Poisoned breasts a MUST read

[Guest guest]

Poisoned Breasts

by

Leviton

Scientific evidence proves that silicone breast implants can produce autoimmune illnesses. Once the implants are removed, you still need to detoxify the body of silicone residues here's how.

Alternative Medicine, Issue 26, pp 48-54, November, 1998.

Since their introduction in 1962, silicone breast implants have been surgically emplaced in an estimated two million American women. Some women get them as part of breast reconstruction therapy following mastectomy for breast cancer, but the majority get them because they want larger breasts.

Now, 36 years later, it is alarmingly apparent that bigger, siliconized breasts can be hazardous to your health. We're beginning to see that the real cost of cosmetic breast enhancement may not be the $6,000. In surgical fees to implant them, but a host of autoimmune symptoms and strange illnesses that can crop up, typically within about seven years of implantation.

450,000 Siliconized Women Sue

Not everyone sees it this way of course. The subject of silicone breast implants is clouded and controversial, marked by denial, cover-up, stonewalling, suppressed research, bankruptcy, and class action lawsuits. There is also much suffering involved.

The manufacturers and most plastic surgeons strenuously insist silicone breast implants pose no health danger; most women apparently believe this because 7,704 more American women received implants in 1996. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of breast augmentation surgeries increased by 275%, according to the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons.

The majority were saline implants in a silicone casing; the only women still getting silicone implants are those who opt for breast reconstruction following mastectomy and agree to be part of the FDA's clinical trials on silicone implants.

Yet thousands of women who have had their implants for one or two decades are now seeking medical help for mysterious symptoms which resemble arthritis, fibromyalgia, scleroderma, connective tissue disorders, and/or immune dysfunction and seem to be associated with their implants.

In 1992, the FDA declared a moratorium on sales of silicone breast implants, citing the lack of clinical studies proving their safety. However, the FDA did not say silicone iplants were unsafe, hedging, as usual, on the side of manufacturers and against the public, calling lamely for more studies.

Yet as early as 1954 an in-house study by Dow Corning, a prime implant manufacturer, found that the silica in silicone has "quite a high order of toxicity," according to recently released documentation of that previously suppressed study. In 1956, silicone fluid injected into laboratory dogs migrated to all the major organs; and in 1961, the year the first implants were released, Dow's own internal medical research department reported that silicone leaking from implants is equivalent in toxic effect to direct injections of silicone into the body.

Prior to implants, that had been the preferred method of breast enhancement. But in the 1940s, Japan, for one banned this procedure for its immunologically toxic effects, which included poisoning, infections, and the early development of cancer. Even so, it remained legal in the U.S. until the 1960s.

In 1984, setting a precedent for all women with implants and silicone-associated illnesses, a woman named Stern won $1.5 million in damages for autoimmune symptoms produced by her implants. Litigation momentum has been building ever since.

By 1995, an estimated 450,000 American women had qualified to be part of a gigantic $4.25 billion class action suit against the silicone implant manufacturers. Many of the injured women fell through the litigation cracks in 1995 when Dow Corning, one of the principal defendants, declared bankruptcy, thereby taking itself conveniently off the fiscal hook. But now that Dow Corning has agreed to a smaller global settlement ($3.2 billion allocated, announced in July 1998,), perhaps some injured women will finally receive at least some recompense.

As medical authorities and "scientific experts" continually downplay the risks of imploants and assert that no association between implants and symptoms has been proven, the case for silicone implant toxicity is growing, fueled in large measure vby the fact-finding efforts of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) for the National Breast Implant Litigation, consolidated in Birmingham, Alabama. This national committee, appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Pointer, is comprised of 17 attorneys from around the country.

The nationally consolidated cases are known as the "Silicone Gel Breast Iomplant Product Liability, Multi-District Litigation Action No. 926." Part of the Committee's job, according to E. Read, chief staff attorney for the PSC Office of Liaison Counsel, is to gather and organize evidence suitable for use in any and all court actions against the silicone implant makers. In legal terms, it's called "discovery."

"We are nearly finished with the discovery process now and a slew of cases, sitting dormant for years, are about to go back to the courts for litigation," says Read. "Litigants can potentially use any or all of the evidence we develop nationally in their jurisdictional trials." That is, if they haven't been intimidated by the manufacturer's lawyers and dropped out, Read adds. Siliconized women are under a lot of pressure not to press their claims.

First, the strongest cases, the ones most potentially damaging to the silicone makers such as clearly proven deaths or cancer often get settled out of court to avoid adverse publicity, Read explains.

Second, women, in the process of giving their depositions, are sometimes subjected to ruthless grilling and "character assassination" by the defense lawyers, in a manner similar to the way rape victims are blamed for attracting the cirime, Read claims. "They're asked about secret, private, embarassing things, such as their sexual history. Women end up settling for almost nothing just to have it be over."

Third, about 50,000 women have already opted to pursue their own case independently in court rather than accept the minimal sums now being offered in some cases, a mere 5% of the original proposed settlement, says Read.

