Dear FRONTLINE,
As President of the National Breast Implant Task Force I would like to
address the show on breast implants. The science you have quoted on this show does
not take into account the rupture rate of breast implants. The rupture rate as
quoted by Dr. David Kessler is 70%. This was not even discussed on your program.
With such a high failure rate of a product, breast implants should not be on the
market. It is proven in medical journals that injected silicone DOES cause
autoimmune problems. What is the difference between silicone injections and a
ruptured silicone breast implant? If your show wants to talk about the scientific
evidence I believe you have done an injustice to your viewing audience by not
giving all the facts on the silicone breast implant issue.
Janice Ferriell
President, National Breast Implant Task Force
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program on breast implants was quite an eye-opener. Like
everyone else, I had assumed that, with so much smoke, there
must be a fire. My heart goes out to those unfortunate women
who certainly have afflictions, and just as certainly are
sincere in their belief that the silicone implants are
responsible. But until there are studies that offer some
conclusive evidence that the silicone implants have, in fact,
contributed to their particular conditions, the legal
community needs to set aside its smoke-and-mirrors act and
act more responsibly.
P.R.H.
Clay, NY
Dear FRONTLINE,
I'm glad to see you'll be addressing the silicone breast implant issue,
but if your web page summary is any indication, I fear I'll be sadly
disappointed. In particular, I object to the statement, "Many claim they
have contracted a wide range of silicone-related diseases, but recent
medical studies conducted by the nation's premier researchers have failed
to find any evidence that silicone breast implants are dangerous."
Please refer to the examiniation of these "premier researcher" done
by FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. The studies were 1)
influenced by funding from the chemical industry, and 2) looked at
very specific connective tissue diseases, overlooking the symptoms
reported by breast implant victems. You say they "failed to find
any evidence...are dangerous". I only hope Frontline will investigate
the logical inverse, that they "failed to find evidence they are safe".
Thanks,
Mark Coats
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for your informative discussion of such a complicated
issue. What astounds me is that both amoung both patients, physicians and at least
lawyers there are a small but powerful group of individuals who are
willing to disregard or distort the facts for their own benefit.
While the american public should query their medical professionals,
scientists and medical device makers, they should be willing to accept
that in fact most (and certainly not all) are honest and out to
do no harm.
Thank you for showing both sides.
L.D., MD
NY, NY
Dear FRONTLINE,
I had the opportunity to watch your show on breast implants. I am
not going to respond point by point, as what you put on was pure
"entertainment" television. It was not a documentary as what I would expect
from you. You made this whole thing appear to be a game or a contest.
This is not about Corporations, Lawyers, Doctors, Studies, Money,
etc..., this is about my wife and thousands like her who are extremely
sick. Imagine, not being able to get up in the morning, constantly losing
your balance, failing memory, and the constant pain. Think about watching
your children grow up .... from a couch or bed. Think about your only
"dates" with your spouse being a visit to one of your doctors.
No, this can not be wrapped up into one Frontline show. It is a
program being played out in thousands of homes in America and throughout the
world every day in ordinary homes such as ours. It is a very personal
battle not one large war.
Sincerely,
Joel D. Good
Pennsylvania Chapter
IMPLANT SURVIVORS
Box 148
Chinchilla, PA 18410
Dear FRONTLINE,
content: It was very nice to know the unbiased and objective journalism
is still alive and healthy in today's sensational world.
This incident vividly illustartes two distinctive
chracteristics of our society; 1) the general snetiment of
anti-intellectual in the US, and 2) the failure of US
judicial system to reach the truth. This incident produced
a clear-cut winners and losers. The only winners are the
attorneys and their dubious experts. The losers include
those who lost their jobs, the general consumers who
ultimately have to pay the price; and most of all, the poor
patients who not only suffered from the illness but were
also mislead to bark at wrong trees. As long as they are
made to beleive this is the cause of their illness, despite
of all of the negative scientific evidences, they will never
find the real cure.
Nan-Yao Su
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am writing in protest of the "partial truths", and misguided information
aired on your recent Frontline Program, regarding breast implants. What I
have to say to you could fill a book, but I will be somewhat more brief
than that. The one thing I can guarantee you, is that if you could walk a
day, in the shoes of a silicone breast implant recipient, your program
would have been more honestly focused, and the public at large would have
been alerted to the REAL dangers surrounding this device. It is a shame,
that a network such as PBS, has the ability to help prevent future
catastrophies in women's health, but chooses, instead, to reassure them
that these devices are safe, or at best, still controversial.
