Toxic Recovery / Dr. Feng / $ Assistance / Tests

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the welcome, I have spent much time here!

I have 4 questions that I've tried to figure on my own, but remain lost:

Would one feel up to a 7 hour drive after explant? (Considering Dr. Feng.)

Found a link somewhere that was a jpg of a 3 page letter by Dr. Feng. Any ideas where this letter (link) is located?

Recovery/Financial. Any toxic discovery promises anywhere? I'm finding hints of promises.

Testing - I have opportunity to go to a free clinic next week & wanted to get the tests that an explant surgeon would normally write up. This would save me some cash. Any links to such?

I so appreciate any advice, I am terribly overwhelmed & exhausted. Even though good advice would be to take "my time", I am "failing" too fast. My body says "urgent".

Smiles to you all !

[Guest guest]

Nance ~

The experiences we all have had have been

challenging to say the least, but the good thing is,

we have such wonderful friendships, and we know

someone is always here for us.

Finding the good in even the hardest experiences

is a blessing, and that is something we learn to do.

God Bless ~

Dede

**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

[Guest guest]

I am not sure what letter you are looking for, but here is a letter, and I think there is another one somewhere, I will keep looking....

An Open Letter from

E. Kolb, M.D., F.A.C.S.

Certified by The American Board of Holistic Medicine, 2-01

Silicone Studies

March 12, 2001

Dear:

After watching "Storm in a D Cup" on The Learning Channel, I would like to propose some suggestions to scientists that may help to resolve the still

ongoing breast implant controversy, which in my opinion has not ever been satisfactorily resolved.

1 am a board certified plastic surgeon who is also board certified in

holistic medicine. I have not only had the opportunity to experience the

symptoms of silicone immune and neurological disease in my own body when my silicone gel implants leaked, but also have had the opportunity to treat over five hundred women with similar illnesses. Subsequently I believe I have some insights into this problem that may have been missed by doctors who do not treat these women.

First of all, any study on silicone should only include women who have had implants in at least eight to ten years as it is well documented that in

most cases leakage or rupture usually does not occur before this time,

unless the implant is subject to some form of trauma. There are studies

describing the lipolysis reaction that occurs on the Silastic shell and

this lipolysis reaction takes time. Second, a less strict definition of

connective tissue or autoimmune disease needs to be studied, as the

majority of patients do not have a known connective tissue disease. The

first element of this disease has to do with the development of symptoms of systemic candidiasis due to an immune dysfunction, which I have found to be associated with depressed natural killer T cell levels. We also find at

surgery that approximately half of the patients' breast capsules culture

out pathogenic organisms such as Staph aureus and Enterococcus. I would

propose that once the silicone gel leaks out of the implant, a chronic

immune response occurs that is often associated with local capsular

bacterial infection and with systemic and possibly local fungal infections.

The patients next experience neurological symptoms that can be explained by the silicone gel migrating directly or via the macrophages into the lymphatic and nervous systems. Women with longstanding silicone gel exposure have typical neurological problems, usually beginning in the extremity on the side of the implant that leaks or ruptures first. Some women also have toxicity from platinum and other chemicals that are used in the manufacturing process of the implants. In my experience, the end stage of this disease is an autoimmune condition similar to scleroderma. It may be modulated by intracellular bacterial infections that change the characteristics of the cell wall and lead to autoimmune symptoms that are atypical, in that they do not fall into any known connective tissue disease but are actually very typical for women with silicone immune dysfunction.This does not occur right away and may take ten or more years of silicone exposure.

The clinical picture we see in these women is that of increased level of

cytokines which explains why Plaquenil is effective. I believe this is also

one of the factors, along with the presence of increased silica in the

body, which may protect women with implants against breast cancer. Silica and other mineral deficiencies are known to predispose to cancer.

It is important to study this problem for three reasons. One is that

silicone gel implants are being reintroduced into the market without

understanding what has caused so many women to become ill; and the second is that some patients with saline implants are experiencing similar

problems, especially after trauma, which may disrupt some of the textured

silicone from the capsule into the systemic circulation and/or lymphatics;

and third, is the advent of the exciting research on the potential

protection from breast implants against the development of breast cancer.

