Talk:Breast implant/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ruptured Implant Photos 2 Rupture Information 3 Adjunct Study 4 Re: Risks & Controvery 5 images 6 Celebs with breast implants 7 Images of Properly Performed Breast Implants 8 about Breast Implants or Breast Implants available in the US? 9 radiography 10 sub muscular 11 statistics 12 famous breast 'implantees' 13 String implants 14 Hanging implants 15 Runaway Tort System? 16 re. 17 Data Doesn't Support Plastic Surgeon's Contention 18 IOM v. the 2001 Study 19 Mainstream veer and veneer 20 Deletions & whitewashing 21 Plastic Surgeon's Reply and Response 21.1 Plastic Surgeon to Ombudsman 22 Plastic Surgeon & Bias 22.1 re 22.2 To the Plastic Surgeon 23 How many Polyurethane? 24 Danish rupture data 25 More Whitewashing 26 RE 27 Complete Alteration of Vasey quote 28 Plastic Surgeon 29 RedDoc 30 Independent Studies 31 Once the Implants Go In, Who Cares Where They Come Out 32 WE CARE ABOUT IMPLANT REMOVAL 33 Dr Henry Jenny 34 Length and Balance 35 Proposal to split article 35.1 Votes 35.2 Comments 36 Accuracy 37 Latest Research 38 "Natural" breast enlargement 39 Multiple roll back revert 40 Breast Implant Promotions 41 Rheumatology section 42 Edit war

[edit] Ruptured Implant Photos

The photo shows an extracapsular rupture (black implants). These were removed less than two years ago, from a woman who was very ill. She and I had our implants removed around the same time. We both had (extracapsular) rupture for several years before we knew the implants were ruptured. I also was very sick, having been diagnosed with lupus, multiple sclerosis and Hashimoto's thyroiditis -- all autoimmune illnesses. My implants were yellow. Silicone implants are supposed to be clear, not black or yellow, as these were when removed. No legitimate doctor would suggest that contaminated implants like these would be 'safe' in the body.

The black implants shown in the photo were not double lumen. These were single lumen, but over 20 years old when removed. My implants, however, were double lumen. There was no saline left when they were removed. The silicone gel was yellow, and much of it was gone, presumably in my system. My guess is that mine were also ruptured for several years, because of the timing of a mammogram and when my symptoms appeared.

Also, it is not particularly benign that added antibiotics to saline implants causes them to turn black. Dr. Blais, a biochemist, says that sterilization is still a problem with saline (or double lumen) and sometimes the devices are filled during surgery and may be contaminated then. Another problem occurs with trying to resterilize implants that are reused or if physicians uses additives such as steroids, antibiotics, detergent solutions, etc. Believe it or not, some physicians have actually reused a "perfectly good implant" in another woman.The mixtures and drugs added to the saline may also cause problems as they degrade. Micro-organisms could feed off those nutrients. There are now numerous studies documenting mico-organism can and do grow in the saline while implants and in the capsules surrounding them. ~~MB

[edit] Rupture Information

Dr. Lu-Jean Feng published an article worth noting. Analysis of risk factors associated with rupture of silicone gel breast implants.

CITE: Plast Reconstr Surg 1999 Sep; 104 (4): 955-63

http://forums.delphiforums.com/explantation/messages?msg=1271.1 Jeena_el

[edit] Adjunct Study

I see that Dr. Zuckerman already corrected the plastic surgeon's erroneous reports of follow-up by Inamed and Mentor. Thank you! The FDA PMA reviewers determined this part of the adjunct study 'fatally flawed'. It seems that several styles of implants did NOT have even 10% follow-up. In addition to the three questions I mention below, it appears also that neither manufacturer answered the FDA's question regarding platinum. The more I learn of what really happened with the PMA, the more appalled I am that the FDA panel accepted either manufacturer's PMA. Indeed, Congress has also been investigating a possible conflict of interest of panel members, although I am unaware of the outcome (if there is one yet). ~~MB

I don't know where the statistics regarding the Adjunct study came from, but they are completely inaccurate. The statistics are difficult to find but they are all available on the FDA website, based on Inamed's and Mentor's own analysis. Here's the FDA website http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAdvisory/details.cfm?mtg=593

The letter below, which requests an investigation, provides a good summary of some of the problems with the data. ~~DZ

Excerpts from the letter are also consistent with the statements made to me by an epidemiologist who reviewed the questions asked of Inamed and Mentor, and the data submitted by them. That epidemologist stated that neither manufacturer could adequately answer the three questions:

 1.  What is the rate of rupture (as the surgeon here pointed out, there was inadequate data to model this)
 2.  What is the cause of rupture
 3.  What are the long term ramifications of rupture  ~~MB

Excerpts April 19, 2005

Background On April 13, the Advisory Panel voted to recommend that the FDA put Mentor Corporation'ssilicone gel breast implants back on the market with nine conditions, after rejecting Inamed’s application the day before. In the medical reviews prepared prior to the meeting, FDA scientific staff clearly stated that the applications from both companies had serious weaknesses, finding that the data in both applications was of limited value for responding to questions set out in the guidance for industry that the FDA issued in 2004.

Issues for Investigation Susan Bond, who is Director of Scientific Policy in the Office of the FDA Commissioner, circulated an email (see attachment) to Dr. Daniel Shultz, Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and to Acting Commissioner Crawford with an attached document, titled, "Backgrounder for Crawford's email explains that this document was written by an outsider who is interested in seeing us come out ok on the b.i [silicone breast implant] issue." Since the document is a biased summary of breast implant research that clearly advocates for FDA approval, this email implies the FDA had a pre-determined interest in approval even before the FDA advisory panel met. Sending a document from an unidentified outsider, rather than specifying the source of information on either the email or the document itself, is especially questionable. Who was the"outsider" who created this document? Did this "outsider", through Susan Bond, exert inappropriate influence over the agency to act in the interest of industry?

Given the clear assessment by FDA scientific staff that the companies had not yet collected adequate data to meet the standard set out in the draft guidance, why did the FDA convene the panel rather than simply informing the companies that the data were inadequate to support approval?

The Guidance Document regarding breast implant research, which was issued by the FDA in January 2004, requested platinum and other toxicology analysis on tissue samples. Neither company provided this. Did the FDA tell the manufacturers that they did not have to comply with that element of the guidance? Why wasn't an expert on platinum appointed to the Advisory Panel? What was the FDA's process for determining the members of the panel, and why did the agency issue a conflict of interest waiver that allowed the participation and vote of Dr. Michael Miller? Dr. Miller had a grant from one of the sponsors which he used to create a promotional/educational CD-ROM for the product he was being asked to evaluate. In the CD-ROM, Dr. Miller reassures patients that silicone breast implants are safe, creating a very clear intellectual conflict of interest, in addition to the financial conflict.

 Why were independent scientific experts inside and outside the FDA not invited to present their data? 

 Why were offers to present scientific information, made by several independent experts, rebuffed? 

 Why was FDA's own research on breast implant rupture, which includes the largest published sample of women with leaking silicone implants, 
 not provided to the panel or discussed in either the written reviews or oral presentations?

 Why did the FDA approve the design of Mentor's Core study, despite the fact that it eliminated the data from women whose implants 
 were removed and not replaced?
 The women who had their implants removed without replacement are among the most likely to have experienced rupture, complications, 
 symptoms from the devices.   These are the women who should have been a focus of the research, but Mentor systematically excluded 
 the data on those problems.   The rationale given, lack of consent to gather information from women whose implants were removed, 
 is inconsistent with accepted procedures   for clinical trials and  apparently inconsistent with the analysis conducted by the other implant maker.

 Why did the FDA accept Mentor's PMA for implant styles 4000 and 8000 even though these models were not included in the company's Core study, 
 the primary clinical data set for the PMA?
 Mentor provided some data on Style 4000 from its Adjunct study, but FDA's PMA reviewers pointed out that the Adjunct study was fundamentally flawed 
 because it  lost 90% of its patients in follow-up. 

Furthermore, they pointed out that the Adjunct study's data are of no value in determining the rupture rate due to the absence of an MRI cohort. Style 8000 was not examined in either the Core or the Adjunct studies. In essence, there was no reliable data for 4 of the 6 implant models the Panel recommended for approval.

Now that the Panel has issued this split decision, it is up to the FDA to decide whether to follow the panel recommendations. It is essential that an investigation take place as quickly as possible, so that these questions can be answered before the FDA issues a final decision on the applications from Mentor and Inamed, which is expected in the coming weeks. We would like to meet with you to provide additional background and documentation to support our request for an oversight investigation.

Michelle Nawar will call to follow-up on this request or you can reach her at 202-223-4000 for more information.

Sincerely, Command Trust Network In the Know Our Bodies Ourselves National Organization for Women National Research Center for Women & Families National Women's Health Network

[edit] Re: Risks & Controvery

Dear PS,

Despite your political view on the appropriateness of silicone gel, the fact is there is MUCH ongoing debate among epidimiologist and physicians on this topic. For all practical purposes given the recent recomendations for FDA approval with severe restrictions and the fact that the FDA has delayed approval, it is not "settled".

What doctors have you been talking to? Plastic Surgeons? Even some of them know the dangers of silicone rupture -- especially the ones that remove implants and see the shape many of them are in. My implants were grossly ruptured and yellow. My dear friend's silicone implants were black with fungus and mold. That happens with saline implants, too, that have a faulty valve. As the weeks wore on before my 'explant', I grew sicker and sicker, until I was having hives that went into anaphlactic shock. I have been diagnosed with lupus, MS, Hashimoto's thyroiditis and fibromyalgia. I could not walk across my living room before my explant. Now I am walking and able to work part time. I know that my ruptured silicone implants nearly killed me.

I spoke to an epidemiologist the other day about this, who is very concerned about the inadequate tests submitted to the FDA by Mentor and Inamed on rupture rates. Many epidemiologists ARE concerned. More and more doctors are concerned. This may not be true in your profession (let me guess, plastic surgery). EVEN THE FDA SAYS IT IS UNSETTLED. Are you going to call the FDA not 'mainstream'? This issue is far from settled.

"The overwhelming data clearly supports the efficacy and safety of these devices and they have recieved more scrutiny then any other device ever presented to the FDA. " I have heard that line over and over verbatum and it is as untrue this time as the 578 other times I have heard it. You and your buddies need to change your sentences once in awhile. The FDA stated that only ONE study had been done - in 50 years or more - on the effects of rupture. That tells me the studies that were previously done were problematic. Indeed, the FDA pointed out some of the problems with earlier studies. In fact, my neurologist, who received his MD at Northwestern Univ. and did his residency at Mayo, told me about the gross problems with the Mayo study. He also pointed out how heavily funded it was by the manufacturers. He does not believe the results of those earlier studies, because of their now infamous shortcomings. These are the studies unscrupulous PS hype to 'prove' their point. I

The Dow settlement was NOT American class-action lawsuit abuse 101. Asbestos is not the same as silicosis, by the way, in case you didn't know. So before you go mixing all tort actions you need to find out what the hell you are talking about. You probably think asbestos is safe, too, I bet. I'm sure this was discussed in the WSJ editorial and right-wing think tanks. According to some, all lawyers are bad and all litigation is bad. Without litigation, more people would be dying from asbestos.

Your tone that you try to highlight the entire article is biased towards the safety of implants, when in fact, this has not been determined. God knows it should have been, in the decades there could have been accurate, independent studies. Sadly, many of the studies were like the tobacco research institute studies -- all guaranteed to show that smoking is not dangerous. We now know how patently bogus those 'studies' were.

[edit] images

Is it necessary to have 4 copies of the picture? Vroman 03:14 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

these are 4 different images of 2 different proceedures, not the same thing. However, we can pick an choose. If the article were longer, it wouldn't look so bad. MB 03:38 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You should provide captions if they really are different. They look like 2 copies each of a monochrome and color version of the exact same thing.Vroman 07:40 12 Jun 2003 (UTC) Why are the only two images on this page showing surgery that has gone wrong? surely there should be images showing good surgery as well?

