silicone test not recognized

[Guest guest]

Here is a sad case of a 15 year old girl who had a shunt placed, and was having symptoms of silicone sensitivity. I state that based on the fact that I've heard of several cases of shunts provoking symptoms similar to ours. This article shows that in court, the silicone sensitivity test was not recognized as valid. I've cut and pasted relevant portions. You can view the link to read the whole case. She used experts whose names we know and recognize! FACTS

In 1977, Cabrera, who was then fifteen years old,

was diagnosed with hydrocephalus, a condition in which

excess cerebral spinal fluid collects in the brain. To drain the

excess fluid, Cabrera's neurosurgeon implanted a hydroceph-

alus shunt (technically known as a ventriculoperitoneal shunt)

manufactured by Cordis Corporation. The shunt had a fin

927

tipped catheter and a valve system, both of which were con-

structed with silicone rubber.

In the 1980s, Cabrera began experiencing severe allergies,

chronic fatigue, and autoimmune disorders. She consulted a

neurosurgeon about having the shunt removed, and he told her

she was "shunt dependent," that is, she could not live without

the shunt.

In 1994, Cabrera filed a complaint in federal district court

(based on diversity of citizenship), alleging that her medical

problems were the result of silicone toxicity. She claimed that

the toxicity was caused by her body's production of silicone

antibodies in response to the inappropriate composition of sil-

icone in the shunt's component parts. She also alleged that the

shunt was defectively designed, in that removal or replace-

ment of the fin tipped catheter would require major surgery

and removal of a portion of her brain tissue.

<snipped>B. Aristo Vojdani, Ph.D.

Aristo Vojdani holds a Ph.D. in immunology. Cabrera

wanted Vojdani to testify that he had tested a sample of her

932

blood in August 1993, and found the presence of silicone anti-

bodies. Those antibodies would support Cabrera's contention

that she was undergoing an autoimmune response to silicone.

Cordis opposed the admission of his testimony because Voj-

dani's test for silicone antibodies was not scientifically reli-

able as required by Daubert. The district court agreed that the

test did not satisfy Daubert.

First, the court noted that only Vojdani used the test he had

performed on Cabrera's blood, and there is no generally

accepted blood test for silicone antibodies. Cabrera counters

that two other labs perform a similar test. At the hearing,

however, the district judge sustained Cordis' objection to the

introduction of test results from another laboratory, and Voj-

dani testified only that several other laboratories perform sili-

cone antibody tests, although he did not know if they

performed the same test he uses. Vojdani also testified that his

test had never been peer-reviewed. Vojdani had no documen-

tation of even his own development of the test, as his records

were destroyed in an earthquake. Further (although this is not

dispositive), the Federal Drug Administration does not recog-

nize any silicone antibody test at all.http://www.romingerlegal.com/ninth_circuit/9_circuit/6288ninthcircuit.html