This potential advent indicates the necessity of fully understanding the

effects of silicone and its breakdown products in the body as this may

contain the information for an important cancer treatment.

I would propose much more detailed immunological studies of the patients

with problems as well as a study of the HLA type of the same patients. Our

best avenue to serve'our patients is to prevent complications even if they

occur in a minority of our patients, rather than to insist that these

problems do not exist. Many of my patients have been told by their plastic

surgeons and/or rheumatologists that their implants could not have anything to do with their illness, only to discover abnormal bacterial and fungal growth around an implant that when removed and properly treated, leads to the patients' recovery and greatly improved health. I would encourage all of the doctors and scientists in this politically charged issue to focus on the patient to determine what is making them ill, and on the science of silicone, so hopefully we may someday safely use this material in the body.

Sincerely Yours,

E. Kolb, M.D., F.A.C.S. SEK: tam

A surgeon who's enlarged the breasts of thousands says that despite FDA approval, silicone implants still aren't safe.

By Melmed, EDWARD MELMED is a surgeon in Dallas.

January 3, 2007

THE FRIDAY before Thanksgiving, all U.S. plastic surgeons received a congratulatory e-mail from the principal manufacturer of breast implants.

"Let's toast this monumental occasion," reads the subject line. Silicone implants are coming back on the market for the first time since they were banned in 1992. Why not celebrate? It's big money for easy surgery — and a lot of women want to look like the thin but big-busted women they see in lingerie catalogs and on "reality" TV shows. I seem to be one of the few plastic surgeons who won't be getting out the champagne.

I have enlarged the breasts of thousands of women with silicone implants since they were first introduced in the 1960s. I even wrote articles in favor of silicone. Then a S. came to see me in 1992. At age 32, she had had at least three breast surgeries, and each time her breasts became rock-hard and painful. She could not lie on her stomach. We replaced the silicone with smooth saline implants. Within a short time these too became hard, as did the next set.

a insisted on having her implants removed. She would not heed my warnings about deformity and scarring, which we had all been told inevitably follows removal without replacement. To my surprise, she looked terrific — normal, albeit smaller — and she felt better. a's problem turned out to be common: Most breasts with silicone gel implants become hard with time. It's called capsular contracture. All foreign objects in the body get encapsulated — just as the tissue around a splinter gets hard — until the foreign body is removed. Women with capsular contracture often end up with disfigured breasts and pain.

Recently I saw Helen S., 71, who had implants 23 years ago. Her breasts also had hardened and become painful. In addition, an MRI showed rupture of the implants and calcification of the surrounding scar tissue. When I removed the implants, the cavity was filled with gooey, liquid silicone that had ruptured; there was virtually no implant wall left.

In the last 14 years, I have removed implants from almost 1,000 women. I have found roughly 50% of their implants have ruptured within 10 years, and more than 70% have ruptured within 15 years. We are still not sure of all the places where the micro-droplets of silicone end up, though I have found it in lymph nodes.

Despite these known hazards, the Food and Drug Administration, under pressure from implant manufacturers, plastic surgeons and patients, is allowing as of Jan. 1 a new generation of silicone implants in women age 22 and over. The new generations of implants, we are assured, are less likely to rupture. However, this claim has been made for every previous generation. To monitor women's health, the FDA will require women who receive implants to have regular MRIs and has recommended that the implants be replaced every 10 years. It is a pity that women will become the experimental lab rats for these implants. They, not the manufacturers, will have to pay for the MRIs and replacements as recommended. Most plastic surgeons vehemently deny any connection between health complaints and leaking silicone implants. But I have seen a disturbing number of patients with symptoms, including fatigue, short-term memory loss, joint and muscle pains, skin rashes, disturbed sleep patterns, depression and hair loss, that clear up when implants are removed.

LAST YEAR, I completed a review of the last 500 gel implant removals I performed, and found that more than half the women had similar symptoms, ranging from mild to debilitating. According to the manufacturers' own literature, one in four women has additional surgery within the first year. Many women have multiple surgeries.

"Women deciding to have these implants need to be prepared to have additional surgery," cautioned Dr. Schultz, head of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA.