I am well aware of the segments of the interviews that were conveniently NOT AIRED, and am appalled at this recklessness in broadcasting. That your network has also succummbed to the bias and perhaps "contributions" by the major manufacturers, is frightening, to say the least. The public depends on a PBS station to be honest and forthright, with ALL of the FACTS, not slanted versions of the so-called "truth". I would have to give my opinion that this program was down-right corrupt in its conception and perhaps its funding.
There are far too many thousands of women who are truly suffering with debilitating illness as a result of this device, to sit back and listen to the half-truths and lies being spewed, in order to influence prospective juries, as many cases go to trial in the future.
Do you realize, that until this controversy became public, many of us were very ill, and had no idea as to WHY? Our own doctors couldn't tell us what was wrong with us, until a few stepped forward with the truth about silicone implants. To me, personally, it was a much awaited answer to my questions, as to why my health was deteriorating when doctors could find nothing "typically" wrong with me. Am I frightened? Of course I am, with good reason! My life has been all but destroyed by these devices; my future uncertain, but certainly shortened. The quality of my life, although I have had my implants removed, is diminished, and I am nearly totally disabled at the age of 44. I have been seriously ill for over 8 years. My medical bills might astound you, as I seek help through intravenous gamma globulin therapy, at $1,500 a dose, every 2-3 weeks. I am unable to work, and most days, live on 14 hours of sleep and rarely have the energy to leave my front door. I have no life, as you might know life to be.
We DEMAND that the program be followed up with "the rest of the story", the truths, the studies that prove our health issues are real. We have heard enough of the tainted studies by Harvard and Mayo. WE ARE THE EVIDENCE !!! These manufacturers fraudulently concealed the dangers of breast implants. I personally have enough evidence in my desk drawer to prove this fact. Why is it that PBS, with all of its investigative tools and abilities, doesn't? Why has none of this evidence been aired?
Your station broadcasts FOR THE PUBLIC, and you have done the public a terrible injustice. I do, however, want to commend you for speaking slightly more of the truth than many programs have in the past, and for showing some fairness in your representation of the women who are suffering. Fortunately, the women interviewed were not made to be percieved as hysterical, topless dancers or "bimbos", as some programs have done in the past. However, your program didn't take into account or show the many very young women who are just as ill as their older counterparts.
Your program spoke nothing of second generational illness, related to mothers who carried or nursed their children, of which there is much horrifying evidence. You did not include any discussion of the banning of silicone injections, decades ago, and its proven dangers. You did not mention that implants are nothing more than "slow-motion syringes", dispensing the same poison into a woman's body, as that which was banned decades ago. There was not enough mention of the internal documents and memos showing fraudulent concealment by the manufacturers. The fact that silicone is NOT biologically inert, and has been proven by the manufacturers OWN INTERNAL STUDIES, should be proof enough, and that the end result is a harmful reaction to the immune system.
Further, you did not mention hidden agendas, the biased doctors, who were paid consultants to the manufacturers, who have been released for conflict of interest in the studies mentioned. You did not mention John and Colleen Swanson, the former Dow executive in charge of Dow's ethics division, who has blown the whistle on this cover-up, and published the book, "Informed Consent".
I was in attendance at the Washington D.C. rally that you showed clips of, and you failed to show portions of that rally, where Dr. Anderson, formerly of the FDA, spoke of the enormously high incidence of illnesses such as scleroderma in implanted women. You didn't interview the plastic surgeons who are brave enough to step forward and speak the truth, such as Dr. Lu Jean Feng of Cleveland, who has stated publicly that aprox. 70% of the implants she removes are ruptured, or Dr. Margueritte Barnett of Venice, Florida who is heavily involved in and sympathetic to our cause.
You did not air the interviews you had with Dr. Shanklin and Smalley when you visited the lab in Memphis, nor dicuss the interviews you had with them regarding the important work being done in several countries, all proving the disasterous affects of silicone implants.
