Guest guest Posted January 23, 2002 Report Share Posted January 23, 2002 >>Have any of you that have had your implants removed, had them > analysed by Dr. Blaise? If so, have you found this imformation to be > helpful for your treating physican to help you with your symtoms? > Other than that since there is no need to have the info. for legal > reasons. It looks to be rather expensive. > > nne Roseanne, Dr. Blais has my implants. I chose not to have them " analyzed " due to the fact that there is probably no legal recourse for me, and I found that my health has improved so much from doing natural therapies at home (using anti-virals, anti-fungals, anti-bacterial herbs and ozone) that I didn't really need a doctors help anyway. Here are my previous posts on my communications with Dr. Blais: From: " Patty " <faussettdp@...> Date: Mon Aug 14, 2000 7:59 am Subject: My implants: DR. Blais preliminary analysis I wanted to share with you all the report I just received from Dr. Blais by Fax. I recently sent him my implants to analyze. While I have not ordered the full report yet to find out what microorganisms I am fighting, the information that he has sent so far is eye-opening for me. Here it is: " I refer to your letter of July 12, 2000 and our telephone conversation of the same day. Your implants were received on August 9th and have been examined. No destructive tests were performed. Your implants are confirmed as McGhan/Inamed saline inflatable prostheses of Style 168. Both items are defectively manufactured and incorporate a serious valve defect. The defect causes the implant to become infested with micro-organisms which grow within the saline filling solution. Such problems are widely encountered within such prostheses and can have some serious consequences to users. Nearly all implants of this kind, that I have examined, are contaminated. More than 60% incorporate the valve defect. Products from the McGhan/Inamed Corporation, inserted after 1984 but before 1993, are eligible for compensation under several breast implant Class Actions. However, in your case, there is as yet no Class Action and the devices are not comprised in MDL 926 (Global Settlement). Given the number of defective implants and the population of injured users, it is most probable that many individual and/or class actions will be launched against Inamed and related firms. In some quarters, such devices are believed to have been misrepresented to users. (The rest of the letter goes on to state the various reports that can be ordered, their uses and range of costs, and how to go about ordering them. ) From: " Patty " <faussettdp@...> Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 2:53 pm Subject: Dr. Blais's letter Hi Ladies, Recently I sent a letter to Dr. Blais, in the hopes that I could decide if I wanted my implants to have further analysis or not, (I posted my previous correspondence with Dr. Blais on Saline Support, messages numbers 7, and 349) and today I received his reply which I wanted to share with all of you. Again, his communication was quite eye opening. Here is what his letter states: The implants you received originated from a large defective batch of McGhan/Inamed saline inflatable prostheses of Style 168. Both items incorporate a serious valve defect. Both implants were grossly contaminated with at least one class of micro-organisms (mycobacteria). Having such implants in that condition would be approximately equivalent to bearing two large abscesses for more than a year. The manufacturer of your implants (Inamed and precursor corporations) has been continuously embroiled in litigation surrounding faulty injurious imlplants and sharp business practices since its foundation in 1975. A report can be prepared regarding injurious aspects of your implants. There would be no need to perform further analysis. The costs would be in the range of a " Modified ID Report " . Yours truly, P Blais, PhD, FCIC Looking back over my last letter from him, this report would cost between $225.00 and $450.00. Here's what the Modified ID Report description says: " This style of report includes features of the ID report, but has briefing information on the mechanism of injury. It may also include specialized briefings applicable to the implant history of the client or peculiarities of the devices. It can be of use for treating physicians and pathology laboratories who require background information on the product and pathway of injury. " I am still trying to decide if I want to spend the money for an analysis. It might be good to have if there are ever any further legal issues that arise in the future, such as a class action lawsuit for those injured by saline implants, (I am not going to hold my breath on that one). If I have a mycobacteria issue, I am not sure that I need to see a doctor or not, as I am using the ozone therapy at home, and that is supposed to kill all pathogenic organisms, including mycoplasms. So, it may be moot. Just thought I would share that interesting info with you---ewww, the thought of two large abscesses sitting around for more than a year is pretty disgusting. Patty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2002 Report Share Posted January 23, 2002 I am in the process now, since my implants were filled with yellow gel like substance and not clear saline when they came out I am definitely paying whatever I have to in order to have a full analysis done on them. I have two factors in my case that make it important, one is that I didn't sign my consent form until one week after my surgery, so I was never truly consented properly and two, I was never told that he was using textured implants, I was under the impression that they were smooth, he also never told me the risks or gave me the pamphlets until a week after surgery, so if they are full of something other than saline, I may be looking at a law suit, I don't know yet, I didn't think I had any legal grounds but the circumstances of this whole thing have changed now that I know the implants may have been tampered with as far as having something added to them, I will see what turns up and let everyone know when I do. Love, ----- Original Message ----- From: " Patty " <fdp@...> < > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 8:54 AM Subject: Re: Saline Analysis > >>Have any of you that have had your implants removed, had them > > analysed by Dr. Blaise? If so, have you found this imformation to be > > helpful for your treating physican to help you with your symtoms? > > Other than that since there is no need to have the info. for legal > > reasons. It looks to be rather expensive. > > > > nne > > Roseanne, > Dr. Blais has my implants. I chose not to have them " analyzed " due to the > fact that there is probably no legal recourse for me, and I found that my > health has improved so much from doing natural therapies at home (using > anti-virals, anti-fungals, anti-bacterial herbs and ozone) that I didn't > really need a doctors help anyway. Here are my previous posts on my > communications with Dr. Blais: > > > From: " Patty " <faussettdp@...> > Date: Mon Aug 14, 2000 7:59 am > Subject: My implants: DR. Blais preliminary analysis > > I wanted to share with you all the report I just received from Dr. Blais by > Fax. I recently sent him my implants to analyze. > > While I have not ordered the full report yet to find out what microorganisms > I am fighting, the information that he has sent so far is eye-opening for > me. > > Here it is: > > " I refer to your letter of July 12, 2000 and our telephone conversation of > the same day. Your implants were received on August 9th and have been > examined. No destructive tests were performed. > > Your implants are confirmed as McGhan/Inamed saline inflatable prostheses of > Style 168. Both items are defectively manufactured and incorporate a > serious valve defect. The defect causes the implant to become infested with > micro-organisms which grow within the saline filling solution. Such > problems are widely encountered within such prostheses and can have some > serious consequences to users. > > Nearly all implants of this kind, that I have examined, are contaminated. > More than 60% incorporate the valve defect. Products from the McGhan/Inamed > Corporation, inserted after 1984 but before 1993, are eligible for > compensation under several breast implant Class Actions. However, in your > case, there is as yet no Class Action and the devices are not comprised in > MDL 926 (Global Settlement). Given the number of defective implants and the > population of injured users, it is most probable that many individual and/or > class actions will be launched against Inamed and related firms. In some > quarters, such devices are believed to have been misrepresented to users. > > (The rest of the letter goes on to state the various reports that can be > ordered, their uses and range of costs, and how to go about ordering them. ) > > From: " Patty " <faussettdp@...> > Date: Fri Jan 5, 2001 2:53 pm > Subject: Dr. Blais's letter > > Hi Ladies, > Recently I sent a letter to Dr. Blais, in the hopes that I could decide if I > wanted my implants to have further analysis or not, (I posted my previous > correspondence with Dr. Blais on Saline Support, messages numbers 7, and > 349) and today I received his reply which I wanted to share with all of you. > Again, his communication was quite eye opening. > > Here is what his letter states: > > The implants you received originated from a large defective batch of > McGhan/Inamed saline inflatable prostheses of Style 168. Both items > incorporate a serious valve defect. Both implants were grossly contaminated > with at least one class of micro-organisms (mycobacteria). Having such > implants in that condition would be approximately equivalent to bearing two > large abscesses for more than a year. > > The manufacturer of your implants (Inamed and precursor corporations) has > been continuously embroiled in litigation surrounding faulty injurious > imlplants and sharp business practices since its foundation in 1975. > > A report can be prepared regarding injurious aspects of your implants. > There would be no need to perform further analysis. The costs would be in > the range of a " Modified ID Report " . > > Yours truly, P Blais, PhD, FCIC > > Looking back over my last letter from him, this report would cost between > $225.00 and $450.00. Here's what the Modified ID Report description says: > > " This style of report includes features of the ID report, but has briefing > information on the mechanism of injury. It may also include specialized > briefings applicable to the implant history of the client or peculiarities > of the devices. It can be of use for treating physicians and pathology > laboratories who require background information on the product and pathway > of injury. " > I am still trying to decide if I want to spend the money for an analysis. > It might be good to have if there are ever any further legal issues that > arise in the future, such as a class action lawsuit for those injured by > saline implants, (I am not going to hold my breath on that one). If I have > a mycobacteria issue, I am not sure that I need to see a doctor or not, as I > am using the ozone therapy at home, and that is supposed to kill all > pathogenic organisms, including mycoplasms. So, it may be moot. > > Just thought I would share that interesting info with you---ewww, the > thought of two large abscesses sitting around for more than a year is pretty > disgusting. > Patty > > > > > 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.