Because those were public domain images from the FDA. Do they have any public domain images of surgery that worked okay? - David Gerard 12:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure some sex-related site has such pictures and would be delighted to supply some... anyone wants to investigate further? (RNBC)

I guess I can't see so well at my age...what's wrong with the second picture? Are the nipples different sizes?--Feitclub 02:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

No, the breasts are different sizes and shapes. The left implant deflated and the saline solution was absorbed in the body. NTK 19:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebs with breast implants

I've removed this list, because it doesn't seem encyclopedic, and is just barely relevant to this article. If someone is truly burning to put this information in Wikipedia, something like List of celebrities with breast implants, with only verified cases, would seem more appropriate. —tregoweth 04:25, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images of Properly Performed Breast Implants

This article needed a picture, as described in talk long ago, of why hundreds of thousands of women pay many thousands of dollars and undergo a month or more of pain to achieve. The most notable celebrity who received them is Jordan and it was a good picture that demonstrated the perceived benefits without being too revealing. Medical pictures absolutely do not accomplish this goal. --Noitall 14:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

May I ask where you got the pic from and by which nature it is under "fairuse"? --Kim Nevelsteen 15:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, if the article or caption stated something to that effect there would be some kind of motive for it being here. Plus, even if you changed the caption. Where is the source that states Jordan as being the most notable with verifiably fake breasts? --Kim Nevelsteen 15:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

K.Nevelsteen's caption is fine with me. Jordan is not necessarily the most notable, but she is up there. Arguably Pamela Anderson might be higher. They have both discussed them, and Jordan was booted of the Page 3 because of them. --Noitall 21:08, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

But you still don't specify a source and that is a problem.--Kim Nevelsteen 01:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is only a problem since I met you half way and agreed to your caption, but your real purpose is to delete. You know, agreement and niceties just do not work when people have a one-track mind. Your assertion as to copyrights is incorrect. Further, this is not the page for discussion nor is it proper procedure. This page is a breast implant page. --Noitall 01:41, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I am rather impartial since you agreed to the caption change. I think the image works. But when you make a statement, "...of why hundreds of thousands of women pay many thousands of dollars and undergo a month or more of pain to achieve. The most notable celebrity who received them is Jordan...", then I would expect a source. most notable by whom? Who says it is the reason why, maybe women are a rare sort of breed and just like the pain. A source would clarify these things. --Kim Nevelsteen 01:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

On notability, I was not trying to insert an edit to make that assertion, because the most notable would be a matter for debate, probably with Google searches or pics in mags or something. It is also somewhat irrelant as long is the subject is quite notable, it is not necessary to be the most notable. Your question deals with psychology of breast implants, which is where we started in a round about way. I suppose more could be written in the article about it, dealing with self image, the low fat fitness phenomenon, celebrities, the right proportions and what not, advertising, push-up bras, etc. It seems like a big job. --Noitall 01:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed maybe a start of a new section.--Kim Nevelsteen 02:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about Breast Implants or Breast Implants available in the US?

Is this article about Breast Implants or Breast Implants available in the US? The section of different types of Breast Implants is heavily biased to the US. After every paragraph it states ... "not currently available in the US". This isn't the Wiki-way. --None-of-the-Above 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I changed some of it. I think there should be a bit of a bias towards the US. It can be argued that breast implants are an "American thing". Whatever that means? --Janto 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard that Brazil, not the United States, has the highest cosmetic surgery rate per capita - I'd guess a lot of these are implants. (I can't find a source, but I've heard this more than once, so I'm reasonably confident...) — stillnotelf has a talk page 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] radiography

I know from a releative who works in a breast cancer unit that impalsnts make mamography harder. Does anyone know the X-ray absroption coeffients for human breast tissue and for silicone. It would be interesting to see the data for these. Normally mamography is done with Mo-K x-rays so I know what wavelength to use for the calculations. If anyone has the data please then get in touch via cadmium's talk page .Cadmium 18:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC). Cadmium has added a reference to a paper written which I have found, it confirms what my relative told me about silicone implants and radiography.Cadmium 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Mammograms can also rupture implants (especially old implants). MB

[edit] sub muscular

Why are some implants submuscular? (please answer by editing article) --Gbleem 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that submuscular implants are less likely to rupture (I am not sure on this). However, it is my understanding that submuscular implants have reportedly posed problems like 'double bubble' appearance. Also, many plastic surgeons say that it is more difficult to remove implants (and the capsules or scar tissue) that are submuscular,

[edit] statistics

The article says "In 2002, 236,888 women in the U.S. underwent breast augmentation." Unfortunately, the link is broken. Is this really correct? Since there are about 2,000,000 women per year, and I assume implants are done once in a lifetime, this would mean 12% of all women underwent augmentation. Seems a lot to me, given that it's controversial. Common Man 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Implants are inserted more than once in a liftime. Implants do not last a lifetime. Furthermore, there are often complications. I have known women who have had 3, 4, even 7 or 8 surgeries. It is also possible those figures are as accurate as the old 'studies' supporting the safety of silicone breast implants. The prevalence of breast implant surgery is a travesty, in my opinion. MB

I revised the statistics today (3/26/06) to update to 2005. However, they also include men (although presumably the vast majority are women and teenagers). Many of the women have had implants removed and replaced, which is one of the reasons why the number increases every year. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons does not specify how many are first time customers. DZ

[edit] famous breast 'implantees'

instead of the removed 'list of celebrities with breast implants', how about a section in this article on celebrities who are in some way linked with breast implants; i.e. they are famous for having them. Jordan (katie price/katie andre), pamela anderson, etc.

Pamela Anderson had implants removed.

[edit] String implants

Is there any information as to why these implants were banned? Or when they will be comming back?

Could someone post some info about string implants and how they are different from the other types?

String breast implants, or polypropylene implants, were developed by Dr. Gerald W. Johnson and designed to yield extreme, almost cartoonish breast sizes. The polypropylene in string breast implants absorbs fluids and expands once implanted into the breast. The result is almost continuous breast growth after surgery. Despite the apparent danger and frequent complications, this type of breast implant was popular among adult entertainers. String implants were only available for a very short time before being pulled off the shelves by the FDA several years ago.

My understanding was that the health concern centered on that the body forms connective tissue through the mass of polypropylene string. Essentially, they become very difficult to remove without resorting to complete mastectomy.

[edit] Hanging implants

Is there a type of augmentation mammoplasty that tries to simulate the realistic or natural look of large breasts, i.e. a shape that hangs, as opposed to being all completely spherical and artificial-looking.--Sonjaaa 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Silicone breast implants that are ruptured somtimes 'hang'.

By and large, patients do not want ptotic (hanging) breasts they usually want an unaturally full upper-pole (the wonder bra look) that doesn't exist naturally. Large implants however do accomplish that as they stretch the lower pole tissue over time. Anatomic implants have a tapered appearence that have more tissue on the bottom, but have been somewhat problematic in practice. The newest high-cohesive form stable gels (which are anatomic) address this most effectively. Droliver 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runaway Tort System?

As long as you citing studies Doctor, it might interest you to know that virtually every study on the subject shows that the rise in medical premiums has more to do with economic cycles and the competitive nature of the insurance industry than runaway juries.

Putting it in layman's terms, when the economy goes south, the insurance companies start raising premiums to help cover the losses from their investments. They then take advantage of the gullibility of some doctors by telling them it's all the lawyers fault. What's truly amazing is that doctors, normally intelligent and well educated, swallow the buncome whole.

Insurance companies profits are not from collecting premiums; its from investing those premiums.

[edit] re.

While I'm no fan of insurance companies, that is not an accurate statement. Most insurance co. investments are diversified enough that there is little fluctuation in investment income from routine economic cycles. What does change rapidly and unpredictably are med-mal claim payouts.

It's pretty simple to watch this in play in real life as you can compare the premiums in states with favorable tort-reform (Indiana, California) to their neighbors which don't. Droliver 14:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data Doesn't Support Plastic Surgeon's Contention

Diversification does not necessarily protect investments in a crash. From the NY Times:

Lawsuits against doctors are just one of several factors that have driven up the cost of malpractice insurance, specialists say. Lately, the more important factors appear to be the declining investment earnings of insurance companies and the changing nature of competition in the industry. The recent spike in premiums - which is now showing signs of steadying - says more about the insurance business than it does about the judicial system. "You get these jolts in insurance prices periodically, and they attract a lot of attention," said Frank A. Sloan, a Duke University economist who has been following medical malpractice trends for nearly 20 years. "They're a result of a confluence of many things." Data compiled by both the federal government and by insurance organizations show costs for the insurance companies climbing steadily over the last decade at an average annual rate of about 3 percent, after adjusting for inflation. Over most of that period, premiums for doctors rose modestly and sometimes even dropped as the insurance companies battled for market share in a scramble to collect more money to invest in strong bond and stock markets. But when the markets turned sour and the reserves of insurers shriveled, companies began to double and triple the costs for doctors. (emphasis added)

If you look at the handy dandy chart with the NY Times article, what you see is premiums increased dramatically in the mid-80s, flattened, and then went up again starting around 2000.

As I recall, the commercial real estate industry tanked in the mid to late 80’s as did the real estate market as a whole by 1990. I also recall a stock market crash on October 19, 1987 . The stock market also tanked between 2000-2002.

Just a coincidence that premiums rise when investment profits fall?

The policy journal, Health Affairs using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank to study the growth of physician malpractice payments found:

The average payment grew 52 percent between 1991 and 2003 (4 percent per year) and now exceeds $12 per capita each year. These increases are consistent with increases in the cost of health care.

If I were I medical doctor I wouldn’t be too happy with the insurance industry either as the conclusion from this report commissioned by the Center for Justice & Democracy demonstrates:

The Annual Statement data for 2004 indicate that many of the leading malpractice insurers have increased their premiums substantially while (1) their actual claims payments decreased, (2) they reduced the amount they projected they would pay out in the future, and (3) their surplus increased substantially. Doctors are therefore paying more for malpractice coverage than either actual payments in malpractice cases or estimated future payments in malpractice cases would justify. (emphasis added).

I think this vindicates my original postulate that medical malpractice premiums have more to do with insurance industry investment losses and that the insurance industry is abusing doctors by using lawyers and lawsuits as a whipping boy. I understand the motivations of both. With the insurance industry its just plain old capitalism to do what you can to increase profits and reduce losses regardless of the veracity of the insurance companies assertions. And nobody likes to be sued, so I understand the doctors' misguided motivation to believe what the insurance industry tells them.

[edit] IOM v. the 2001 Study

It does not appear that the plastic surgeon disputes the fact the FDA said the 2001 study is the only study on long term effect of rupture. Rather he rejects it as inferior to the IOM study. This is poor logic. The doctor is basically correct that the two are not equivalent, but not for the reasons the doctor suggests.

Since the 2001 study is the only study on long term effect of rupture, then by definition the IOM study cannot be compared to it. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges, not apples to oranges.

BTW I was not aware that being a plastic surgeon was the same as being a specialist in disease or causation of disease. I would have thought the two were separate fields of study and that an expert in one was not necessarily an expert in the other. Relying on the expertise of a plastic surgeon on issues of causation of disease appears to be a misguided appeal to authority. While we are on the subject, what diseases cause a need for plastic surgery? Phyiscal deformity and scarring from injuries may require the services of a good plastic surgeon to correct, but these are not diseases.

-- Please note that the iOM report was NOT a study. It is a summary of research published before 1999. All IOM reports are a snapshot in time. As more data are published, the conclusions necessarily change. For example, the first several reports of the National Academy of Sciences and the IOM concluded that there was "no evidence" that Agent Orange or dioxin caused health problems. As more data were collected, later reports concluded that Agent Orange and dioxin caused cancer and other diseases. --Diana Zuckerman, PhD

[edit] Mainstream veer and veneer

I thought you were a plastic surgeon. That explains why you have edited this prolifically, to demonize lawyers and praise breast implants. The adjunct study is most interesting to me, since I have talked to many women who participated -- or were supposed to have participated. Reports of plastic surgeons dismissing women's complaints of joint pain, or other possible systemic illness are rampant. One woman told me, "My surgeon just told me that silicone implants don't cause these problems, so he would not report it." I wonder how often this has occurred. Other women stated that they never received paperwork for the study. I am compiling a list of how often this occurred. To date, it seems all too frequent.

I must say that you are correct when you suggest that I am suspicious of doctors. I am particularly suspicious of plastic surgeons who benefit financially by the approval of silicone implants. I have about as much respect for most plastic surgeons as you evidently have for attorneys.

