HADCORP: Vietnamese woman dies after breast implant surgery

[Guest guest]

Articles of interest . . . .

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "humanadjuvantdisease@..." humanadjuvantdisease@...Vietnamese woman dies after breast implant surgery Jun 25, 2008, 5:53 GMT Hanoi - A Vietnamese waitress has died after undergoing silicone breast implant surgery at an unlicensed clinic, officials said Wednesday. Dinh Thi Thu, 30, died late Monday after being treated for two days at the Rach Gia General Hospital in Kien Giang province, 250 kilometres south-west of Ho Chi Minh City, according to the director of the hospital Pham Van Dom. Dom said Thu had been admitted last Saturday suffering high fever, nausea and

postoperative shock. She died whilst being taken to a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City after her symptoms worsened. 'She had this surgery at an unlicensed clinic in the province a week ago and we suspect that it was the surgery which caused her death,' Dom said. Local newspaper Tien Phong said Thu had paid the surgeon 1.8 million dong (108 dollars) for the operation. A local police officer said the police would probably launch a criminal investigation into the case once the autopsy results were available. Ngo Quoc Tan, who is in charge of the autopsy, said the results will be available next week. In 2006, a 34-year-old woman died after undergoing breast surgery at her house in Ho Chi Minh City. She died after the freelance surgeon injected an unidentified liquid into her breasts. Plastic surgery has been under increasing scrutiny after several deaths in recent years were linked to unlicensed breast implant operations.

Despite an annual per-capita income of more than 900 dollars, Vietnam has seen an increase in plastic surgery, especially in booming Ho Chi Minh City, which alone has more than 40 clinics licensed to perform nose jobs, chin implants and lip enhancements.

Beauty Marks 6/26/08 1:00 PM Gross News of the Day: YouTube Hosts Thousands of Plastic-Surgery Videos New York Magazine NY, USA The next time you get a boob job, a face-lift, or Lasik eye surgery you could save a few bucks if you agree to have your surgery filmed and then posted on YouTube. Yes, some doctors offer discounts for posting videos because they serve as little online commercials for them. In fact, you'll find around 2,400 videos of Botox procedures alone on YouTube. Wilder posted a video of her Lasik surgery. According to the New York Times, this is what she got in return: Dr. Chynn offered either a free Botox injection worth $400 or a $100 discount on the $5,000 Lasek operation, which, unlike Lasik, doesn’t entail cutting a flap in the

cornea. “I thought it was a little odd, because I was wondering ‘Who wants to see my surgery?’ ” said Ms. Wilder, 25, a Manhattan accountant. No one. (Or perhaps a few people with iron stomachs.) Aside from this rubbing us in all the wrong ways because it's gross and unethical, we just don't see how it's an effective form of advertising. We hate our contacts, so we tried to watch this video of YouTube user jackdakota's Lasik eye surgery. Except we couldn't even make it past the first 30 seconds, which is not even close to the first incision. We were creeped out even more by the ominous, old-school-techno background music that seemed to say, "Uh-oh! We're cutting open eyeballs!" But also, if we were seriously shopping for Lasik, we wouldn't turn to a YouTube video to help us find a doctor. We mean, how do we know if they're doing a better job than the guy in the other video? Sorry, we just lost our lunches, as, we're sure, did

you.

Facing a plastic surgery-free future town Press RI, USA Flotsam and Jetsam By Donna Drago Am I the only one who likes my own face? As faces go, it's not a great one, but it's certainly a good, perfectly adequate face. Everything functions well. One of the things I like about my face is that when I look at myself in the mirror, I see a mosaic of people who came before me. When I look at my kids' faces, I see a little of me. I like that. Faces should reflect so me of th e history of the owner. That, sadly, is changing. Look in fashion magazines, in the Yellow Pages- just look at the sheer number of plastic surgeons, "medical-spas" and "rejuvenation centers," of all kinds. Listen to the radio commercials that entice with language like "you'll be a brand new

woman," or "let us help you find the real you." The way I see it, the constant tweaking, nipping and plumping that's going on is bad for all of us- on many levels. First, let's talk about me. I have no desire whatsoever to have plastic surgery or "procedures," of any sort. The notion of being injected with Botox- the same toxin that is a food poison when you don't seal the jars of tomatoes correctly- makes me squirm. My reluctance to getting a new face would be okay except for one thing- the more women that have plumping injections, face lifts, nose jobs, the more likely it will be that those of us who want to age naturally will look like ancient, craggy crones. Someday, when pert, smoothskinned women appear on TV and in ads saying "this is what 70 looks like," and I actually look 70, I'll be sunk. Plastic surgery is confusing to children. There's even a new book out helping kids cope with having a Mommy with a new face. If they