The FDA is requiring manufacturers to spend 10 years studying 80,000 women who receive the implants. Apparently our government's policy has become, "Approve now, test later." At current implantation rates, these devices will be in the bodies of 5% of U.S. women within a decade. As I now see it, grossly outsized artificial breasts are a deformity that flouts medical standards and even the plastic surgeons society's own definition of "cosmetic" — all too often encouraged by the media, which celebrates these water balloons for self-esteem.

Though I do approve of the use of implants for breast reconstruction, when there is no other option, I no longer perform cosmetic breast augmentation. But let's raise a glass of bubbly for the manufacturers and the plastic surgeons. This will be a happy and prosperous year, for them.

BERNARD M. PATTEN, MD, FACP, FRSM

The former President of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive

Surgery called me a junk scientist. My lame, but honest, reply is that I am a

junk scientist because I have, for the last fifteen years, been studying a

piece of junk. That's what the silicone breast implant was and is. Let me

explain:

It all started years ago, never mind how many, when I decided to switch my program at Columbia College from American History to premed. My career seemed to go pretty well for a time. I graduated from Columbia College summa cum laude and second in my class of 725 students. Thence I went to Columbia's College of Physician and Surgeons where I also graduated second in my class.

They elected me to AOA, the national medical honor society in my junior year, and I took the Mosby Prize for Scholarship at graduation. After internship at Cornell Medical Center - The New York Hospital, I returned to Columbia for residency in neurology and eventually, by unanimous vote of the faculty was elected Chief Resident in Neurology at the Neurological Institute of New York.

After a fellowship year in human memory at Columbia, I went to NIH where I became the assistant chief of Medical Neurology and did neurological

consultations for the clinical center and many times for the United States

Senate. So far so good. Not a bad start for a junk scientist, wouldn't you

say? Along the way I published over 100 papers in peer reviewed journals, gave over 500 lectures to national and international audiences and received many prizes and awards for research in Parkinson's Disease (I was there with Dr. C. Cotzias when the first dose of DOPA was given) and Myasthenia Gravis (I was there with Dr. King Engel when we pioneered the immune suppressive treatments) as well as a listing in the usual places such as Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in Health and Medical Education, Who's Who in Science and Engineering and so forth. I had a loving wife who was also a physician and two children and four cats and, yes, as unfashionable as it may be to admit, I was happy. Happy, that is until that fatal day when I decided to leave the sacred groves of NIG to take a job as Chief of Neuromuscular Diseases and eventually Vice Chairman of Neurology at the Baylor

College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Soon after that mistake my troubles

began.

After a fellowship year in human memory at Columbia, I went to NIH where I became the assistant chief of Medical Neurology and did neurological consultations for the clinical center and many times for the United States

Senate. So far so good. Not a bad start for a junk scientist, wouldn't you say? Along the way I published over 100 papers in peer reviewed journals, gave over 500 lectures to national and international audiences and received many prizes and awards for research in Parkinson's Disease (I was there with Dr. C. Cotzias when the first dose of DOPA was given) and Myasthenia Gravis (I was there with Dr. King Engel when we pioneered the immune suppressive treatments) as well as a listing in the usual places such as Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in Health and Medical Education, Who's Who in Science and Engineering and so forth. I had a loving wife who was also a physician and two children and four cats and, yes, as unfashionable as it may be to admit, I was happy. Happy, that is until that fatal day when I decided to leave the sacred groves of NIG to take a job as Chief of Neuromuscular Diseases and eventually Vice Chairman of Neurology at the Baylor

College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. Soon after that mistake my troubles

began.

At Baylor I made friends with Dr. Gerow, one of the two inventors of the silicone breast implant. explained that he and Cronin wanted to do something with plastic surgery that would match the artificial heart the Dr. Debakey was working on, something that would draw national attention to themselves the way NASA, situated only 40 miles south of Baylor, got national attention. First, they tried direct injections of silicone into tissues to make bigger breasts and the results were, of course, a disaster. I saw lots of these women in consultation. They were by and large the wives of medical students who had volunteered for the experiments. The silicone caused marked fibrosis, hard, painful, disgusting looking breasts which the women were ashamed to show. All others who tried to directly inject silicone into human tissue have gotten the same terrible local complications proving that silicone is not inert but is biologically active enough to cause severe local inflammatory reactions.