You made a mockery of Dr. Bernard Patten, who has risked his welfare and reputation for our cause, to research the truth. Dr. Patten and his former colleague Dr. Britta Ostermeyer Shoab, of Houston, certainly should have been given equal and fair time to discuss what their extensive research has shown, especially on the demeyilination of nerves, due to silicone, and its affect on the nervous system and brain. Have any of your reporters bothered to hear them lecture on this subject, or taken the time to see their actual clinical proof?
Dr. Marcia Angell, looked like a nervous rat in a cage, as well she should! We are well aware of her stake in this. And Dr. Leroy Young, part owner and developer of the new soybean oil implant, (which is still encased in a dangerous silicone pouch), has his own obvious agenda and bias, as a highly paid consultant to the manufacturers of silicone implants, as well as having attended the N.I.H. Immunology of Silicone Workshop last spring, along with T. Michael Jackson, a Dow executive.
There are many hundreds of thousands of us women, perhaps a million or more, who will face the same fate, given time. I have been diagnosed with such a multitude of health problems that I couldn't write it all here in one letter. But most recently, have been diagnosed with silicone induced Multiple Sclerosis. Additionally, I have the same serious constellation of symptoms that other women have, including neurological damage, auto-immune disease, connective tissue disease, several forms of arthritis, and a lengthy list beyond that. With my dying breath, I will see that the truth is told, and so will my many fellow "silicone sisters". Our health and our fate is not something you would wish on a loved one of your own.
You may be able to taint the picture for now, but the truth will come out. You could do many hundreds of thousands of women, AND their families, a great service, in helping justice to win out over corporate greed, as well as PREVENT future women, and their offspring, from this horrible fate.
PLEASE, I beg you, to tell the truth, the whole truth. Please follow this
program up with more of the evidence that speaks this truth.
Sincerely,
R.L.
Florida
Dear FRONTLINE,
It is apparent that this issue is controlled by two words: vanity and
greed. Women let vanity rule their decision about getting implants. A large
company and many doctors used this vanity to sell a product, which satisfied their
greed.
When the women became ill, real or not, then lawyers used that same vanity to
satisfy their greed.
And, women continue to let men do this to them over and over and over. Who is
suffering: women. Who is getting rich: doctors and lawyers. Who pays: DOW pays
some, and consumers in general, plus taxpayers.
Let the buyer beware!
K.K.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Although a long time supporter of public tv, I will think twice before
watching Frontline in the future! Unfortunately, your program on breast
implants failed to mention some very important facts: you failed to
mention the long history of silicone injections and their dangers,
including the fact that injections of silicone have been outlawed, you
fialed to mention the inside knowledg eof Dow corning Executive with regard
to the dangers of silicone; you didn't mention the fact that two members of
the Harvard Nurses' Study team resigned over conflicts of interest - namely
that they were being paid by Dow Corning as expert witnesses for breast
implant makers while conducting their study; you failed to mention that
Marcia Angell has a book publishing deal which depends on the continued
breast implant controversy in order to make sales; you didn't mention John
Swanson "Inventor of corporate ethics" program for Dow who resigned after
discovering just how Dow Corning covered up the truth about implants.
How about doing some "fair" journalism in the future?
Rachal Koo
Dear FRONTLINE
Your program on the health risks seemingly associated with
breast implants revealed some interesting attitudes among
Americans toward medical science and fashion.
There are always risks involved when you have some
foreign object implanted into your body. Choosing to do so
for purely cosmetic reasons would seem to say that you
accept those risks. Therefor the only person at fault if
something goes wrong is the person that chose to have the
procedure done. This used to be called "taking responsibility
for your own actions". Today it is probably called "blaming
the victim". But the actual victim in these cases seems to
be the manufacturer of the implants.
I may have missed the point in why these devices were
developed, but I would think that they were developed to
help those who suffered the disfigurement of a mastectomy
and needed the help that the device would bring. Granted
that the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit
from the products it manufactures, I would hardly believe
that Dow-Corning really needed the revenue that the sale
of these devices brought to them.
I believe that the people who are really to blame are the
greedy surgeons who stood to make a fast buck catering to
the whims of fashion and the women who really believed that
a piece of gel-filled plastic would cure all the problems
of a low self-esteem.