have to learn to cope, there's something wrong with the situation. In the old days, relatives went to visit a mother and new baby and exclaimed, "She looks just like her grandma." Fast forward a few years and the same wellintentioned people will exclaim, "She looks just like her grandma did before she got the new nose and chin." Imagine the experience of looking at old family photos. Comments like "This is what Aunt Shirley used to look like," and "When Grammy was small, she had a funny chin and now she doesn't anymore," will be the norm. People have physical imperfections and attributes that make them unique. Imagine if everyone with a big, bulbous nose got rid of it. What would cartoonists draw if nobody's ears stuck out? What if everyone got rid of their freckles? What if no one had "smiling eyes?" We'd all end up like that featureless little alien that allegedly landed at Roswell, N.M. There was a time when

only women of a "certain age," considered face lifts, brow lifts and other procedures. Now, it's not unusual for women in their twenties to buy into the hype and start on a long, painful path toward some skewed idea of perfection. This is going to upset some people, especially those who recently spent enough on their faces to purchase a small sailboat, but here it goes: you just don't look that great. Every time I see someone who's had work done on their faces, all I can think is that they could all be cousins to Joan Rivers- everybody looks the same. Imagine this scene: walking in to your 50th high school reunion and seeing that everyone looks like everyone else. How would you find yo ur ni nth gr ade crush? How many people would you walk up to before you got the one you were looking for? Would you even bother? What's the deal with the Hollywood celebs? Does anyone really want lips like Goldie Hawn's? She looks like the

aftermath of a couple of rounds with Sugar Ray Leonard, which she clearly lost. How about Meg ? I don't know what she did, but she's not cute anymore. Joan Rivers has always been the poster girl for plastic surgery, but she's a caricature, not a real person. I flipped channels and caught a glimpse recently of Priscilla Presley on "Dancing with the Stars." After shaking my head and blinking a few times to be sure it wasn't Marilyn Manson, I realized it was the formerly gorgeous wife of Elvis Presley. Priscilla, what did you do to yourself? When did the notion of beauty start to include nose number 72-S, chin number B-14, and a round of blepharoplasty? What happened to not smoking, getting exercise, eating healthy, staying out of the sun, and making every attempt to enjoy life as a foundation for beauty? What's wrong with showing a little age? My crow's feet are from years of squinting on sunny days and from laughing at good jokes. The

furrows in my brow make me look interested and curious. The lines around my mouth make me look like my father. The bump in my nose is directly from my maternal grandmother. I know exactly who I am and I'm just fine.

DENTAL AMALGAM

Fillings become a burning issue for crematorium Published: Thursday, 19th June, 2008 08:55 Dunferline Press Dunfermline, Fife, UK By Cummings THE COST of cremations in Fife could be set to spiral following a hike in the number of Fifers with dodgy teeth being cremated. An increase in the number of people being cremated in Fife who have amalgam fillings in their teeth has led to an increase in mercury emissions which are harmful to humans and even unborn babies. In an attempt to curb the problem environmental protection legislation has stated there must be a 50 per cent reduction in mercury emissions from crematoria across the UK by 2012. As a result £600,000 will be spent on Kirkcaldy Crematorium and £600,000

on Dunfermline Crematorium to install special filtering systems to meet the targets imposed. Bereavement services manager for Fife Liz explained, “Mercury is actually the amalgam in peoples’ fillings that changes during the cremation process and produces mercury. It goes up into the atmosphere and goes around the world a couple of times before it goes down into the ocean where it comes back into the food chain. “The generations of people that are coming through the system now do have a higher number of fillings in their teeth. Now dental practice has improved and they’re not using amalgam within fillings now. But for this period of time for the next 20 years we have to be seen to filter as much of it out as we can.” She continued, “There probably will be an impact on the cost of cremations but we don’t know as yet what that will be.” Initially mercury abatement equipment will be used to extract

mercury from the cremation process at Kirkcaldy Crematorium. Special filters will be fitted to the existing equipment at the rear of the crematorium. Similar work at Dunfermline Crematorium will start after the work at Kirkcaldy is complete. Labour councillor for Dunfermline south, Mike Rumney, claimed Fife Council’s administration had decided to spend the required £600,000 per crematorium only in Kirkcaldy and spend nothing on Dunfermline Crematorium. But Lib Dem councillor for Dunfermline south, Tony , said Mr Rumney had misunderstood the decision taken at last Thursday’s policy, finance and asset management committee meeting, and that £600,000 would also be spent from the next budget on installing the equipment at Dunfermline Crematorium. He explained, “We will be doing Dunfermline Crematorium but we can’t do both at the same time for obvious reasons. We will phase the Dunfermline one after the