The FDA stated that the 2001 study was the only study that addressed the long term effects of rupture. That is significant, regardless of how many studies existed prior to this. Morever, some of the studies the IOM used have been attacked for various reasons -- like the Mayo Clinic was a defendant in a related lawsuit at the time of the study. The neuologist who pointed that out to me did his neurological residency at Mayo. It seems he was correct. Other concerns include removing women who explanted from the study. Furthermore, as you yourself point out, migration of silicone is a concern.

I am thankful you left off the attorney-bashing. I am sure you relish the idea of tort reform. I believe that people should have access to the courts, and when harmed, should have a recourse commensurate with their injury. Furthermore, our tort system does NOT encourage graft & fraud. The federal rules of civil procedure contains a provision for sanction of not just lawyers but law firms for filing a frivolous lawsuit. My guess, however, is that you think most, if not all, lawsuits are frivolous. That is a philosophy, not a reality.

I believe time will 'vindicate' the women who have been harmed by silicone implants. I hope to God there will be some further independent studies in the effects of migrating silicone. I have absolutely no doubt that ruptured silicone implants harmed me. You may call me an 'anecdote' as those in your profession enjoy doing, but I know my body and know what happened. My health was going downhill at breakneck speed before explant. After explant, it has improved. I am not suggesting that policy be guided by anecdotes. I am suggesting that hundreds of thousands of women are not 'anecdotes'.

My editing has been in large part to steer this topic back to what I feel is the neutral and mainstream view rather then a controversial assualt on silicone. Ironically I've enjoyed some of the give and take in editing this and I think the evolution of the entry has become better then we started. Gradually I think we've come to a more balanced view with some of the concerns, but they still should be put in the more limited context of dissent to what is prevailing information.

When I first saw this article, it looked like an advertisement for breast implants. That is hardly neutral - especially when the subject allegedly addressed the risk & controversy. To read the initial article, one would think that everything was settled that implants are completely safe. That is simply untrue.

Your concerns re. self-reporting symptoms(or lack thereof) with the adjunct is valid, but in the context of thousands of participants it likely affect the data very little. Keep in mind that self-reported symptoms is one of the criticims on studies both pro & con.

My concerns about the adjunct study related to the lack of reporting by plastic surgeons, not self-reporting by the women. If you read what I said, women in the adjunct study are often told by their surgeons that their health complaints are not caused by implants. This is what the study is allegedly designed to find out. When apriori beliefs by surgeons intrude on this process, then something is wrong with the process.

BTW I love my attorney! However, what many would call tort abuse was a large player in the Dow settlement & a number of other class-action med-mal cases. Droliver 05:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you love your attorney. The question of 'tort abuse' is also a matter of debate. What "many would call" is a variation on the "some people say" which is a straw man argument hear often in the news of late. Who are these many? The society of plastic surgeons and implant manufacturers? In contrast, many women can tell you that they were subjected to abuse by the manufacturers in this process. The Daubert rule was used by manufacturers to disqualify experts I believe should not have been disqualified. Many of these had bona fide scientific qualifications but their opinion deviated from the 'mainstream'. But that is an entirely different debate.

Furthermore, the DOW settlement was not a med-mal case. It was a products liability case. But on the subject that I know is dear to your heart - med mal -- we disagree here too.

Litigating a med mal case is very expensive. Most lawyers won't want to touch one unless they feel it has merit. In many states, a doctor must certify the case is not frivolous. Further, there are federal (and state) rules of civil procedure to sanction lawyers and law firms for bringing frivolous cases. Someone below addressed the issue of med mal insurance. The number of legitimate cases of medical malpractice has been well publicized in recent years. I have seen more than a few examples of that. And as I said before, if "many" doctors would worry half as much about their patients as they do litigation, there would be far fewer med mal cases.

First of all, please add comments in an orderly manner, with section breaks, indented responses, signatures (simply type four tildes ~~~~) and common conventions of the like. As for povs, notable criticisms and controversies need to be accorded reasonable inclusion, as mandated by npov prescriptions. Simply whitewashing an article of contrarian content is just as objectionable, and contrary to the spirit of npov, as any alleged hijacking of an article by dissenters from mainstream pov. That said, covering alternative perspectives on medical articles is essential and necessary, as majority opinion is often dead wrong, e.g., Galileo. Given that breast augmentation literally has so much to do with aesthetic and cosmetic appearances, this particular article is somewhat symbolic of the politically correct posturing that has grossly undermined scientific analysis of an increasing number of medical issues. Typically, medical articles within the Wiki tend to attract a great deal of attention from editors anxious to delete content that questions the authoritative views of high ranking figures in the medical field. To a point, that is all well and good, as give and take can and should be considered an indicator of a robust debate. On the other hand, there are many examples of medical articles, hijacked by deletionists, that can only be described as beset by arrested development, due to heavy handed attempts to marginalize legitimate concerns about clear and present dangers denied or ignored by the defenders of medical orthodoxy. As organizations grow, the spam of orthodox disinformation, in a process related to stovepiping (retrieval of information from unconnected databases; the situation that exists when it is necessary to climb out of one database in order to climb down into another; sometimes used for protection against wandering hackers [1]), tends to drown out reasonable expressions of concern. The phenomenon has also been observed among other primates.[2] The Wiki's npov guidelines seem to be designed deliberately to avoid this problem, and should serve to ensure that the overall gaze of articles is not limited to simplistic expert worship. Ombudsman 07:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ombud. I agree that the 'dissenting' view (?!) should also be represented, not just the 'mainstream' - especially when the subject is as controversial and important as this one. Expert worship has long been a problem, and I think the monkey parallel is most appropriate.

I told my internist that the difference between lawyers and doctors is that lawyers get purple tassels because they think they are royalty. Doctors, on the other hand, think they are God.

She did laugh at that one. Fortunately, she has known me a long time, and she has a sense of humor.

On another note, it is taking me a little while to figure out the conventions here. I don't do a lot of blogging, so had to figure out the HTML codes and protocol. My apologies for messy formatting.

[edit] Deletions & whitewashing

Plastic surgeons do have a financial interest in seeing silicone implants approved. The editing of this article has been anything but neutral.

As an example: Someone edited the article, again, removing my quote from Dr. Frank Vasey. I added it back in, since Dr. Vasey has spent many years researching silicone implants and treating women who have had them. I am well aware that many plastic surgeons do not like him or his position, but that does not change the fact that his opinion is relevant to this discussion.

Further, the person (presumably the plastic surgeon) who discussed the UK blue ribbon panel misrepresented the findings, by not telling the whole story. I changed that, as well, quoting the article itself. In another area, that person deleted a remark about the history of implants, specifically the sentence about the women who died from silicone injections. I reintroduced that, as well, along a link to the article from which it came.

This 'neutral' editing does a disservice to any article about silicone breast implants and the women who are interested in these issues. It is anything but 'neutral'. When I find out how to introduce photos, I am going to add a photo of silicone implants removed about two years ago in Florida. They are black. I think women need to see this, as well as the plethora of information about how 'new and innovative' these implants are. I spoke with a woman this morning who had the newest style of silicone implants removed, after just two years. She started having problems very shortly after her implantation. These problems include fatigue, joint pain and other 'symptoms' often ridiculed as irrelevant by plastic surgeons.

[edit] Plastic Surgeon's Reply and Response

What gets edited is your distortions of what the mainstream opinion is on this subject. Referencing a study cited by the FDA on the potential connection to fibromyalgia is proper, aggressive editing to portray widespread dissent which doesn't exist is not. This is an entry on breast implants and not the sounding board for your personal grievence with the medical establishment who has found many of the contentions you believe to not be supported by the data. The way the issues on silicone gel should be presented should be to summarize the major studies (which are favorable), highlight (but not dramatize) some of the concerns, and discuss the importance of the adjunct study which is continually answering these questions.

I will continue editing to show what you call the 'dissenting' view. Your editing is NOT neutral. You misrepresented the UK study. That was patently dishonest.

Also, why did you delete (AGAIN) the history I added, which included a reference? It IS true that women died of silicone injections. Do you just want to edit history as well?

Dr. Vasey's view is not representative of the position of his own professional organization and is not the mainstream position. Create a wikipedia entry on him if you feel like he needs the platform, but he doesn't belong in a neutral POV entry on breast implants Droliver 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dissenting views should be included. You do not want to do that, but I will continue editing to include them. We can have this war as long as you want, but I won't give up. You must have a lot of free time on your hands, to do this? Or are you using Wikopedia to advertise your wares? I suspect the latter.

I will continue editing as long as you mistrepresent studies, which you are doing. You deleted what I wrote QUOTING the UK study which you yourself included. You misrepresented that study.

The mainstream viewpoint is heavily burdened, and thus quite dubious, due to often obscene conflict of interest problems in the medical field, problems that have escalated in direct relation to the growing disparities in wealth and political clout between corporations and mere carbon based life forms. Silicon is hardly conducive to the well being of the latter; pharmaceutical and medical corporations have demonstrated over and over again that their collective immune response --to anything or anyone that might question the often unscrupulous practices leading to the corpulence of their bottom lines-- is profoundly dysfunctional. The fact is, science has taken a back seat to the abusive character assassinations and other cosmetic marketing ploys of many sectors of the medical industry. If you want to trot out painted ladies and choir boys to drown the article in accord with the marketing paradigm that has transformed many medical journals into pimping parodies strewn with little more than propaganda, then the marginalization of an apparently concerned and dedicated whistleblower would make some sense. Otherwise, it would be best to ascertain the credibility of such critics and present a factual account of such concerns in a manner that will allow readers to make a well informed decision about which is more credible. Given that most medical professionals are now specialists, apparently because they are attracted to the greater monetary rewards that go along with specialization, they tend not to understand much about systems biology, much less immune systems (which, surprise, surprise, don't seem too fond of copious amounts of silicon leaking from foreign objects). To tell the truth, dissenting opinions rarely attain high status in rigidly hierarchical corporate cultures like the medical industry, so the argument that this particular whistleblower is not widely recognized basically goes without saying, and is a moot point, but the issue of rankism can be discussed elsewhere. What is important here are the widespread reports of adverse immune responses, which the chronic fatigue syndrome, autism epidemic, and Gulf War syndrome controversies have already demonstrated to be poorly understood by most medical professionals. This is most likely the case with cosmetic surgery specialists as well. So, please don't shoot the messenger, in keeping with the spirit of NPOV. Surely, there are plenty of other messengers, addressing issues like how fibromyalgia is virtually certain to result from silicon leakage, if this one is seriously lacking in credibility. They couldn't all have been silenced yet. Ombudsman 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Surgeon to Ombudsman

I'm sorry but you don't get to replace your suspicions about the medical establishment in a NPOV on this topic. The most and most recent data does not support your or JGlaws view. That is how it should be presented. In a review of this topic putting in a controversial person like Dr. Vasey is not appropriate other then possible as a reference.

Dr. Vasey's discussion is most appropriate. The Ombudsman is the Ombudsman of this site, not you. Go put up your own site on Breast Implants, and advertise there. If you want to advertise on your own site, I would also suggest some spelling lessons. 65.89.98.20 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not the final arbiter of what 'should' be represented on Wikopedia.

Please note, the Wiki does not have an official ombudsman. The open source format, along with user advocates and the like, provides more than an adequate range of options to ensure viewpoints are at least heard and considered. Ombudsman institutions typically only arise when there is an unduly authoritarian organizational culture, and/or a decided lack of administrative transparancy. NPOV dictates that noteworthy criticisms and concerns must be covered. Period. That is one of the underlying beauties of the Wiki. Ombudsman 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman is a misleading name which has been remarked on previously. Midgley 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plastic Surgeon & Bias

It doesn't seem to me that the plastic surgeon is the arbiter of this Wikopedia entry. I do appreciate the plastic surgeon acknowledging that his original entry was biased and looked like an advertisement and bashing of litigation.

[edit] re

The previous comments by the Ombudsman are disturbing in that it basically dismisses the best data we have in place of his personal bias. To refelct an accurate view of this topic you don't get to dismiss the relavent literture & fire wild conflict of interest charges against medicine on every single review article on this topic. JGLAW's editing is confusing the topic rather then clarifying

My review includes both sides - the claims you want to highlight as well as other claims. You even wanted to edit the history to exclude deaths from silicone injections. That was very telling. 65.89.98.20 16:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This entry isn't an article about silicone injections (which the NYT article is) which is why the reference is not really relavent in this discussion. I think you & I (and most doctors)can agree that that practice is bad. The fact that some dermatologists are talking about resuming the practice as a wrinkle has brought a lot of criticism from Plastic Surgeons

It most certainly is relevant, when silicone injections and their effects were reported as part of the history. You selectively included only those effects you felt were palatable to the discussion. That is dishonest.