Kevin Pottorff
Dear FRONTLINE,
WOMEN ARE THE ONES THAT WANTED THE BREAST IMPLANTS DONE AND
I DON'T THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUE THE DOW CORNING
MANY WOMEN GET THE SAME DISEASES THAT THE BREAST IMPLANT WOMEN
SUPPOSEDLY SUFFER FROM. SO SHOULD ALL WOMEN SUE JUST BECAUSE
THEY GET LUPUS OR MS OR ONE OF THE OTHER DISEASES. WOMEN PAID
FOR THE IMPLANTS. I THINK THAT THE ONLY THING THAT DOW SHOULD
PAY FOR IS TO REPLACE THEM OR TAKE THEM OUT COMPLETELY. WOMEN
WHO PUT IMPLANTS IN USUALLY HAVE POOR SELF ESTEEM ABOUT THEM
THAT IS WHY THEY HAD THEM DONE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THESE WOMEN SHOULD RECEIVE ANY KIND OF SETTLEMENT
FOR SOMETHING THAT THEY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR THEMSELVES.
C.B.
Dear FRONTLINE,
While I am sure you tried to be fair in your reporting of the Breast Implant
issues,you missed the boat by a long shot. Shame, Shame, Shame on you, you are a
suppose to be a Publis Service Program and I do not beleive that you did the
hundreds of thousands of women a service by your report. In fact you have made
things worse for all the women out there suffering. Since the show took the side
of the major corporations, I would like to know who gave money to produce this
show. I would bet there is big dollars involved from some company that is being
sued by women with breast implants. Another questions....did anyone related to
making this show ever had or does have breast implants? You could do the general
publis a real service by doing a second report on the women that are sick, the
children that are sick and the men who are sick with the same problems as the women
because of penial implants. As one of the women who were told that these implants
would last a lifetime an!
d that there would be lots of good looking 75 year old ladies in the future, I know
first hand what it has done to my life and that of my family. There are lots more
like me and worse, why don't you do a show on us! Why don't you help us find out
what is wrong and why we are all sick. Right now there is another product on the
market that the good ole' boys are using to push women once again to be their lab
rats. This time the doctors are using Gortex threads in womens lips to make them
look fuller. Now Gortex like silicone breast implants were never approved by the
FDA to be used in humans. If you are truly are a Public Service program you can
start right now by doing a show that talks about those doctors and companies that
use unapproved products in humans! I could go on forever, but I won't. I know I
can sleep at night, but can you!
Sincerely,
Deborah Jean Snow
Plano, TX
P.S. Did you hear about all the blankets that we sent Dow Cornings Dick
Hazelton...to help with his cover-up.
Dear FRONTLINE,
I'm not sure I have the correct program directory, but I was very
intrigued by your documentary, "Breast Implants on Trial." Your program
demonstrated the disgraceful trend that our legal system has been
following over the past few decades. The trend being that the truth is
no longer what is important in a trial, but rather what is said and how
passionately it is said and by whom. It is a system made by lawyers and
run by lawyers for the good of lawyers.
However, there is an even more disturbing issue that has come to my
attention. It seems all too obviously to me that trial by jury no longer
works. When a group of jurors can reach a verdict without even
considering the conclusions made by some of the most prestigous medical
institutions in the nation then that is painful proof that those persons
are not competent to make such important decisions. What's worse is the
precedents they set for those who must follow them. The Dow Corning
breast implant trials displayed that the average American is not capable
of making rational decisions based on facts and not emotions. I fear for
a system which is propelled by fear and emotion rather than by fact and
science.
Sincerely,
M.D.
Corvallis, OR
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am writing to you as an individual having
a research, scientific background, as a woman who received breast
implants after disfiguring surgeries, and as an enthusiastic patron
of public television. As a scientist, I found myself in agreement
with much of what was stated on the show about the findings of
completed research and the need for additional studies. However, one
of the questions that looms largely is whether there might have been
investigator bias that affected the findings of completed research.
Also, the studies that were presented were obviously those that favor
breast implant manufacturers. Many other, well constructed studies
suggest more alarming findings. As for the women who are ill;
research questions arise out of clinical presentations. Granted, the
power of suggestion may lead women who would otherwise be
experiencing aches and pains to attribute their distress to silicone
implants. However, that possibility does not eliminate another very
real possibility that some sort of atypical syndrome has developed in
a certain percentage of implanted women. They deserve the benefit of
unbiased, ongoing research to determine if this may be the case.