Kirkcaldy one. We have had to delay it because we have had to phase it. “There’s no danger to our staff or people living around there. We have to comply with the legislation and we will do that. We would meet the criteria if we just did one crematorium but it’s still the administration’s intent to carry out work at Dunfermline Crematorium at a later phase in order to reduce mercury emissions at Dunfermline.” Mrs added, “Because we have two crematoriums (in Fife) we are classed as a cremation authority so by putting equipment in at Kirkcaldy that gives us the 50 per cent requirement. “There are a higher number of cremations at Kirkcaldy compared to Dunfermline. Initially it makes more sense to abate at Kirkcaldy to reach the initial abatement requirements.” According to the National Association of Funeral Directors, mercury is known to be toxic and can damage the brain, kidneys and nervous system,

while unborn babies are believed to be particularly susceptible to its effects. Work on installing the filter system at Kirkcaldy Crematorium will start within the next year to 18 months.

BIG PHARMA

Big Pharma Agrees To Stricter Ad Rules Evening Bulletin Philadelphia, PA,USA By: Chin, The Bulletin 06/23/2008 Washington - Top drug manufacturers including & , Merck and Pfizer agreed last Monday to a six-month moratorium on direct-to-consumer television advertising for new prescription drugs and limitations on how doctors are used in their ads. The agreements came amid increasing pressure from the Congressional House Energy and Commerce Committee and the American Medical Association (AMA) following earlier controversy surrounding deceptive advertising for anti-cholesterol drugs such as Lipitor, Procrit and Vytorin. In signed letters, the executive directors of & , (J & J), Merck &

Co., Merck/Schering-Plough, and Pfizer agreed to take steps towards implementing these recommendations. Meanwhile, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) agreed to further meetings with the committee before agreeing to any particular changes at the moment. All of the companies agreed to adhere to the AMA's guidelines as to the use of actors and health professionals. Specifically, they will continue to identify instances in which an actor portrays a physician, as well as whether the actor was compensated for their appearance. & will discontinue use of doctors entirely to discuss the benefits of a drug. In the letters, each company also stated that the six-month moratorium simply formalized their existing practice of educating doctors before moving to consumer communications. "We have adopted internal guiding practices on direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs

[that] requires our operating companies spend at least six months after approval of a new medicine educating health professionals before commencing a direct-to-consumer advertising campaign," wrote C. Weldon, chairman-CEO of J & J. He added that since the advertisements are in line with FDA approved labeling and measures of outcomes, they are an important tool to provide information to patients and physicians, and "a particular fixed period of time for an advertising moratorium is appropriate in all circumstances." Rep. Dingell, D-Mich., and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., chairmen of the committee's oversight and investigations panel, said they were pleased with this response, but wanted the drug companies to adopt the recommended two-year moratorium. According to Mr. Stupak, he and Mr. Dingell called for the May 8 hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, entitled "Direct to Consumer Advertising: Marketing,

Education or Deception?", to both renew pressure and renew the struggle within Congress to strengthen government regulation over such TV commercials. It was also a step towards granting the Food and Drug Administration the right to force changes in the ads before they air. "Although we appreciate the drug companies' willingness to change some of their business practices, they have not agreed to all of our requests, which would protect consumers from misleading and deceptive advertising," said Mr. Stupak. Even with these agreements and the potential for future legislation, the debate will go on. Part of that debate lies in the fact that running these ads is mutually beneficial for both the pharmaceutical companies and the TV industry. Since 1997, when the government relaxed rules on TV and radio ads, pharmaceutical companies shortened the warnings on side effects in their commercials and spent about $14 million on broadcast and

cable TV ads for prescription drugs. In 2007, drug makers spent over $5 billion on direct-to-consumer ads, according to Nielsen Monitor-Plus; more than half of that on television. "The drug and TV and cable industries have formed a cabal here to protect their revenues," said Gene Kimmelman of Consumers Union, an advocacy group in favor of stricter limits on direct-to-consumer drug marketing. Ken , a PhRMA vice president, challenged that in a May article in the Wall Street Journal. He insisted that consumer advertising for prescription drugs "brings patients into their doctors' offices and helps start important doctor-patient conversations about conditions that might otherwise go undiagnosed or untreated." Still, many consider the ads to be intentionally misleading. "Direct-to-consumer ads often portray drugs through rose-colored glasses by including more information about a drug's benefits than risks," said Dr.

Nielsen, AMA President-elect, in testimony at the congressional hearings. "Imbalances in these ads can diminish patient understanding of certain drug risks, and increase the need for an ongoing dialogue between patients and physicians about the benefits and risks of prescription drugs," Dr. Nielsen added. Reporting contributed by AdAge.com and The Wall Street Journal.

Thank you for supporting Hadcorp. http://implants.webs.com/ To unsubscribe from these mailings, click here: please unsubscribe me