The interesting thing that escaped my attention at the time was that most of these wives also had weird neuromuscular and rheumatologic diseases including myasthenia gravis, polymyositis, small fiber sensory neuropathy and Sjogren's syndrome. In many cases, the autoimmune diseases required treatment and I applied the treatments the best I could without thinking that there might be a connection between the silicone and the autoimmunity. Because direct injection gave awful results, Gerow and Cronin decided to enclose the silicone in a elastomer bag and put the bag into the breast area to make big breasts. A lot of people thought the idea absurd, almost obscene, but it did give the promise of what some women wanted and it was quick giving immediate results. Of course, there ware lots of problems with the surgery including infections and herniation of the implant through the incisions and multiple redos because the implant had ruptured or shifted or had developed a baseball hard capsule or the capsule or the woman wanted still larger and larger breasts and so forth. But the local complications Gerow and Cronin could handle. Besides whether you put implants in or you took them out or you changed them, the surgeon still got paid.

Eventually, Baylor accumulated the first and the largest series of implanted women in the world and as the neurologist that Gerow knew and presumably trusted, I got the referrals of the women who had complaints referable to muscles, nerves, spinal cord, or brain. And there were many of them, a superabundance. Probably from 1986 to 1993 I personally saw and examined over 2000 such women. Their stories were all quite similar: Sometime after the implantation, they felt weak and tired, developed morning stiffness, excessive fatigue, dry mouth, dry eyes and dry vagina. Most also had hot painful tender breasts with contractures. I made it my business to examine the breasts of all these women and got pretty good at detecting ruptures, spills, and enlarged local lymph nodes. There were many women with amazingly anesthetic nipples which Gerow told me was because T4, the nerve to the nipple, had been cut on insertion of the larger implants through the axillary approach. Quite a few women had severe sharp shooting chest pains simulating heart attacks. Gerow had an answer for that too: On insertion the implant forms a physical barrier to the regrowth of severed nerves causing neuroma formation. We even biopsied a few cases and proved the neuromas were present and published two papers on chest pain in implanted women. One paper appeared in Emergency Medicine and one appeared in the Southern Medical journal. But the thing that impressed me the most about the local situation was that the implant, in this selected group of women that I saw, had failed miserably to deliver what it had promised. Beautiful breasts they were not. In fact, the opposite was true: The implant had made satisfactory breasts horribly deformed and ugly.

I did complete physical examinations on each of the women and found that theyall seemed to show much the same general pattern; they had skin rashes, cold fingers and toes, dry eyes and dry mouths, and they were weak. We weren't sure how strong a woman should be so I sent out a medical student to get pinchometer and gripometer measurements in normal and hospitalized women. The results confirmed that implanted women, the ones referred to me at any rate, were, in relation to their peers matched for age and sex, objectively weak, usually scoring less that 50% of the controls on the dynamometer measurements.

On neurological examination I found that ladies had more than the usual trouble with simple mental status tests such as proverbs, subtractions, serial sevens, naming the presidents and so forth. That could have been because they came from poor education backgrounds, which they did by and large. Except, even some high powered women who had completed graduate school, Judges in Houston courts for instance, or the former assistant postmaster general and other women of achievement in journalism and science, also did poorly on these tests. Gait and station testing showed most couldn't do a push up or a sit up and most had glove and stocking sensory loss suggesting they had neuropathy.

Laboratory tests confirmed that the women seemed to have something autoimmune though just what that was we couldn't say. There were lots of abnormal autodirected antibodies including ANA and rheumatoid factors and antinerve antibodies but none of the ladies actually fit into the currently accepted diagnostic criteria for the diseases usually associated with those antibodies. Almost all the women who had cognitive complaints had decreased cerebral flood flows as measured by research physicians as part of the NIG approved Baylor-Methodist Cerebral vascular research center grant. Almost all had positivetear tests proving the ladies really did have dry eyes.