Whatever the outcome of the individual court cases and the class action lawsuit, the evidence for the toxicity of silicone implants is increasing daily, despite the firewall of denial and derision erected by mainstream medicine and the FDA. Here is a precis of the facts, as gathered from scientific studies:

1. Silicone is a biologically active and toxic substance.

The original statement by the Dow Chemical Company in the 1940s, repeated hundreds of times since, that silicone is biologically inert and nontoxic, was based on a single one-week study of rats and guineas pigs. (In 1943, Dow Chemical Company and Corning Glassworks formed Dow Corning Corporation to market silicone and silicone implants.)

The basic gel implant filler — DC360 silicone fluid — was once considered "worthy following up" for development by Dow Corning scientists as a potent insecticide, one of the few known substances capable of killing cockroaches.

Dow Corning researchers also studied silicone as a possible "better chemical warfare and riot control agent," according to a 1969 internal memorandum obtained by the PSC.

The silicone gel is not a single substance but a fluid comprised of numerous different versions of silicone, such that it is better termed a "chemical soup."

Research collected by the PSC shows that silicone has marked effects on the adrenal glands and the liver, induces chronic inflammation, and degrates into smalelr molecules, including silica.

Silicone fed to rabbits produced widespread toxic effects including kidney and spleen damage within four months. (Stanford Medical Bulletin, 10:1 [1952], 23-26.)

"That silicone is toxic in both aimals and man is well proven," stated S. Sergent, M.D., and colleagues in Textbook of Rheumatology (W.B. Saunders Company, 1993).

Silicone degrades into silica, usually at the surface of the gel implant, then fragments and subdivides into millions of microdroplets capable of migrating throughout the body (PSC Records No. 1352, 7017: these are documents produced by Dow Corning in national litigation). Silica in the body is a toxic, carcinogenic substance, damageing the immune system, killing cells, and producing silicosis.

Silicone and its contaminants which bleed through its surrounding implant envelope into neighboring tissue "have the potential for significant toxicity in the implant recipient." (Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatology 24:1 Suppl 1 [August 1994], 11-17.)

According to research gathered by attorney , of the Law Firm in San , California, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning have been aware of the toxic effects of silicone and silica since the 1950s, based on their own studies, but never published the data. They knew thse substances were "bioreactive, immunogenic. toxic, and inflammatory when introduced into the human body." states . ("Update on Breast Implants," January 1998, website:http//.consumerlawpage.com

Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine concluded in 1995: "From a pathophysiological perspective, silicones should be expected to be bioactive materials and the physico0chemical and immunological data at the experimental level are compelling." (Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edution 7:2 [1995], 101-13.

[Guest guest]

Subject: Poisoned breasts a MUST read

Poisoned Breasts

by

Leviton

Scientific evidence proves that silicone breast implants can produce autoimmune illnesses. Once the implants are removed, you still need to detoxify the body of silicone residues here's how.

Alternative Medicine, Issue 26, pp 48-54, November, 1998.

Since their introduction in 1962, silicone breast implants have been surgically emplaced in an estimated two million American women. Some women get them as part of breast reconstruction therapy following mastectomy for breast cancer, but the majority get them because they want larger breasts.

Now, 36 years later, it is alarmingly apparent that bigger, siliconized breasts can be hazardous to your health. We're beginning to see that the real cost of cosmetic breast enhancement may not be the $6,000. In surgical fees to implant them, but a host of autoimmune symptoms and strange illnesses that can crop up, typically within about seven years of implantation.

450,000 Siliconized Women Sue

Not everyone sees it this way of course. The subject of silicone breast implants is clouded and controversial, marked by denial, cover-up, stonewalling, suppressed research, bankruptcy, and class action lawsuits. There is also much suffering involved.

The manufacturers and most plastic surgeons strenuously insist silicone breast implants pose no health danger; most women apparently believe this because 7,704 more American women received implants in 1996. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of breast augmentation surgeries increased by 275%, according to the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons.

The majority were saline implants in a silicone casing; the only women still getting silicone implants are those who opt for breast reconstruction following mastectomy and agree to be part of the FDA's clinical trials on silicone implants.

Yet thousands of women who have had their implants for one or two decades are now seeking medical help for mysterious symptoms which resemble arthritis, fibromyalgia, scleroderma, connective tissue disorders, and/or immune dysfunction and seem to be associated with their implants.

In 1992, the FDA declared a moratorium on sales of silicone breast implants, citing the lack of clinical studies proving their safety. However, the FDA did not say silicone iplants were unsafe, hedging, as usual, on the side of manufacturers and against the public, calling lamely for more studies.

Yet as early as 1954 an in-house study by Dow Corning, a prime implant manufacturer, found that the silica in silicone has "quite a high order of toxicity," according to recently released documentation of that previously suppressed study. In 1956, silicone fluid injected into laboratory dogs migrated to all the major organs; and in 1961, the year the first implants were released, Dow's own internal medical research department reported that silicone leaking from implants is equivalent in toxic effect to direct injections of silicone into the body.

Prior to implants, that had been the preferred method of breast enhancement. But in the 1940s, Japan, for one banned this procedure for its immunologically toxic effects, which included poisoning, infections, and the early development of cancer. Even so, it remained legal in the U.S. until the 1960s.