:::effects related to the discussion are included which are largly localized. I treat these occassionally. The article in the NYT is not about implants or breast injections of silicone Actually it is. Please accept my apology if I make you feel as if both sides aren't being presented. It's just the context of the dissent is important. There just really isn't equal weight when you survery the literature on this. A fair summary includes concern re. silicone and connective tissue diseases, it just shouldn't be dominated by it. I think a seperate header in the passage (which I've tried to add but you remove) about the dissent, the activist groups, and the competing literature is more appropriate then trying to frame what are largely favorable summaries of the major studies as something that they are not.

I accept your apology. A fair summary in "Systemic Illness" includes concern about silicone v. connective tissue disease, fibromyalgia and other problems. The FDA stated that there was only one long term study on rupture, and that is not enough. If there were multiple long term rutpure studies from 10-20 years that were consistent, then there might be a problem. You keep calling it 'dissent' as if it were a court opinion. There are still conflicting studies. There are still different voices that express concern. The FDA has still not approved silicone implants - maybe they will (especially with this administration that places consumer protection far down on the list of priorities.) Therefore, there is no need to have a "majority" opinion and a "dissenting" opinion. This is a general discussion.

I also have included all the sites and studies you referenced, in an overall context of the discussion. The title of the section is "risk and controversy" so it is totally appropriate.

If you look at the FDA site, for example, the overriding discussion is how there still are not sufficient long term studies. There are problems with previous studies that are now notorious. For example, the Mayo study was both funded by DOW and done at a time when Mayo was a defendant in a relevant lawsuit. My neurologist, who did his residency at the Mayo clinic, first pointed this out to me.

Can we just come to some detente? Droliver 65.89.98.20 17:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The cause of autoimmune disorders is still not well understood. Plastic surgeons certainly do not have an understanding of these disorders, since that is not their field of expertise.

As long as you continue to represent one side, I doubt that we can come to 'detente'. I have included all of the studies that you raised. It is interesting to me that you selectively picked what conclusions you wanted out of those studies.

The Wiki does not have an official ombudsman, but the point is rather moot, since such an institution's degree of credibility is directly related to establishing and maintaining an independent pov. Besides, the majority pov --which recklessly dismisses the serious hazards of silicone gel out of hand-- is hardly something that anyone, much less the Wiki, is going to dismiss or abandon anytime soon. In any case, the fact that silicone gel leakage causes autoimmune dysfunction in a significant number of victims is beyond doubt, though there are many uninformed opinions to the contrary, deriving from the inherent deluge of propaganda and spam that goes along with the marketing of iatrogenic medical products and services. The misleading statement by an anon above is typical of how simplistic marketing propaganda easily dupes those who either have little understanding of immune systems or have other cognitive deficits or political reasons that cause them to sympathize with the tenets of medical orthodoxy. Ombudsman 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong saying "the fact that silicone gel leakage causes autoimmune dysfunction in a significant number of victims is beyond doubt". The evidence to date has largely suggested the opposite, even in ruptures as of recently. Your POV you've outlined in your two comments will turn this place into the Dailykos atmosphere of partisanship rather then a thoughful work on this

65.89.98.20 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you don't like the Daily Kos. ROFL.

Only that Danish study you reported stated this about ruptures. SO no, he is not wrong. The FDA points out (as well as other studies you raised) that a subset of women do have such problems.

[edit] To the Plastic Surgeon

Your original writing on this topic sounded like a breast implant advertisement. It was incredible. It also included extremely biased statements about the litigation, and 'tort reform' which was not fact, but opinion. Why don't you create your own website where you can write only what you want the public to know? Then you could advertise to your heart's content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jgwlaw (talk • contribs).

I think in retrospect you are correct re. the original editorial tone I used on the DOW settlements. While that is still my (and many others) personal feelings, you were 100% correct to reighn that in. There is no personal advocacy going on with my feelings and this and my practice, the only people who win financially with gels are the companies as the margins are higher per unit for them. Most surgeons fees are unchanged and the costs of maintaining IRB approval and costs of the adjuct study participation are largely on me. My dog in this fight is that from my analysis I feel they're safe and that they're superior performing devices

65.89.98.20 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC) droliver

Yes, that was your personal feeling, and I suspect that it is the feeling of many plastic surgeons and the implant industry.

After all this time, you are still attempting to make this an advertisement for breast implants. If this is an example of the objectivity of plastic surgeons, I have far less respect for them than I did before I became involved with this article. Your personal attack on me to Ombudsman was inexcusable.

YOU feel they are safe. I do not. I can give you a list of plastic surgeons who do not feel they are safe. I can give you a list of rheumatologists and neurolgoists who do not feel they are safe. And plastic surgeons will most certainly benefit from the increased number of women having implants, if silicone implants are approved. It does not take a statistician do realize this.

I feel they're safe from surveying the best data available. This is also the position of the NIH, ASPS, PSEF, American Rheumatologic Society, every Western Nation's health ministry, and the FDA advisory panels as of late. There are people with concerns, but its the minority view at this point (which BTW doesn't mean its wrong, just not the general concensus). Some unexpected data could come in down the road to turn this upside down, but its been so widely reviewed most people who study feel a blockbuster discovery is unlikely. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.65.89.98.20 18:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You have selectively considered the conclusions of all of these. It is 'hard to understand' because most all of these reports still say there is a need for long term studies. Many studies in the past have been notoriously flawed, in a similar way as the old tobacco studies showing safety were flawed.

[edit] How many Polyurethane?

"An estimated 110,000 women or more received this type of implant before it was largely discontinued in the early 1990's." Won't do, will it. Is the estimate 110,000, do we estimate at least 110000, or what? Where does the estimate come from? "Dow Corning/FDA/women's front for frontal liberation estimated that around ..." would all be better. Data? Midgley 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This figure is available in the adjacent reference (PMID 11471963) next to the passage 65.89.98.20 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)(indented and linebreak removed for ease of reading thread)

Not available to me without an effort, and something that the artile could reasonably be corrected on, by someone who has pulled that journal from teh library. Midgley 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish rupture data

The 2003 & 2004 studies on rupture [PMID 15220594] & [PMID 12560693]. should remain in Ruptures segment adjacent to the 2001 FDA study. They provide the most recent study specific to that area. These were also a large part of the evidence the FDA panel used with their recent pre-approval recomendations. 65.89.98.20 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I referenced the Danish study in the rupture section. However, a year ago, the industry PMAs were not approved, because of concerns about rupture -- this was after these Danish studies.

It is most unfortuntate that the FDA panel (including plastic surgeons who had a financial interest in the outcome) would weigh this study so heavily.

I do know that Congress was concerned about the conflict of interest on the panel. My personal opinion is that an FDA of this White House administration is more likely to approve silicone implants than a different FDA. Bush has not shown he is interested in consumer safety. On the contrary, the WHite House intervened in court cases, arguing that we should not 'second guess' FDA decisions and that products approved b y the FDA should not be subject to litigation. That would deny access to the courts by; injured consumers. Thankfully, the kabosh was put on this insanity with the reports of Vioxx dangers.

[edit] More Whitewashing

I re-added the reasons for removing Meme & Replicon from the market. However, I left in the 1995 FDA assessment, since it does seem like an important finding. I even added also that the FDA found the risk of cancer 'negligible'.

I re-added the information on the Health Canada report. There was more than merely a review of old information. Moreover, there were recommendations that you deleted, because they were not palatable with a certain POV. This has been a very hot issue among Canadian women that I know.

The Danish studies have also been called into question, which a plastic surgeon may not find appealing but nevertheless is true. I will find more information on this, however, before I add it to the article. When I do, it will stay.

[edit] RE

The gist and conclusion of the Canada report (I invite you to read it thru)is that there was no compelling new evidence to recommend removal of the device. Their review of each subarea of the science is included in the attached link which basically echo the FDA & others. The conclusion was non-judgemental & recommended further follow up on the same areas of concern as the FDA. Cutting and pasting the way you did was out of context with the tone of the report. Neutral POV with the link provided so readers can explore it is the best for that information. Otherwise it's just redundant with the FDA.

I changed the entry to include the fact that the panel felt the manuf. answered their questions. I still included the recommendations because it was pertinent, especially as related to peer reviewed literature.

The Danish studies are the most recent in the field of peer-reviewed Medicine on this and were extensively quoted in the FDA hearings in 2005. There has been no mass "call into question" of the validity of this data. It's just more data that we have on the natural history of ruptured implants and possible autoimmune dz. and it is mentioned NPOV alongside.

Droliver 19:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said there was a mass 'call into question'. However, epidemiologists have criticized this and other studies that exclude women who have had implants removed because of rupture.

One epidemiologist I spoke to on this very subject said it 'defies the very basic rules of epidemiology'. I wlll include it without mention of criticism. However, I will also note that the study excluded women who removed their implants.

[edit] Complete Alteration of Vasey quote

You changed the quote from Vasey, by removing the last sentence. Without that sentence, the entire meaning is changed. This is the most dishonest edit you have done on this entry. I prefaced that by stating that this was a quote from Dr. Vasey. That you would change that is just astonishing.

[edit] Plastic Surgeon

To Dr Oliver -- are you board certified in plastic surgery? This is one of the requirements the FDA is considering, to prevent dentists and general surgeons from implanting women. I think it is an excellent recommendation, for any plastic surgery. ~~MB

[edit] RedDoc

Hey Red Doc, I don't care if you leave that photo in there. Others may, but I don't. It shows how utterly ridiculous fake boobs can look! You might as well stick cantelopes on that poor woman. One wonders why plastic surgeons hate women. ;-) You should look at the photo of the ruptured implants that were removed, that were black -- that was what happened when they remained inside a woman's body for over 20 years. It isn't nearly as funny as the photo of the cantelope boobs.

[edit] Independent Studies

Some of us are not going to give up on providing a NPOV here. Plastic surgeons will not succeed in painting silicone implants as totally safe, or themselves as unbiased. There WERE problems with the Danish studies and they WERE funded by DOW. Irritation that we mention that is unfortunate, but it won't change the article.

The FDA study was NOT funded by DOW. It was funded by the Office of Women's Health, FDA; the Office of the Commissioner; the National Cancer Institute, NIH; the Office of Research on Women's Health, NIH; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

That is a more independent study than that funded by implant manufacturers.

HOWEVER, I DID add the Danish study back into the equation, under Systemic Illness. I used the study findings, and quoted some of an article written by an epidemiologist who has written extensively in this area.

The Danish studies were funded by the Danish Cancer Registry and and an organization which recieved contributions from Dow. It is not a "Dow" study. The exact indirect funding from Dow is declared in that article and their exclusion from particpation, data collection, and funding is outlined. The FDA study is not "better" as you imply but stands out because it is not consistant with other studies done before and after from the United States, Denmark, Finland, and Australia from doctors and researchers from multiples disciplines. Read the review article on this written from the Vanderbilt dept. of precentive medicine and epidimiology and they go thru in detail why the Brown study conclusion is flawed in retrospect. Your cutting and pasting on this was lifted from a decidely anti-silicone website that is more political then medical

Droliver 15:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Oliver, You edited out information that Dr. Zuckerman wrote. I added some of it back in. The FDA study is more independent than studies funded by Dow Corning - even those that were funded only in part. Dow has funded many studies, which does tarnish the independence. This reminds me of many of the tobacco studies that were funded by the tobacco industry. The FDA study was also multi-discipline. The FDA study was NOT funded by DOW. It was funded by the Office of Women's Health, FDA; the Office of the Commissioner; the National Cancer Institute, NIH; the Office of Research on Women's Health, NIH; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Your link to the Danish study does not have the footnote that you and Dr. Zuckerman reference. I do not have access to the full article. Yet it appears there is controversy about the funding of it. How much was funded by Dow, in 'contributions'? This is relevant information, particularly when the study slashes the FDA study that is independent. Why don't you state what percentage was funded by Dow, in the form of 'contributions'? And specify what articles you refer to from Australia? From what Dr. Z states, both the Denmark and Finland studies were funded in part by Dow, and even authored by some of the same people. The article that you state is 'decidely (sic) anti-silicone' was written by an epidemiologist.