Until such studies are developed and replicated, silicone implants
must not be made available to naive and trusting women. As for
me, fortunately, I have few symptoms and I am one of those who
assumes that they are part of a normal aging process. Nevertheless, I
feel that implant manufacturers must be held accountable for the fact
that they presented their products as having lifetime durability and
that is not the case. The expenses and risks of repeated surgeries
have been borne by myself and thousands of other women who have had
ruptured implants. This is a products liability issue in pure form
and I do not recall that it was clearly addressed as such on your
program. Finally, let's protect the integrity of PBS as a channel
that informs and educates with as little bias as possible. Somebody
did a number on your production people for much valid information
that calls for further exploration was left out, thereby suggesting
that silicone breast implants are safe. All I can say to that is that
the findings are far from conclusive in any absolute sense. You
really might have at least pointed out more emphatically that
questions remain.
Sincerely,
Dr. D. M.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program appeared very slanted towards manufacturer's. Sadly, enough women are
sick. I hope you take the time and follow up with another story, this time air the
interviews with the less controversial doctors, lawyers, and countless women. If
one women decides to go with your slant, gets implanted, nurses her newborn, then
suffers from the after effects, who will be responsible then? All implants leak,
many, including mine, rupture. Where does the spill go? Are you aware that even
when found in the lungs, liver, heart, or other vital organs there is no way to
retrieve it. I live this everday. My family lives it every day. It seems to me you
left out parts of this story. From where I stand, silicone breast implants are not
the first product/device/or medicine to have been marketed to the general
population only to be banned/outlawed or recalled. Yet it seems that many
suffer/and die before we hear the wake-up call. I am not surprised that yet another
women's issue has ta!
ken such a beating or caused such a controversy. What really scares me is that
instead of women beware, your show sugar coated the true horrors of living with
implants. Money isn't at stake here, quality of life is. Women are dying. Does that
not count for anything? I urge you to re-examine the issue and present all the
truth. Think about the next newborn suckling poison. Get ready for the next
thousands of women who will begin to feel the effects from silicone. I saw what was
left of my ruptured implants. I never want another women to go through that.
Explore that side of this issue, then come back and undo the damage your show may
have caused.
Beth West
Glide, OR
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was bewildered that Frontline would not interview
credible scientists who have criticized the Mayo Clinic
and Harvard studies yet are not funded by tort attorneys.
So much of what passes as "sound science" today is research
which restricts the debate to questions which can only
benefit large corporations like Dow. The perversion of
science by Dow and other companies occurs time and time
again: Agent Orange, DBCP (the worm-killing nematodicide
Dow made which sterilized dozens of Costa-Rican banana
workers), and styrofoam are just a few of the products
which companies have marketed while knowing their defects.
You'd think our land's best investigative teams would
probe the tactical methods of companies like Dow who are
able to bias the debate in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
If you don't believe me, read Greenpeace's report on Dow
and dioxin.Next time get it right.
C.M.
Chicago, IL
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was disappointed that you left out two important items: that
Mariann Hopkins vs. Dow Corning decision was left in place by the
U.S. Supreme Court; and that Dow Corning's very ethical director of
ethics, John Swanson, has concluded that the company behaved
fraudulently and unethically; that it knew of and ignored the health
risks of implants; and that it discouraged anyone who voiced
concerns during the many years it was profiting from these unsafe
products. Leaving out these two points and giving Ms. Angell and
Ms. Connell way too much time showed, unfortunately, that your
dedication to fairness in reporting may be compromised by your
recent decision to accept commercial advertising.
T.T.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Count me among those 'astounded' by your program. But
perhaps not in any way that I've read so far in viewers
comments.
What was shocking to me was the attitude of insularity shown
by the 'scientists' and 'doctors', particularly that of the
New England Journal of Medicine senior editor, to citizens
responses to what to her seemed to be solid 'scientific'
facts.
Every day in newspapers and on television we read and see
members of this community lie, cheat, steal, use their
positions and whatever shread of 'public trust' that is
left to obscure the facts and angle for personal gain.