Most of the patients had surgical indications for implant removal and I followed them during and after the surgery. I personally reviewed the slides on all tissues removed and gradually learned to identify free silicone in tissue, polyurethane, and the dense inflammation with foreign body giant cells that surrounds the implant. We documented with pictures the gross appearance of massive silicomas larger than softballs and capsules thicker than magazines. We kept track of the relations of examination results before to what happened after surgery. In general, women with assistant postmaster general and other women of achievement in polyurethane implants did lousy and got worse after explantation. Women who had massive spills of silicone had teams of surgeons laboring over nine hours fail to get all the silicone out. That group also did poorly. Women with high titers of antiGM1 antibodies got progressively worse and sent down hill often dying of a weird neuromuscular disease that resembled a combination of dermatomyositis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, motor sensory neuropathy, Sjogren's syndrome, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with, believe it or not, signs and symptoms of multiple sclerosis! Women who had minor spills that surgeons could remove and those with intact implants did the best. Most in that group recovered within two years. Three of these who had had complete remissions of well documented

diseases got tired of living with small tits and made the mistake of getting reimplanted. The diseases, as predicted, roared back thus fulfilling Koch's postulates. We found that the incidence of ruptured implant correlated with the severity of autoimmune disease. The proven rupture rate for our series of severely ill women with the Multiple sclerosis, for instance, exceeded 70%. We published our results in eight papers covering everything we could think of from the local to systemic problems. Under separate cover, I will send some reprints of those to you. The citations of all papers appear in Medline. My fellows, Britta and Glen, and I presented our data at national and international meetings including the World Federation of Neurology and the American Neurological Association and the American Academy of Neurology. The Southern Medical Society and the Texas Neurological Society gave us several awards for clinical research and encouraged us to dig further. In many cases, our reports hit the front pages of USA Today, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and so forth. Little did I realize that that publicity would hurt us. Nor did I realize, until it was too late, how much it would hurt.

About 1986 Dow-Corning paid me $4,800 to consult with them about their product. I told them what we were finding and I told them especially about my concern about the rupture rate (50% ruptures in ten years on average) and the severe local complications we had seen due to ruptures. I urged them to set up some form of free clinic to care for the injured women and to make cowardly amends for what they had done. Some months later they told me I was wrong and that the implant caused no such problems. We went back to the drawing boards and redid much of the research only to discover the same things we had discovered before. I estimate the pause caused by the misinformation received from the company delayed our progress for two years. As it was misinformation, because to my chagrin, I learned on my way to Washington to testify before the expert panel of the FDA, while reviewing the secret company documents supplied to me by the FDA, that the company clearly knew as far back as 1976 that silicone spread, caused local inflammation, and in some animals resulted in autoimmune diseases. I appeared before the panel a shaken man. The people who had hired me as a consultant had deceived me. How naive I had been.

The rest as they say is history. FDA took implants off the market for cosmetic augmentation. TV began to do shows about how bad a scientist I was. Gerow staggered under the weight of over 13,000 malpractice suits against him and Baylor. Trustees called Doctor , the President of Baylor, about a program about me put on by CNN. Frontline even said in a voice over that I was under investigation by the FBI for Medicare fraud. I was not, not then, not ever. But multiple investigations were conducted on the basis on anonymous complaints to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners. Seven so far have been dismissed after years of investigation and reinvestigation. Every slide I ever showed in any scientific meeting was seized and investigated as possible evidence against me. Criminals broke into my office and stole research data related to implants. The biopsy laboratory was broken into and slides and reports on implanted patients looked into. A man posing as my fellow copied the brain scans and charts of over 200 patients, a theft of medical records never solved. Death threats arrived in the mail. People phoned in threats. One plastic surgeon said I was part of a communist conspiracy to deprive American women of their implants. And, yes, a dead decapitated animal, a rabbit not a horse, arrived at the doorstep, just like in the movies.

Baylor restricted my teaching saying that they couldn't prevent my research but they sure could stop me from talking to students, interns, and residents about implants. They were careful to mention that they were not restricting my research because they recognized the rights of a tenured associate professor to publish what he wished. And they affirmed that they wished me to continue my teaching in every other aspect just as before. However, the chairman of the department soon came upon the idea that he could stop my seeing implanted women. I protested but Baylor administration remained intransigent. So realizing the futility of trying to make further progress, I bowed out.