I agree with you that the "tasteless" photo was tasteless. Yet a 17 year old boy clearly didn't think it was tasteless. If it was a real photo which the author swears it is (not likely), it is a good example of the absurd extent of some plastic surgery. Fodder for adolescent boys, but hardly safe or life-saving surgery,. Plastic surgeons went so far as to invent names for small breasts, which they have called 'deformities'. Jgwlaw

Whether it reminds you of tobacco studies or not is immaterial.

"You" are reaching Oliver. This is a discussion board, remember? I am entitled to my opinion here. The Dow funded studies are very much like the bogus "Tobacco Research Institute" of years ago, which always found that cigarettes are safe. Now of course I did not add that to the article. However, what IS relevant is information about studies that are funded by manufacturers.

I understand that your business is breast implants, but the fact is implants are still a controversial subject, whether you like it or not. Jgwlaw

Professional review boards of experts in the field (whose job it is to steward their respective journals) and National health boards in Denmark have not suggested author study bias in the design or results. Their work replicates and validates a number of other similar studies. The author's declaration on funding is standard procedure to preemtively address accusations of ulterior motive or funding & is required by all major journals and at all society meetings and events.

You don't know this, and you speak in generalities. I note that the FDA study is still on the FDA website, so evidently it has not been dismissed as readily as you would dismiss it.

Further, it is most pertinent to mention that Dow funded a study. There is NO harm in stating that it was funded by Dow. It is most interesting that these 'studies' so ridicule an independent FDA study. The FDA study was NOT funded by DOW. It was funded by the Office of Women's Health, FDA; the Office of the Commissioner; the National Cancer Institute, NIH; the Office of Research on Women's Health, NIH; and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Dow has funded entirely too many studies which (surprise) always claim silicone implants are safe. Isn't it astonishing how a non-Dow funded study comes up with different findings? It is a fact that that Dow funded the Danish studies. It is also a fact that the FDA study was not funded by any manufacturer. We will leave the information, and let people make up their own minds. You can continue deleting it, but it will continue to be added. Jgwlaw

The exact text reads:

This study was funded by the International Epidemiology Institute, which in turn received funding from the Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, Mich., and by the Danish Cancer Society. The external funding source (Dow Corning Corporation) had no role in or access to the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report, or the decision to submit it for publication. Droliver 21:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, funded by Dow. You also failed to state what Australian article you refer to.

I also added this back in. This is definitely relevant but you chose to delete it, evidently because it did not support your agenda. It also is peer reviewed. "Pathology reports of ruptured implants often show giant cell formation indicating an immune response, as well as chronic inflammation. In a 2004 article in the Journal of Autoimmunity, scientists reported patients with implants demonstrated statistically significant elevation in anti-silicone antibodies compared with the unimplanted control groups. The highest anti-silicone antibody levels were measured in implanted women with either frank implant ruptures or leakage of their silicone gel implants."

Have you seen many pathology reports of women with ruptured implants? This is extremely common. To delete this, along wtih the peer reviewd study is dishonest, and politically biased. Jgwlaw

Typically, studies list at least some potential conflict of interest issues, especially where previous conflicts have raised enough contention to bring disrepute upon similar study findings. The article should not be deficient in this regard, especially in this case, given the large numbers of women who have developed severe autoimmune disorders in the past due to implantation of copious amounts of a foreign substance, one which the body inherently has no clue about handling. This sort of study has increasingly fallen into the realm of junk science, as corporatist researchers have brought cascades of shame down upon once prestigious medical journals. This sort of disclosure is just a no-brainer, common sense, and absolutely essential since the dubious report is most likely going to remain. In this case, the disclosure ought to remain as well. Ombudsman 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The International Epidemiology Institute (IEI) has conducted almost all the research on breast implants. All are funded by Dow Corning. Many millions of dollars are involved, regardless of whatever other funding may have been made available. And, all the Dow-funded studies "conclude" that breast implants are safe, even when the data quoted in the article indicate serious problems, such as rupture and chronic breast pain. The IEI receives millions in funding from other corporate entities as well, and those studies also are very favorable to the products made by those companies. The editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association have criticized this type of activity, where an entire body of research literature is funded by a company with a vested interest in the findings. As is typical, the names of many different researchers are listed as authors of dozens of articles to obscure the fact that it is all coming from one funding source.

I was trained in epidemiology as a post-doc at Yale Medical School, and subsequently conducted research at Harvard. I am very careful with my scientific facts in my edits. It's very frustrating when even the simplest facts in a Wikipedia article are repeatedly edited out by someone who either does not know the facts or disagrees with them. A difference of opinion is fine. The editing out or changing of facts is not. I appreciate the Ombudsman's help in trying to protect the integrity of this article. 71.252.91.236 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)DMZ

[edit] Once the Implants Go In, Who Cares Where They Come Out

I don't think disease etiology & pathology are typically a plastic surgeon's specialty. I was able to locate my original PS and asked him if he thought silicone implants could cause autoimmune disease. He said he didn't know. At least, that was a truthful response. He just put 'em in. Didn't take 'em out. Or worry about the effects of 'em.

Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's song with lyrics, "'Once the rockets go up who cares where they come down. That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun." Jgwlaw 02:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WE CARE ABOUT IMPLANT REMOVAL

We host a website and forum to provide support and information for women who are not happy with breast implants. There is a lack of honest information about explantation of breast implants and most women are told they will never be able to successfully remove their implants. This is not the case, and we are receiving thousands of hits to our site, posts on our forum and private e-mail which suggests that a huge number of women would rather remove their implants, if possible.

For before and after photos and personally written accounts of explanted women, go to: http://www.explantation.com

It would not be fair to have a discussion about implants without covering those who are unable to keep their implants for many valid reasons. Some women can no longer handle the rising cost of maintaining their implants, of having many discomforts from the complications and risks of implants and of hearing that they will be deformed if they remove them. Coverage of women on the down side of the statistics is grossly lacking, and seriously contributes to the notion that all women are ecstatic about their augmentation.

We also urge plastic surgeons to become more skilled in removing implants properly and repairing the damage done to women from having implants. Drs. are continually insisting to their patients that they will be deformed if they remove their implants and will loathe their appearance. This illustrates an extreme lack of knowledge and skillful training in the area of explantation. This needs to be addressed and changed. Our site shows a phenomenol list of successful explantations and positive testimonies.

We also list patient recommended surgeons who are experienced in removing implants properly. Our site is NOT physician nor manufacturer funded, so our only agenda is information and support for those women who are miserable with their implants, need to replace aging implants, or simply want to remove them. Jeena_el 10:20, 6 April 2006

[edit] Dr Henry Jenny

Dr Jenny invented saline implants because of his concern about silicone. He wrote an entire book on the subject. The plastic surgeon who changed that entry to say saline implants were invented for ease of smaller incision was incorrect. Moreover, he didn't even identify himself, but instead wrote anonymously.

I could guess or identify from history who made th eanonymous/unsigned comment above... would that be ironic? What I'd actually like though is to ask for the reference - WP custom for books is to give the author (which is there) the title, which is not, and the ISBN which makes it even easier to find than the author and title. Adding the publisher and the year of publication is icing on the cake, but does no harm. May we expect that with this and future references, please? (WP policy explicitly allows not really anonymity, but pseudonymity, however it does firmly request a signature with 4 tildes otehrwise comments fall apart into unintelligibility.) Midgley 22:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a thinly veiled insult, which would violate WP (civility).

The person who previously attributed an incorrect reason for Jenny's saline implant gave no source at all, yet you did not object to that. Why?

Jenny's book is entitled "SiliconeGate". Dr. Jenny is an outspoken critic of silicone implants. The book is not, in my opinion, a particularly well written book, but Dr. Jenny made it astutely clear that the reason he invented saline implants was because of his concern about silicone implants. To say otherwise is simply incorrect. Jgwlaw 05:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length and Balance

I don't want to incite the Wikipedia:Cleanup because that function is under a more serious crisis. However, this article could use some prudent editing for length (e.g. break out "breast implant risks" into a separate article) and for balance (e.g. genuine risks of breast implants deserve documentation, but so also do implant benefits. BA is not the 3rd most common surgery in the world because women are masochistic, but because they choose the body shape preferably). See Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Long article layout, and Wikipedia:How to break up a page.

I don't think anyone ever suggested women are masochistic. That came from left field! Further, the benefits of breast implants are obvious, but the risks are not as obvious. Moreover, the benefits have been discussed in the article. Perhaps also this author would like to identify himself, instead of criticizing anonymously? Jgwlaw 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Whilst sorting out the mess of references, apparent a whole paragraph duplicated on the UK Silicone Review Group (see end of here)
  2. Indeed the whole discussion on the Canadian Panel given in Breast implant#Risks and controversy seems somewhat duplicated in the later sub-section Breast implant#Systemic Illness.
  3. Having set out the FDA & Health Canada assessments in 2005, the Breast implant#Risks and controversy concludes with "Dr. Frank Vasey ... recently had this to say...", yet the quote is from his article in 2003 and so can not be a commentary on what has just been discussed in the section. This gives (an unintentional, I trust) POV slant to the section. By time-line, this paragraph should be located higher-up in the section - Anyone care to so do and correctly integrate ?
  4. Finally there is a discrepency over the concerns for polyurethanes. The reference quoted for the raising of the concern was published in 1998 (ref No 2), yet the advice that the article currently implies was then given by the FDA is from a source in 1995 (ref No3). I presume that the FDA in 1995 was replying to a concern raised earlier, if so, then that earlier source should also be given (i.e. placed in this article just before the Ref No.2 ). David Ruben ^Talk 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks David! I changed the Vasey sentence and deleted 'recently' - although, arguably 2003 is recent. I did add 2006 research which was later vandalized and sent to the bottom. I restored that section to its proper place. I'm not sure about the polyurethane concern - I do not believe that was my edit. I'll see what I can find out. It is a little difficult to edit this piece, since anonymous authors continue to vandalize it. I really appreciate your constructive criticisms and help !! Jgwlaw 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to split article

In the absence of a total rewrite, the biggest improvement to this article would be a split for the reasons given below. In addition I think a split would also allow (as both an opportunity and as a restructuring requirement) for an easier rewriting of some parts of the topic.

1. Description of what a breast implant is (history, types, indications, short & long-term accepted risks) remain under Breast implant
2. Breast implant controversy or Breast implant risk or Breast implant debate (I have little personal preference) is then a new article that is less a non-contentious description and more of a commentary on a number of debates both historical and topically ongoing. In part the controversy is:
   1. A descriptive piece about specific concerns (including suggesting research and subsequent studies to look further into these) which is a scientific/epidemiology discussion
   2. A historical review. e.g. whether or not rheumatic disorders are so caused, the raising of the concept of the concern can not be disputed as a historical event nor the FDA’s revoking of licenses (whether or not the eventual evidence confirms or refutes the need to have done this).
   3. The "controversy" has had an effect on the purely descriptive aspect of discussing implants (affected what type of implant previously & currently used), so there is some overlap.
   4. Finally the "controversy" might be seen as part of the loss of "blind faith" in the automatic assumption of benevolence of "Medicine" and "Doctors" that was perhaps previously the case in the early & middle parts of the 20th century. No I do not see "anti-implants" as part of a wider anti-medicine movement (I might be wrong, given some editor's comments), but unquestioning acceptance of authority/professionals was clearly risky, and now seems a little naive in these more "enlightened" times. However automatic assuming malevolent malintent (conspiracy) is clearly also unsettling both personally and for social cohension. I’d like to think mankind will eventually follow "assume good faith, but require healthy precautionary scepticism" rather than "expect harm unless provide overwhelming support"

I was very tempted to be bold, but this is a contentious topic and a number of editors have been heavily involved for some time, so "as the newbie", I welcome votes/comments please :-) David Ruben ^Talk 00:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'accepted' consensus about long term risk. The very most recent research on platinum exposure of women who have had implants is due out this May 1. The US FDA is now reviewing this and may delay their decision on silicone implants. Therefore, there should be a link in the BI entry to the other article, stating that controversy exists about long term risk. Truly local risks, such as infection, capsular contracture, the mechanics of rupture etc., are probably not overly controversial.

You are correct in your thought that 'anti-implant' is not part of a wider anti-medicine movement. The suggestion by another editor's comments is simply ludicrous. I would agree that unquestioning acceptance of any professional is risky. This is particularly true of medical doctors, for obvious reasons. The inherent risk is greater than in many other professions.

