that silicone is safe”, let alone in the world of the 30 second sound-bite? *A suggestible population, bred to believe that if anything goes wrong, someone must be to blame, someone must pay, and under no circumstances must any adult be responsible for their own decisions or actions. *Some official support. This campaign only really took off where Government bureaucracies, for political or other reasons, lent their authority to the allegations, or were unable or unwilling to stand up for the truth. *An attempt by the defendant to be “socially responsible” ie to try to help those perceived to have been harmed. This is invariably read as an admission of guilt, as is any attempt at a financial settlement, no matter how commercially realistic. *Legal avarice within an adversarial system, in courtrooms where legal and scientific “proofs” are incompatible, and where many participants are totally incapable of comprehending evidence from conflicting “experts”. *Courts which see themselves as agents of social redistribution, and initiators of socially desirable laws. Governments may encourage this by funding precedent-setting test cases to avoid the nuisance of defending their agendas in open Parliamentary debate. *True believers, who, like the zealots of old, are psychologically incapable of seeing the other side, are blind to unwelcome evidence, and come to regard their crusade as their ultimate goal in life . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.