How many researchers that have sworn to congress that
cigarettes arn't additive and don't cause cancer have been
stipped of their professional credentials? How many
times do doctors have to be found negligent before state
licencing boards strip them of their practices? How many
forensic doctors and technicians do we have to see get
caught in lies and distortions before those 'professional'
organizations take action?
The way things stand now, any scientific researcher must
first prove themselves totally free of any possibility of
bias BEFORE engaging in any research. Any organization
which publishes or promotes such research must FIRST prove
themselves to be totally free of any influence. They must
realize they are starting with a confidence level of zero;
such is the legacy they have built for themselves through
the lies they have previously promoted and been found guilty
of in the last generations.
Donn F. Dubuque
dbq@cris.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
I enjoyed your show on breast implants very much. For me it has raised some
profound concerns, particularly in regard to the role of science in the courtroom.
Coming on the heels of the OJ Simpson trial, I think scientists need to evaluate
how it is that science convinces people. Obviously the methods being used right
now are simply unconvincing, and juries are more than willing to swallow anecdotal
evidence as proof of the validity of a legal contention. It seems to me that
science needs to reevaluate the standards of evidence it presents to the general
public and make them more convincing, or trials such as these could be the herald
for a new dark age.
Daniel Angelucci
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am very disappointed that you did not talk to scientists who are critical
of the studies that show no support for linking silicone breast implants and
connective-tissue diseases. Even I, as a graduate student in sociology, can see
some statistical problems with many of the studies. For one, many of the studies
show such little variation in the dependent variable (whether the women was
diagnosed with a disease) that it is statistically difficult to show a significant
association (even if one exists in "reality"). For instance, less than 1% of the
women with and without breast implants in the Sanchez-Guerrero (1995) study were
diagnosed with such a disease. I suggest that this is problematic. It seems that
the concern for external validity, which is usually a weakness for
experimental/quasi-experimental research designs, has overrided concern for the
design's usual strength--internal validity.
Let me reassert that I am disappointed that you did not include methodological
critiques of the studies.
S. P. Overall
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am needlessly impressed with the quality programming that one expects from PBS.
You as an organization set the standard for all Television.
Now you are setting the standards for Cyberspace.
This is one of the best WWW pages I have ever seen.
The informed mind can now ferret out the wealth of information you present.
GOOD SHOW at keeping the WWW at a high standard.
R.H.
Montreal Canada
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was saddened by the way science, the scientific
method and the review process of scientific journals was
offhandedly dismissed by the plaintiffs, lawyers, and jurors
in these trials. Most scientists design, execute and repeat
experiments carefully before they publish articles in
journals. If they do not, they are quickly eclipsed by
a competitor who comes up with different results with better
evidence.
M.B.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for an informative evening. After reading the
comments posted to date I am left wondering and worring
about two things. First, I can not except the fact that the
women who consented to the procedure take no responsiblity
for their decission. All America seems able to avoid
individual responsiblity. If these implants cause these DZs,
which seems doubtful, then these patients made a poor
decission which they now must live with. Second, the
continued press on the poor state of eduction is our society
predicts a jury that is incapable of intelligent decision making
So many of the people interviewed for your show are not
misunderstood, they are simply fools.
MJ, MD
Connecticut
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am a 19 year old Psychology Student. I was enraged after watching your
show. The fact that so many jurors are ignorant of the strict guidelines that
experiments are performed under is astonishing. References were made repeatedly to
where the funding came from. That does not affect the outcome of experiments in
any way and to imply that it does is degrading to the scientific community.
Experiments are to prove facts, not to pat a "big company" on the back.
I was also amazed at the statements made by the jurors in one woman's case. They
said that they were not convinced that the implants caused her illness. Then why
was she awarded money? The answer seemed to be because of the radical changes to
her lifestyle that this disease had caused. They seemed to view the "big company"
as an anomyous entity and decided that someone should pay this woman. It is this
type of logic that is driving businesses out of work and is increasing the cost of
supplies that are needed. As your program stated, because of these major lawsuits,
no company will manufacture silicone breast implants any more.