A concise summary might be "Trust but verify". This is true of the profession as well as for individual doctors. It is healthy to question, and dangerous not to - as we have historically learned.

[edit] Votes

• Split. Too long and gets too quickly into detailed complicated arguements. Suggest split the factual description of what they are, from subsequent/ongoing controversy. Each can have a brief description + link to the other.David Ruben ^Talk 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, that tactic seems to be likely to water down the main article, as has happened with thimerosal, though some degree of reality was restored when a timeline was introduced there. There are Wiki guidelines about pov forks laying around somewhere, but the only thing those seem to be used for is for suppression of politically incorrect articles. Please be careful, as misleading medical industry fluff may be all that remains after splitting; i.e., little will have been accomplished except a trek back to square one. Ombudsman 01:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are facts about breast implants and there are opinions about breast implants. The problem is that people who have opinions can't agree on the facts. For example, the implant companies' own data, presented publicly to the FDA, report very high complication rates -- about half the breast cancer patients need additional surgery to fix implant problems within 3 years. But those facts -- based on the companies' own data -- are rejected by plastic surgeons. I don't think trying to split the article in 2 is a good solution. We should try to keep a balanced article with references to the facts. Diana Zuckerman, PhD

After considering this, I also do not agree with splitting the article. I can see where it would be headed - the 'risk and controversy' would be soon marked for deletion. I see now what Ombudsman meant. And, plastic surgeons have already tried to make the BI entry an advertisement for their wares. The article should be kept as one article.Jgwlaw 07:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• Given the differing POVs of those who do/do not belief there are proven risks, might not each side find one of the suggest names of Breast implant controversy or Breast implant risks pejorative ? Breast implant debate might be misconstrued in non-medical terms, i.e. “can one tell natural vs. implants ?” or “should teenagers be allowed to request implants ?” which are all valid issues, but rather separate from whether they are inherently safe or not. Breast implant risk debate might be more NPOV (and less likely to need rewording whatever future studies prove or disprove), but it seems rather long-winded. David Ruben ^Talk 00:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Ombudsman, I do not envisage this being a fork for "Pro" and "Con", but rather a definition of what they are/indications/description of operative proceedure/post-op recovery/likely commonly expected side effects (pain, bruising, swelling) (much of which is currently missing from article) with clear links to the much more extensive (in length & detail) article about long-term risks (scientific evidence for & against as per curent article) and details on history/regulation. Article currently exceeds 32Kb, and indeed additional info of UK restrictions in light of the "concerns" could be expanded. So overall, I see more, rather than less information on the overall topic, but I agree some care needed to prevent forks covering exactly the same areas from opposing POV.David Ruben ^Talk 01:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

David, I am curious why you place the word 'concerns' in quotes? Anyway, how about "Breast Implant - Risk & Controversy"? I agree that we should not include the long term risk (or lack thereof) in the main BI article. However, I think the history of various types of implants could well stay in the BI main article. The 'Risk & Controversy' could discuss the regulation, thus getting into the concerns (not in quote) and controversy.Jgwlaw 07:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the type of division I envisaged doing in the next few days. I placed "concerns" in quotes for 3 reasons - firstly as it is a subject/topic (ie re BIs, rather than worries about the article), secondly because concerns is subjective (POVs ranging from no concerns, some, moderate, fairly convinced to believe risks verified) - I guess those at either extreme have no concern as believe questions answered. I was therefore being lazy and trying to indicate the word without having to take as much care about whether my use of the word was as well phrased as it might be (re POV/NPOV). Finally and less importanty, I used quotes as there is both the specific epidimiological facts/research and also a historical process over the last few decades (of concerns being raised, studies undertaken, and either side involved in a debate) which also needs be/is mentioned in the article.
• Your suggested title of Breast implant - Risk & Controversy is not bad, but might suggest acceptance of risks as proven, removing the "and" seems more NPOV to me, but would seem poorer English than your suggestion. Some input from others re choice of name appreciated, also can people advise on a few queries re wikstyle of article names:

• Lower case I believe is generally prefered; i.e. Breast implant - risk & controversy ?
• Use of "&" ampersand or "and" in name; i.e. Breast implant - risk and controversy ?
• Use of dash for a sub-topic, or enclosed in brackets; e.g. Breast implant (risk and/& controversy) ?

• No point having this vote & comments for split, if next week need set a new vote on renaming to correct wikistyle article name... :-) David Ruben ^Talk 14:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know the word 'concerns' was a subject/topic. Anyway, there is no need for quotes. The concerns are raised - there is no disputing that. Whether they are valid is still controversial.

[edit] Accuracy

This article no longer looks like an advertisement for breast implants, which it did earlier. However, itt would be helpful if those who edited the article would identify themselves. Factual inaccuracies will continue to be edited.Jgwlaw 12:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Most egregious was a vandal's bald assertion that women do not improve upon removal of ruptured implants. This is factually incorrect. The person who deleted the original statement and wrote the opposite did not back it up and cannot back it up.

[edit] Latest Research

I included the most recent research on platinum. I specified the journal and article title, but am looking for an internet link to it. Jgwlaw 12:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Natural" breast enlargement

Worth mentioning? [3] - FrancisTyers 22:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely!! Perhaps in another topic? Are you thinking tram flap surgery etc? I know of no 'natural' enlargement, per se, except maturity. ;-)Jgwlaw 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I mean like growing an implant.

US scientists say they have made a breakthrough to produce natural breast implants using human stem cells.

Read the link :) - FrancisTyers 08:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed it. That is interesting!Jgwlaw 07:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is still experimental. Diana Zuckerman, PhD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drzuckerman (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 April 2006.

Yup, thats what the article says. - FrancisTyers 19:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple roll back revert

The revert just done (here) was due to blatent POV pushing. The majority viewpoint is that inplants are safe and without significant associated risks and this de facto is the view amongst most doctors and a position taken by the regulatory bodies. Of course concerns should be raised - the majority might be wrong, and the issues given fair coverage in this encyclopedia. However this is just an encyclopedia which should report on the issues and not be a soapbox for arguing cases. So, whilst I accept others may have better knowledge of all the studies, the language needs remain NPOV. Examples from recent revert:

• Under Systemic Illness Conflicting studies became Poor and often invalid clinical data - this is personal opinion being expressed (unless can cite an authorative assessment of the past studies)
• (IOM) concluded that there was not "sufficient evidence for an association of... became attempted to portray that there was not "sufficient evidence has associated..., clear POV pushing, as well as gramatically incorrect loss of some words at the end.
• The panel found that both companies provided appropriate information to show that silicones are not immunosuppressive materials and while there was no evidence to support a link between silicone gel breast implants and specific connective tissue diseases, were deleted in their entirity, yet such rebutals of an evidence of effect is required for overall balance of the article (I think the article overall is far too long, but that requires either symetrical reduction, or splitting article as suggested above)
• In Additional Surgeries section, adding infection (often very serious) is out of place in a list/discussion about long-term consequences/management of silicon leakage. Any operation can have post-operative infection which may be serious. I am not aware that there is special risk of infection for breast inplantation proceedures or that infections may occur after many years(correct me if I am wrong). The choice of phrasing, in light of other edits, therefore seems scare-mongering.
• To be fair, Reoperation rates of breast reconstruction cases are simular to those of augmentation patients is an improvement on are more frequent in breast reconstruction cases, but neither is accurate given the article quotes rates of 26% of augmentation and 16% of reconstruction surgeries were for replacement of implants which seem about a third less rates for reconstruction cases.

For the majority of inplants the indication is cosmetic, and as such much higher degrees of safety need apply (given that not "medically necessary"). The issues and research on this topic is interesting, and I have learnt a lot reading some of the article's discussion & references given, but editors with strong beliefs will be able to ensure all non-trivial viewpoints are correctly included, provided they do not jeopardise their editing by blatent POV pushing phrasing :-) David Ruben ^Talk 23:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the split tag on the page and the vote/comment section running for some days (not sure if there is a policy/guideline on how long), and see what editors suggest :-) David Ruben ^Talk 11:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is not to split the article. I now see what Ombudsman's concerns were.Jgwlaw 09:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

There is still a great deal of controversy about breast implants. The most recent research raises serious questons about platinum which BI manufacturers had insisted was safe. This is from today's Washington Post:

In their paper in Analytical Chemistry, considered a top journal of the field, researchers Ernest Lykissa and Susan Maharaj reported finding the highest platinum levels to date in women who had implants. They also wrote that for the first time, they found the platinum -- which had leached out of the implants -- in a transformed, oxidized state that makes it potentially more harmful. Implant manufacturers have said for years that their platinum is not harmful, and when the device is manufactured, they are correct," said Lykissa, a forensic toxicologist with the firm ExperTox in Deer Park, Tex. "But in the body, we know that the implants degrade and the platinum can disperse and take on a more reactive form."'

The greatest problem with silicone breast implants is that an entire group of doctors (plastic surgeons) directly benefit financially from their use. This is unlike past controversies over cigarettes and asbestos, for example. There are many good plastic surgeons, but it is disturbing that some lobby for implants with little regard for women's health.Jgwlaw 04:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Many favorable reviews" simply equals Dow funded marketing fulminations, and is a fine example of ignoring reality. The mainstream view is often Keystone Kops laughable, and must be presented in an npov manner; the Wiki is not Pravda. Neither has there been anything suggesting a retreat by the aggressors; not surprising, since no one in their right mind would dare to defend the proposed reintroduction of silicone. Dow's bold and unconscionable attempts to revive the discredited use of silicone would be almost as absurd as the reintroduction of thimerosal in vaccines and mercury in dental amalgams, but oh, yeh, those iatrogenic nightmares are still on the market (for some mysterious reason). Proper outlining of the controversy does not equate with a politically correct whitewash, especially scrubbing pushed by those who might have to admit that their edits are biased by conflict of interest problems. Ombudsman 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Ombudsman. It is not the first time that Dow has been less than honorable about its products. And, the conflict of interest with plastic surgeons is obvious. However, I have known a number of plastic surgeons who keep an open mind, and have treated and helped many women remove their implants (without replacing them). As to the autism controversy, I wish I knew more about the autism & thimerosal issue... I just don't.Jgwlaw 05:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breast Implant Promotions

This article is not a promotion for plastic surgeons. The POV illustrated by the plastic surgeon here is breathtaking, as is the personal attack by name on another editor. POV is demonstrated by plastic surgeon's deletion of the context of the WAPO article. He entirely deleted the fact that the critic of the study was a paid consultant to Inamed -- a fact which the Washington Post article specifically pointed out. Furthermore, the plastic surgeon chose instead to elaborate on the Inamed consultant's credentials, ignoring the credentials of the study researchers. This is the most blatant POV I have seen yet -- except, of course, for the original writing by the same plastic surgeon that read as an advertisement for breast implants and tort "reform". It is inconceivable that he was allowed to do this for so long. I deleted multiple small studies or studies that were not fully explained. If these studies are to be presented, they need to be presented in a balanced manner. The plastic surgeon deleted all previous attempts to do so. Therefore, those studies are deleted in their entirety. I also deleted case reports, since Plastic Surgeon seemed to find case reports objectionable (but only when they differed from his POV).Jgwlaw 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rheumatology section

Whilst I disliked the bulk removal of info on studies if full details could not be given (an encyclopedia does not need to give full details, but rather summarise and link to original sources if the reader wishes to delve deeper), the original consisted of a long list of rather repeatative (to read) paragraphs. Whilst on one hand it is POV to discard all the studies, equally it fails to be NPOV if, as a collection, the critisms can not be made clear.

I have therefore put the reports into a list that highlights meta-reviews, retrospective and the better (study wise) follow-up studies. These are then clearly a "block of information" whose details need not impede the reader from traversing through the article as a whole. The FDA's comments about methodological issues (re duration of studies) then clearly applies as a whole to the process of conducting any study.

This 'chart' highlights only one side of the studies. If you want to add a chart, then you need to include studies that disagree. This was not done. To highlight as a chart only one result is POV.

Jgwlaw 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The info on cancer risks seemed absent from the section, so I restored, but I wonder if this is not better in a different section ?