Meanwhile, Cronin stared to make rounds in the nude and was discovered to be demented and Gerow, drinking a lot, refused to have his protime checked. He had an artificial aortic valve for which he took Coumadin. His subsequent death from a cerebral hemorrhage prompted me to formulate the following epigram:

The silicone implant was:

Bad for those who made them

Bad for those who put them in

Bad for those who got them in

And bad for those who did research on them.

God rest his soul. Before he died Gerow predicted what subsequently came true: "The silicone implant, born in Houston, will die in Houston."

And so it is with a kind of wispy regret that I make some suggestions to future scientists who might consider doing implant research. First of all, consider carefully, you men and women of the future, and if you take my

advice, don't do it. It isn't worth it. More than one career has been ruined in this field and others are sure to follow. The companies have massive amounts of money to defame even the most sincere and diligent researcher. The chance that you will escape the same fate as me is slim. But if the compulsion to do research that will have a significant impact on the health of women for our time and for all time is unavoidable, I suggest you consider thefollowing:

*Set up special free clinics to study women with implants. These ladies have genuine medical problems, which are not being addressed. Regardless of the cause of their physical and mental diseases they need help which they are not able to get at present because for various reasons they are locked out of the medical system.

*Repeat the epidemiological studies. Most of those studies, by their own

admission, are flawed. The Mayo study more than the others. In fact, the Mayo study was reported in the same section at the annual meeting of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery that I reported the complication of giving a transfusion into an implant. At that meeting the version was that there was a high incidence of autoimmune disease in the implanted patients compared to controls particularly Hashimoto's thyroiditis. For some reason, partial deselection of evidence I presume, that item never found its way into the Mayo final report.

*Even forgetting about possible causation for the moment, why not study intensively the mechanisms of autoimmunity in patients with implants? At the time of my retirement I had collected 51 cases of ruptured implants in patients with multifocal brain infarctions associated with antiphospolipid antibodies. Could that be an accident?

*Follow all women with implants in a national registry. Require that all have yearly screening examinations for local and systemic complications. History and physical examinations is all that is needed for effective screening. Career researchers not connected with the companies in anyway and not connected with the business of installing or removing implants in anyway should do the screening. The companies have spent 26 million dollars on spin to make themselves look good. Why not spend a similar amount on some real unbiased research?

*Do animal studies injecting silicone mixed with blood proteins into animals. The results, I predict, will show that the animals develop autoimmune diseases.

**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)

[Guest guest]

Now....Just down to lookin' for that 3 page letter & if there are any hints of hope for any type of recovery...

Dr. Feng's office ROCKS! Have another consultation tomorrow via phone. I'll post later, I have much work to do as they want me there asap.

Hey, ladies...you have made this a whole lot nicer to cope with. Thank you. It would have been nicer to know you all had more good than bad experiences.

Blessings, Nance

[Guest guest]

Nance,

We have a copy of that 3 page letter in our photos section.

Here's the link:

http://health.ph./group/ /photos/browse/e5

10

Glad you are talking to them and feeling good about your care!

Patty

--- In , " Nance " <itza_onthemark@...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> Now....Just down to lookin' for that 3 page letter & if there are

any

> hints of hope for any type of recovery...

>

> Dr. Feng's office ROCKS! Have another consultation tomorrow via

phone.

> I'll post later, I have much work to do as they want me there asap.

>

> Hey, ladies...you have made this a whole lot nicer to cope with.

Thank

> you. It would have been nicer to know you all had more good than

bad

> experiences.

>

> Blessings, Nance

>

[Guest guest]

Make sure you get that whole link address in there. It cuts off

the " 10 " .

Patty

> >

> >

> >

> > Now....Just down to lookin' for that 3 page letter & if there are

> any

> > hints of hope for any type of recovery...

> >

> > Dr. Feng's office ROCKS! Have another consultation tomorrow via

> phone.

> > I'll post later, I have much work to do as they want me there

asap.

> >

> > Hey, ladies...you have made this a whole lot nicer to cope with.

> Thank

> > you. It would have been nicer to know you all had more good than

> bad

> > experiences.

> >

> > Blessings, Nance

> >

>