In 1984, setting a precedent for all women with implants and silicone-associated illnesses, a woman named Stern won $1.5 million in damages for autoimmune symptoms produced by her implants. Litigation momentum has been building ever since.

By 1995, an estimated 450,000 American women had qualified to be part of a gigantic $4.25 billion class action suit against the silicone implant manufacturers. Many of the injured women fell through the litigation cracks in 1995 when Dow Corning, one of the principal defendants, declared bankruptcy, thereby taking itself conveniently off the fiscal hook. But now that Dow Corning has agreed to a smaller global settlement ($3.2 billion allocated, announced in July 1998,), perhaps some injured women will finally receive at least some recompense.

As medical authorities and "scientific experts" continually downplay the risks of imploants and assert that no association between implants and symptoms has been proven, the case for silicone implant toxicity is growing, fueled in large measure vby the fact-finding efforts of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) for the National Breast Implant Litigation, consolidated in Birmingham, Alabama. This national committee, appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Sam Pointer, is comprised of 17 attorneys from around the country.

The nationally consolidated cases are known as the "Silicone Gel Breast Iomplant Product Liability, Multi-District Litigation Action No. 926." Part of the Committee's job, according to E. Read, chief staff attorney for the PSC Office of Liaison Counsel, is to gather and organize evidence suitable for use in any and all court actions against the silicone implant makers. In legal terms, it's called "discovery."

"We are nearly finished with the discovery process now and a slew of cases, sitting dormant for years, are about to go back to the courts for litigation," says Read. "Litigants can potentially use any or all of the evidence we develop nationally in their jurisdictional trials." That is, if they haven't been intimidated by the manufacturer's lawyers and dropped out, Read adds. Siliconized women are under a lot of pressure not to press their claims.

First, the strongest cases, the ones most potentially damaging to the silicone makers such as clearly proven deaths or cancer often get settled out of court to avoid adverse publicity, Read explains.

Second, women, in the process of giving their depositions, are sometimes subjected to ruthless grilling and "character assassination" by the defense lawyers, in a manner similar to the way rape victims are blamed for attracting the cirime, Read claims. "They're asked about secret, private, embarassing things, such as their sexual history. Women end up settling for almost nothing just to have it be over."

Third, about 50,000 women have already opted to pursue their own case independently in court rather than accept the minimal sums now being offered in some cases, a mere 5% of the original proposed settlement, says Read.

Whatever the outcome of the individual court cases and the class action lawsuit, the evidence for the toxicity of silicone implants is increasing daily, despite the firewall of denial and derision erected by mainstream medicine and the FDA. Here is a precis of the facts, as gathered from scientific studies:

1. Silicone is a biologically active and toxic substance.

The original statement by the Dow Chemical Company in the 1940s, repeated hundreds of times since, that silicone is biologically inert and nontoxic, was based on a single one-week study of rats and guineas pigs. (In 1943, Dow Chemical Company and Corning Glassworks formed Dow Corning Corporation to market silicone and silicone implants.)

The basic gel implant filler — DC360 silicone fluid — was once considered "worthy following up" for development by Dow Corning scientists as a potent insecticide, one of the few known substances capable of killing cockroaches.

Dow Corning researchers also studied silicone as a possible "better chemical warfare and riot control agent," according to a 1969 internal memorandum obtained by the PSC.

The silicone gel is not a single substance but a fluid comprised of numerous different versions of silicone, such that it is better termed a "chemical soup."

Research collected by the PSC shows that silicone has marked effects on the adrenal glands and the liver, induces chronic inflammation, and degrates into smalelr molecules, including silica.

Silicone fed to rabbits produced widespread toxic effects including kidney and spleen damage within four months. (Stanford Medical Bulletin, 10:1 [1952], 23-26.)

"That silicone is toxic in both aimals and man is well proven," stated S. Sergent, M.D., and colleagues in Textbook of Rheumatology (W.B. Saunders Company, 1993).

Silicone degrades into silica, usually at the surface of the gel implant, then fragments and subdivides into millions of microdroplets capable of migrating throughout the body (PSC Records No. 1352, 7017: these are documents produced by Dow Corning in national litigation). Silica in the body is a toxic, carcinogenic substance, damageing the immune system, killing cells, and producing silicosis.

Silicone and its contaminants which bleed through its surrounding implant envelope into neighboring tissue "have the potential for significant toxicity in the implant recipient." (Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatology 24:1 Suppl 1 [August 1994], 11-17.)

According to research gathered by attorney , of the Law Firm in San , California, Dow Chemical and Dow Corning have been aware of the toxic effects of silicone and silica since the 1950s, based on their own studies, but never published the data. They knew thse substances were "bioreactive, immunogenic. toxic, and inflammatory when introduced into the human body." states . ("Update on Breast Implants," January 1998, website:http//.consumerlawpage.com

Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine concluded in 1995: "From a pathophysiological perspective, silicones should be expected to be bioactive materials and the physico0chemical and immunological data at the experimental level are compelling." (Journal of Biomaterials Science, Polymer Edution 7:2 [1995], 101-13.