It should be in a different section, and I added a different section title. Not sure if "Oncological" is the correct term, but trying to be consistent with "Rheumatological" and "Neurological".Jgwlaw 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have therefore tried to do 2 conflicting tasks - be inclusive, but also restrictive in how an encyclopedia article should look. An alternative might have been a bulleted-list, but a table seemed neater and likely to encourage shorter summarisation. I hope I struck a reasonable balance ? David Ruben ^Talk 16:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am open to restoring a chart, but it must be NPOV - including criticisms and funding. This was not done.Jgwlaw 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I also restored the accurate summary of the WAPO article , which the plastic surgeon deleted. PS also highlighted academic credentials of Inamed chemist, but omitted qualifications of the study's chemists. Neither are appropriate. Nowhere else is this done. The WAPO article specifically points out the criticism was made by chemists associated with implant makers. To omit this is dishonest. I also included the partial funding of the study.Jgwlaw 18:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to add that Oliver refuses to engage meaningful discussion. Instead, he just vandalizes the article. This behavior is unprofessional and extremely biased.Jgwlaw 18:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1. How much more NPOV can you get then to quote the conclusions of the major literature and reviews verbatim? This is the mountain of evidence on this subject laid out with links attached so people can see it for themselves. It's quite powerful and I know that's why it disturbs you. Feel free to find large overlooked studies or federal-appointed commisions from any Industrialized nation which have chimed in on this to add (I left out australia, germany, japan, New Zealand,etc... because the point was pretty clear).

To quote another MD, you were "dumping". Again, I have no problem including other studies, but in an NPOV fashion - not a highlighted chart of ony those you selected. I will add back the other reviews or studies when I have a chance to discuss it with a reasonable editor -- not you. Until then, I will continue to edit your vandalism.

It is not powerful. You are picking and choosing your articles. You want this article to be an advertisement for breast implants. You can do that on your own website, which it appears you already have. You don't need to do it here.

2. The WAPO article is attached and the Inamed consultant and well-known acadedmic silicone expert is identified as such. Interestingly your sense of shouting out funding conflicts is diminshed when experts & studies are funded by vocal anti-silicone interest groups.

The WAPO article did NOT identify the INamed consultant as a "well-known academic silicone expert". YOU did that, because YOU wanted to highlight his credentials. It is not germane and not even in this article.

3. Your editing is a political crusade and you've admitted as such.

That is a flat lie. YOU are the one who accused me of that, and personally attacked me. I told you my academic background and interest as well as my personal experience. I am not on a crusade. You simply want an advertisement. It "ain't going to happen here" Oliver. I won't dignify you by calling you "Doctor". No medical doctor worth his salt would do what you are attempting here.

There is no attempt to present this in a mainstream NPOV by yourself. You've frequently either distorted and/or removed the best information we have to offer to patients from high-quality studies done around the workd by specialists in a number of fieldsDroliver 03:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is also a flat lie. The "best" information YOU have to offer is what YOU think will support your business. God I pity your patients.

I have restored the findings of the most recent research study that YOU don't want to admit exists. You completely deleted important findings. By the way, I didn't even do part of that summary of the findings, another MD did. But YOU don't like the findings so you simply erase them -- the very thing you accuse me of doing!

I have also restored the accurate summary of the study and the WAPO article. I am not removing the 'best information' as you call it. Your 'best information' is an advertisement for breast implants.

Your comments are flatly dishonest. I will be happy to include a summary of other studies, but not highlight a table with just pro-implant studies. You also are dishonest in saying that I am not including PARTIAL funding by a nonprofit group that argued to keep silicone implants off the market. At least the non-profit group was not financially conflicted as were the manufacturer shills. I included the partial study funding in the same paragraph as I included the conflict of interest of the manufacturer-associated chemists. You deleted the WAPO statement that SPECIFICALLY stated that the criticisms were from chemists associated with the manufacturers. THat is part of the article,whether you like it or not.

Once again, I will be happy to include other information when I have a chance to discuss it with a more reasonable editor - not you. It is not NPOV to highlight only one type of finding in a chart. A chart might be nice, but it needs to be NPOV.

Finally, you are the one that has a conflict of interest here, not I. You are the crusader, not I. You directly benefit financially from the approval and sale of silicone breast implants -- that is your business! However, I have to say that you are more dishonest about this than most plastic surgeons I have talked to. Your insistence on whitewashing this article is appalling.

Even your colleagues have been upset by your "dumping" in the article, deleting what you don't like, and, I might add, your poor spelling and grammar.

[edit] Edit war

Gee - calm down everyone please :-) As far as I can tell, no one has broken 3-reverts/24hour rule, but nor is a dispute over content "vandalism" (as I understand the strict use of the term). However this is clearly is a content & POV dispute. Aggressive editing (I'm trying to be positive here in my phrasing), by either side of any wikipedia dispute risks polarisation of the edits of the other. You both have useful edits/phrasing to include, but are both being over-protective of the opposing POVs (to a greater-or-less extent over a number of specific aspects of fact and article style).

Whilst we can all have views on how unbiased/neutral the FDA is (e.g. political "direction" influencing decisions re over the counter emergency contraception), it is difficult within an encyclopaedia to pick and choose those decisions we do/do not like and remain transparent in being NPOV. The FDA is "The" regulatory body for the US (and the British, now European, equivalent closely monitors & often follows suit), it is a fact that they (not the "anti-campaigners") withdrew the licenses and are being cautious about any reintroduction. Keeping aside for the moment issues of bias/conflict interest/statistical power of the various studies, there is de facto an official (FDA) concern. The article must therefore reflect this POV and that FDA previously and currently continues to have effect on product licensing (as of April 2006 the FDA has not given an unqualified green light to any & all breast implants). Against this, there are numerous opinions from researchers in several countries with individual studies (totalling several thousand women) and meta-analysis that dispute any risk, or the levels of risk, and this also needs be included. Yes there is a risk of manufacturers, and to a lesser extent plastic surgeons having a conflict of interest that might cloud their judgement as to the best interest of patients, equally one might claim that patients with problems might also be clouded (to some extent) that not every case can be as a result of their implant, as there is a natural background rate (of course it is the question of any additional rate, or its level, that is disputed). So is the article to remain NPOV by removing all accusations, or by qualified (? humble) inclusion of both POVs ?

Selective deleting of information (i.e. study details of one POV) is unhelpful as it tends to over-skew the article. Conversely adding volumous repetitive paragraphs on a POV results in a poor encyclopaedic style (i.e. fails to read as prose rather than a long list). Wikipedia is not a soap-box to carry out a debate, but rather to document the state of a debate in a NPOV. All editors should be able to contribute to a wikipedia article's discussion of both sides of a dispute in the real world. Do we really want to strip this section to the bare bones in order to reach a NPOV phrase, such as "Many researchers (some drug-company funded) have not reported any increase in rheumatological disorders, others including patient advocacy-groups have reported to the contrary and the most recent published opinion from the FDA was:...". If this is the only solution, then there is no need for any split of article as I suggested previously. However such drastic copyediting would be a shame, as there is more information (on both sides of the debate) that is worth commenting on. Yet this is not some PhD student’s university thesis paper discussing the full findings, statistics and pros & cons of every piece of research.

I thought a table would be useful to summarise like-info together - indeed if anything it somewhat diminishes the impact in the article of the many papers quoted – some are clearly highlighted as just meta-analysis/reviews rather than original research. The subsequent comments of the FDA stating its problems with past research was then more clearly apparent and more obviously directed at all the previous published material they had to consider. Putting long discussions criticising each paper for its conflicts of interest into each entry of the table would risk making the table unduly long and dominant in the article. Simpler and perhaps more effective would be a single sentence after the table quoting the FDA’s cocerns re author bias (full disclosure), number of patients and observation duration.

Personally I think the table (or else a short bulleted-list) should stay; it both added breadth of “pro” sources, yet also highlighted better the FDA criticism raised against them. I also tend to think that generally most author & journal names should remain out of the article text - that is the point of footnotes expanding on citation details. Adding the name of an author & journal of someone who promoted/criticised another, just because the other’s details are already included in the main text, seems to be equally poor editorial styling vs omitting both.

You have both contributed interesting information that I have enjoyed reading, but a more co-operative NPOV approach needs be taken. Do we wish for detailed info to be included in the article at all, vs the silly single-sentence I gave above ? If so, how should this be approached in the article ? May I suggest no further editing for a couple of days, but rather engagement only on this talk page for a bit ? Do we need to formally request for comments from the wider community (RfC); who I am sure will be greater sticklers for process and more formal in their approach to article development, than the current small team of contributors might informally discuss between themselves ?

If you both wish, I’m happy to help mediate or not to, if you think I’m unduly biased (I’ll certainly admit to being sad to see the loss of all the references having worked on the markup style). Otherwise should we call for RfC that I suspect will be partially supportive/critical of both editing approaches ? David Ruben ^Talk 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you presuming that the only entries in a table are going to be those Oliver selected? Why don't you republish the table here, in discussion, where we can look at it again.

Also I take issue with your comment that there is bias w/mfg & "to a lesser extent plastic surgeons".... that is their business, and some are every bit as aggressive in lobbying as the manufacurers. The current editor here is a case in point. Funding needs to be made clear, as this is one of the major problems with many studies (see my discussion on your page about Mayo study).

above comment added by User:Jgwlaw 18:59, 10 April 2006

I would be a lot more open to Oliver's input if there were the remotest hint of neutrality. In fact, I have done some research on the platinum scientists, and I do think we should include the previous FDA finding. Contrary to what Oliver asserts, I do not think all the health problems women have are derived from implants. I also understand that some women think they are. We need scientists and doctors with open minds, to find out what what are the safety issues. I daresay if some of you had a ruptured silicone bag in your body and an onset of these health problems, you would also wonder. Rupture is a problem, and that is the main focus of my concern. Some doctors were bent out of joint because this first came up in court.

above comment added by User:Jgwlaw 19:54, 10 April 2006

David, I'm sorry as well that your table gets deleted by JGLAW. These studies are however representative of the general consensus on this topic and it's only come to the point of having to be so blunt about it as to have this giant table as her edits become more and more desperate. This whole thing was originally described in one sentence that in essence said there was general agreement from research that silicone was not implicated in connective tissue diseases. That should be enough to simmarize the debate for a superficial overview like wikipedia. You would think there was no good or credible research done in this area by the tone JGLAW wishes to put on the top of this. Plastic Surgeons have no financial stake in silicone implants per se (unless you're an Inamed/Mentor shareholder), there is no cost difference except a higher overhead for me with the silicone due to the extra paperwork and visits required. Those operations frequently take longer and are more difficult as well. Breast augmentaion is at historic levels with largely saline implants, and no one is speculating that some huge volume of patients is waiting for silicone to get their surgery.Droliver 22:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that OLIVER is still making personal attacks. My edits are not desperate -Oliver wants to remove any findings that are not consistent with his view that silicone implants are perfectly safe. The table is not a bad idea, but we need to make sure the descriptions include the findings both positive and negative. Oliver did not do that. In fact, when I have edited some of those to represent the complete finding, he deleted it. If he is so damn sure that his precious implants are perfectly safe, he would not mind including the WHOLE finding, instead of merely selections from it. He would not delete the findings of the most recent platinum study. His first edits and writing looked like an advertisement for breast implants and tort "reform". (However I can understand why he hates med mal lawyers given his reckless disregard for potential dangers). However, he did finally acknowledged that his comments were not NPOV, after he spent days restoring his offending edits.

The fact is that there is not agreement that silicone is not implicated in connective tissue disease. The FDA points out that there is still a concern with the lack of long term studies, especially when rupture is involved. To date, it appears that some studies do not see a connection, particularly those that are short term or which remove women from the study if they have removed their implants. However, there are clearly studies that OLIVER doesn't want mentioned that show an increase in antibodies. Or, the FDA study that actually DID show an increase in connective tissue disease. Furthermore, there is a problem when Dow funds much of this research - good examples are the IRG & Danish studies.

Plastic surgeons most certainly do benefit from silicone implants being approved. For Oliver to say that is simply dishonest. It means more patients, since many women want silicone implants - That most certainly is projected, and I believe OLIVER knows this. I suspect that eventually silicone implants will be approved, and more women will become ill. At the very least, there needs to be clear informed consent, which is still not happening. Women are handed a booklet but told by many plastic surgeons that implants are "perfectly safe." I can see that OLIVER is probably one who does that. I wonder if OLIVER actually follows up with women with silicone implants, and for how long?

Does he remove ruptured implants, and see the gooey mess that there is? Does he see the pathology reports of silicone in various parts of the body? I doubt it. It doesn't appear that he gives a damn about women's health. He sees only what he wants to see, and deletes anything else.