I feel for these women, and I sympathize with them. Comparisons were made to
fibromyalgia, a disease which I have had for six years. If this is indeed what
these women are suffering from, then it is extremely debilitating at times and does
cause massive lifestyle changes. But, fibromyalgia is currently just part of
nature. I definitely did not get it from breast implants as I was only 13 years
old at the time and I have never even considered having implants. If the logic of
the jurors is applied to everyone however, perhaps I should sue the manufacturers
of implants and could get a sympathy million or so from the company, even though no
relationship could be proven.
I feel that the ignorance of the medical community on fibromyalgia is probably more
to blame than anything. Many women go undiagnosed for years although they may have
classic cases of this disease. This is mainly because many doctors still do not
know enough about it or care to learn. Women with "non specific" ailments are
often dismissed and sent to psychiatrists. This movement may prove to be good for
women in the long run, if it can get more publicity out about these other
illnesses. Women who think that their failing health is due to some sort of causal
factor are much more likely to push the medical community to get a proper
diagnosis. Hopefully, after being pushed enough times, doctors will finally learn
to recognize these diseases without being pushed. I know from experience that
there are still several doctors out there who need a big push, although I luckily
found a good one early in my disease. Lots of women haven't been so lucky.
I think that it is horrible that these types of claims can persist in this day and
age. It seems more like a witch hunt than any type of legal proceedings. If the
scientific community cannot be respected, what purpose can they serve in our
civilization?
Sydney Spradling
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program convinced me that these vain prosthetics
probably are quite safe by making me aware of the
critical epidemiological studies. I was most surprised by
the comments of the two interviewed jurors who implied that
they awarded a fortune to one plaintiff without being
convinced that silicone gel from the implant had actually
caused her health problems. This seemingly irresponsible
decision, along with your observations on class action
lawsuits and the (in)ability of a jury to fairly evaluate the
complex testimony involved in such disputes, makes me wonder
just how badly in disrepair the existing judicial system is.
I'm anxiously awaiting your next installment which touches on
the topic of legal reform.
Paul Ewbank
pe00@andrew.cmu.edu
Dear FRONTLINE,
This show highlighted an increasingly apparent American problem. Our
educational system
is not teaching us HOW TO THINK. This case, when taken together with the OJ
Simpson trial, demonstrates that Americans cannot distinguish between an empirical
fact and a belief. Our educational system is failing us, and the consequent lack of
reasoning power jepordizes the democratic system. We repeatedly see groups of
people
whipped into a form of mass hysteria in which they make statments, as we saw on
your
show, like "We have the disease, we are the proof". Having a disease does not prove
a hypothesis for it's cause.
After recent events, I seriously question whether one can get a fair trial in our
court system. We increasingly see the fundamental premise upon which it is based,
that a jury of your peers, when presented with all the facts should be able to
determine the truth, undermined. Our educational and court systems need and
overhaul!
We need to establish minimal educationl requirments for sitting on juries and
perhaps
establish impartial panels of scientists who can function as juries when cases
involve
technical scientific details.
Cliff Ribaudo
cliffr@ilx.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
I watched the program on breast implants last night. I found it to be
informative and also eye-opening at the threat of scaring people with
rumours. FDA admitted it's guilt in that area, which I found to be re-
freshing after hearing that the government is never wrong.
What I found disturbing were the slanderous remarks made by the tort
attorney. He outright called Harvard, Yale and Mayo sleazy, with the
implications that they were paid to come to a positive conclusion in
Dow's favor. That is simply absurd.
It is dangerous to allow tort attorneys to shape American policy. They
claimed the bad guys continued because of money. What do tort attorneys
do things for? Community kindness? Not for 40% of the lawsuit proceeds.
I think these ladies have let greed rule out common sense. If we are able
to sue without conclusive evidence, manufacturers will be afraid to provide
us with the medical supplies, medicines and foods which keep us healthy.
This might be one of the single most dangerous things I've seen happen in
my lifetime with concerns of attorneys running the show.
It does stand to reason though, since all of those that went to Washington
are also into self-interest and shameless deceit.
Michelle Rino
Dear FRONTLINE,
Why are the studies concentrating on people with Implants
in general when it appears obvious that the women suffering
the most are the ones who have experienced ruptured implants?
My wife has been ill for a year with rashes and lupus type
of symptons. She was fine for 12 years before any disorders
showed. I firmly believe that the rupture had to take place
before any reaction with her immune system showed.