• Ok that seemed more positive from both main editors (sorry Jgwlaw I was working on my reply for sometime and forgot to recheck the talk-page for current updates, causing an edit conflict with you. Its too late in UK now for me to rework the reply below, but I don't think anything immediately conflicts with the further points you kindly made - indeed I see you note some favourable changes to Oliver), although I'm not sure about the other recent lesser-editors and what their history with this article might be. But let me respond to the various points you both raised:
• Oliver, I think the collection of studies in the table is useful to indicate that there are a range of studies (both in number, country and of research type - meta-analysis, retrospective and follow-up). Equally though the table summarises down what was previously an excessively long series of paragraphs. See my comments below re types of research - would some pruning (for article brevity) of the meta-analysis papers be appropriate, leaving the primary studies ?
• The mark-up for citations has been poor, can I suggest that all editors wishing to add a source do so in the talk pages first so that:
  • other editors more familiar with wikipedia citation mark-up can do so fully
  • it can be discussed (both as to appropriateness of inclusion and context of inclusion), else it is likely to end up being deleted & reinserted if recent edit-tussling is anything to go by ?
• Jgwlaw, please sign your entries, aside from policy, it helps separate postings and gives a time/date that makes it easier to follow a discussion.
• No Jgwlaw, I don't presume only entries selected by Oliver should be in the table. There is a choice though as to how to structure any article, or section of it, that describes conflicting research and opinions:
  1. Pure time-line description, i.e. each study in its chronological order. Whilst this works best for the earlier part of the article discussing the history of how concerns first came to be raised, the FDA withdrawing product licenses and how we get to the current status, this is perhaps less helpful in more detailed discussion in the latter parts of the article that deals with specific (vs. overall) concerns. Here the general historical flow is less relevant than the scientific process of verifying any one result by repeated studies - so personally here I think collecting the lists for & against will editorially prove more concise.
  2. We could add a similar select choice of summarised "cons" research into this same table. That is not unreasonable. It would editorially make for a long single table, but would be "fair". However the FDA's remarks of 2005 re methodological problems with (the then) previous published studies then has to be qualified - is it against all studies included in our single table, or just those that reported absence of connective tissue disease risks ? Personally I found seeing a briefer summarised list of several researchers stating absence of identified problem with then a statement in the subsequent prose indicating the FDA stating statistical interpretation problems with everything they have looked at, seemed highly significant and thus appeared better emphasised in the article (but that’s just my impression on reading the article structure).
  3. Finally the selection of negative-effects research could also be summarised into its own distinct table (i.e. one table "pro" & one table "against"). Seems equally fair to me. If we opt for this and a table needs constructing, let me know here in the talk-page which items and comments to include and I'll happily mark-up the table for discussion & inclusion.
• I don't really have an absolute preference for either option (there are editorial style and article pro & con emphasis issues both ways with all 3 options). But I don't think any one option is purely favourable or unfavourable either way. The point of this talk page is to help reach consensus - so its up to everyone to decide which option (or any other) to choose or not choose.
• Equally, I don't think we can be totally inclusive of all studies (from either side) as the article will get to be just a long reference list, so some selectivity of the relevant research on either side is required.
  • Unless a meta-analysis generates a significant change in statistical power, I'm less in favour of including it than retrospective or follow-up-studies - but I'm not a good statistician to comment on "value" of the different papers previously quoted.
  • Just how inclusive or exclusive to be is an editorial decision - short succinct article that risks over simplification or substantive discussion that risks being too long for a general encyclopaedia - presumably the correct level is somewhere in-between.
  • If agreement can’t be found then the overriding wikiprinciple would be to force NPOV, the resulting simplistic single sentence is unlike to please anyone.
• As for degrees of conflict of interest, I tend to suppose the surgeons have a choice over saline/silicone and over which manufacturer to purchase from, whereas each manufacturer has only their own products to sell - but I am not familiar enough myself as to which manufacturer produces which product and how much choice a surgeon really has...
  • Are there really just 2 manufacturers involved, or is this just in the US with other smaller players involved elsewhere - I note someone else inserted a 'Worldview' tag warning to the top of this talk page, so am I missing something here ? (are there points here that need be added to the article ?)
• You both have other useful topics to add to this article – could you work on these for a while (regaining each other’s trust) whilst bilaterally ceasing to edit this contested section for a couple of days (irrespective of its current state), allowing the debate to cool ?
  • e.g. Oliver you mention longer operation times, did I read correctly that this is for silicone implants ? if so, then (i) why do they take longer ? (ii) does this in itself increase operative risks (i.e. from longer anaesthetic or greater post-op infection rates) (iii) would these disadvantages be sufficient alone to dissuade surgeons from returning to silicone even if in the future evidence/FDA gave a green light to silicone ?
  • A little more could be added to describe better the risks we can agree upon: post-op recovery, haematoma & immediate post-op infection rates.
  • I seem to recall last year there was much debate in the national media (in the UK) about teenagers having plastic surgery (breast or otherwise) and issues as to whether parents were responsible; either pushing for (to be successful actresses/models) or failing to guide against. It also lead to a brief return to the discussion of how young girls might be affected by "the media" to feel pressurised to the “body-perfect”. Should we mention this in the article, or should there be a quick redirection to such discussion on the plastic surgery page ?
  • Most BIs are for cosmetic reasons, where the "need" for surgery seems less (to me) than that in cases of reconstruction. But how is the need for reconstruction changing with perhaps greater use of limited lumpectomy for breast cancer (with subsequent chemo-/radio-therapy) vs. automatic total mastectomy in the past ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I fear a table will be the entire article if every study is included in it, although we do need balance in any table. If you want a table of different countries research, it is necessary to provide the study or review's findings good and bad - whereas Oliver only provided those findings that were positive. That is my main complaint with the table.

It makes no sense to include the FDA in a table.

I doubt that anything would make me "trust" OLIVER at this point. I just don't think much of a surgeon who whitewashes the dangers of the surgery he performs. That is disturbing. As I pointed out, if he wants to advertise his wares, he can do so on his website - which he already has, from what I can see.

As to conflict of interest -- many women do not want saline implants, so the approval is most definitely a benefit to plastic surgeons. Saline implants do not look as natual as silicone implants. It is one of the reasons that plastic surgeons prefer silicone implants. I have no conflict of interest -- I do not benefit from the approval or disapproval of silicone implants. I do see the results of rupture every day, when I look at pathology reports. It should be, but obviously is not, disturbing to any plastic surgeon.Jgwlaw 02:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• "It makes no sense to include the FDA in a table" - WTF? The commisioned panel reviews on these are important to show the context of a broad coalition of multinational agreement on this.
• All summaries and conclusions in David's table are verbatim re. systemic diseases in these large studies and reviews. Find ONE that is not. Any large contemporary or national review missing please submit. (You'll find EVERY countries proceeding has similar conclusions)
• You can quibble with any individual study using the anti-silicone activist talking points, but the volume of these papers has reinforced the conclusions on connections to connective tissue disease. Most people can look at this and discern that
• David, the operations for silicone implants are longer due to the extra disection and exposure required for their insertion. I'd guess this adds 5-10 minutes/side and turns a routine 30-45 minute procedure into a 40-60 minute procedure
• I'll repeat this again S-L-O-W-L-Y so Jglaw can understand. The winner with silicone implants are manufacturers whose margin is much higher on them. They only add to my overhead & decrease OR efficiency. Surgeons and patients prefer them because they look and perform better which is our "conflict of interests". In surveys of surgeons there is no indication that people are delaying augmentations waiting on silicone devices which Jglaw believes is some pending windfall. Augmentations are at historic #'s already.

Droliver 16:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DOLIVER you have NO C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y. Your deletions of the findings of the most recent study shows you bias. You can protest all you want, but I KNOW that plastic surgeons benefit - a good friend of mine is a plastic surgeon and we have had many discussions on this very issue. Thank God she is at least able to be honest in her explanation of the effects of silicone approval. Yes, augmentations are at historic levels, which is a tragedy. I won't delete the table, but you cannot delete other things which you have in the past.

You not only have no credibility, but you are insulting and obnoxious.Jgwlaw 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DOLIVER did it again! He included a review of ANIMAL studies and a FEW CASE studies -- after he chastised me for including case reports and not studies. Amazing. Or not so amazing. THIS WILL NOT BE IN THE ARTICLE. There was also no citation for that "review" (I wonder why). I looked it up and found that "one series of patients examined showed a significantly higher prevalence of the disease than expected". Interesting that Doliver did not include this. Regardless, this is way too limited as the report itself states! If DOLIVER insists on including this, then I will take it to an independent review. Jgwlaw 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

DOLIVER - IT IS A DUPLICATION (not a replication)!!! If you read the damn studies you will see this. The "National Panel" is the same that was used in the other study. IN fact, the same quote. The panel review was clearly done before it was published in 2001 because it is the same study exactly as that discussed in the US district court review. You CANNOT include that twice. I REFUSE to allow it.Jgwlaw 00:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

DOLIVER: Hopefully we can agree on the Spanish review, since I quoted it verbatim. What you selected was EXACTLY the type of thing you criticized me for doing (again). It was not from the summary. I can't believe this is your idea of "balanced". What is not okay for me to do is acceptable for you to do. That's not the way life works Oliver. Well, maybe it is the way YOU work.

Also, why don't you log in and not edit anonymously? I know it is you, so why don't you log in? Are your edits so clearly prejudiced that you don't want to be identified? Jgwlaw 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OLIVER -- YES I READ THE REPORT AND THE PAGE YOU CITED. IT HAS ONLY THE PARAGRAPH I INCLUDED. YOUR QUOTE IS NOT IN THE SUMMARY. FURTHERMORE THE IAEG STUDY DOES NOT STAY. I WILL CONTINUE TAKING IT OUT BECAUSE IT DOES THE VERY THING THAT IS IN A STUDY I INCLUDED THAT YOU DELETED. It is not just small, it is based on animal studies and case reports. That does not qualify for inclusion. Period.Jgwlaw 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I also corrected (without objection) the referance of a request by a US district court. This is one of the many lowest federal courts and hardly is "the Federal Judiciary".Jgwlaw 01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WRONG CITATION -- The citation for the first entry in the chart (IOM) is incorrect. This article discusses cancer, not rheumatological issues. Please correct.Jgwlaw 01:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• I had tried to make some wikimarkup edits but got constantly blocked by edit-conflicts from both editors' repeated editing/reverts - at over 6 each for the Rheumatology section, I've sadly reported you both for WP:3RR violation.
• You both have good information to add to the article, although I think both your contributions tend to be too lengthy and in need of greater summarisation for what is meant to be a general encyclopedia.
• Implant-supportive data is interesting, but equally undeniable is the FDA's continuing concerns and the continuing ban on silicone implants. The NPOV is somewhere inbetween the edits - having read some of the material/research cited I am more concerned that I previous wasn't. I think overall the article is probably about right in its overall objective concerned stance (each time I read one of the many many edit versions I find myself swinging from feeling its POV over-for or over-against, so really never been able to form a steady opinion over a stable article).
• I've tried to assume good faith of all editors and engage positively with some aspect or other of their POVs. However I've probably engaged as much as I can for now, and as previously remarked upon to try and help sort out this dispute, I've made a Wikipedia:Request for Comment.
  • May I suggest editing stops for today, whilst the situation calms and other editors from the wider wiki community have a look at this article to try and assist :-) David Ruben ^Talk 02:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

David, I'm 100% fine with other editor's looking at this. If you will notice the difference b/w what I'm doing (or feel like I'm doing) which has been refining (adding links to direct text) the table you made with the major health ministry reviews (US and abroad) and largest series. Our resident expert has decided that 1)the initial 2 UK reviews are irrelevent, 2)the French ANDEM review is irrelevent, 3) that two of the major US reviews (by different authors in different journals) are in fact only one study, 4)every study cited is compromised by her percieved conflicts of interests, 5)the Mayo clinic study is wrong because "my neurologist said so",6)in abscence of evidence she likes........delete,delete,delete. Essentially I've spent my time editing today restoring what she deletes, trying to address her complaints re. citations,links etc... and inviting her to add ANY relavent work to this. I welcome sanity here watching the ridiculous pace of loopy revisionism. (It's like when Brad Pitt & Morgan Freeman see the psycho journals in "Seven" with deranged writings goin on & on in all directions) Droliver 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)