I've seen no studies that concentrate on ruptured Implants.
would it not be the same as injecting silicone directly into
the breast? Was tried in the past and banned for some
reason? Was the silicone made exactly the same?
These studies could come out in favor of breast implants
till dooms day but until they concentrate on the issue of
of women with leaky implants they're meaningless for women
whose illness has come about after the implants leaked.
I recall reading an inter-office report done by Dow Corning
on the effects of silicone injected directly into mice, the
results were very scary for my wife and I to read. Reams of
illneses that popped up as a result among them being rhuematoid
arthritis. The report took place in the mid 50's early 60's.
I'm appalled at people that say they're safe but do not mention
the life span of the breast implants. How long are the safe
for???? They are by no means lasting for as long as Dow claims.
But then again Dow does say a life time..when they fail your
life is over.
Armando & Audrey Perezselsky
armando_1@usa.pipeline.com
Dublin, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your program on breast implants was quite an eye-opener. Like
everyone else, I had assumed that, with so much smoke, there
must be a fire. My heart goes out to those unfortunate women
who certainly have afflictions, and just as certainly are
sincere in their belief that the silicone implants are
responsible. But until there are studies that offer some
conclusive evidence that the silicone implants have, in fact,
contributed to their particular conditions, the legal
community needs to set aside its smoke-and-mirrors act and
act more responsibly.
P.R.H.
Clay, NY
Dear FRONTLINE,
It astonishes and frightens me to see just how easily
our society throws away the principles of the scientific
process whenever they are faced with taking a stance on
such an emotional issue as "breast implants."
I am not a scientist (an artist actually), and even I
can see that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate
the claims that silicon effects the immune system or causes
disease in the human body. If the activists and lawyers
against silicon implants will not accept or believe the
studies by established medical professionals, who will they
believe? And while we're around to it, if the plaintiffs
want us to think that they can't trust such established
institutions as Harvard or the Mayo clinic, how can they
expect us to trust their lawyers and their "new disease
theory?" Don't the lawyers benefit from keeping the cases
pouring in as well? Those two look like they have enough
cases to last them until doomsday.
Jeremy J. Kulow
River Falls, WI
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your story seemed very one sided. This is the same theme that Dow Corning
and others have been "breast feeding" the press since 1991. Not only is there now
a large study that supports the women's complaint of increase autoimmune problems,
but the press never seems to mention that thousands of women have ruptures,
migration of silicone gel, 8 hour surgeries and defomity when they were told the
implants would last a life time. Perhaps the reason that jurys are finding for the
women has more to do with the presses failure to examine what they are being feed
by PR firms rather that looking at the internal documents and evidence. You are
being told by Dow's P.R. firm that its always the "greedy lawyers" that are making
this up. Maybe you ought to do a little investigative reporting and talk to the
women who have been harmed. These women have been fighting this fight for a decade
trying to get lawyers help. It took these women years before anyone would listen
to th!
em at all. Your reporting has not been balanced or fair and I think you owe the
women an apology.
D.V.
Dear FRONTLINE,
Your report on breast implants was very complete and responsible. It raises many
dilemmas present in today's society. The one that concerns me the most is how our
society has been swept into a tidal wave of disbelief towards the medical
profession. Undoubtedly, there are members in the health care community that on a
daily basis deliver poor medical care. Steps are taken by the medical licensing
authorities to try and keep this at a minimum. What I find amazing is that this
mass disbelief has been manipulated and aimed at such prestigious institutions as
Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic and The New England Journal of Medicine. To
state that these institutions have been bought is ludicrous. What can be gained by
doing so if their reputation is tarnished? If the people of the world and of our
country can't trust the medical community to investigate, diagnose and treat their
health problems, who will they turn to? Lawyers? Juries?
Reinaldo Arroyo M.D.
rarroyo@internetland.net
Whiteman, Missouri
Dear FRONTLINE,
Perhaps you missed the real point of this issue: The companies LIED.
They failed to warn the women about the real risk of rupture and
about their own data regarding the impact of silicone on the immune
systems of their test animals. Any consent to treatment must be
fully informed of the possible risks -- the manufacturers failed
this test miserably.
Just as all drugs have differential
effects on patients, silicone undoubtedly has differential effects
on women. I would really like to see a study that paired sick implant
recipients with healthy ones to see what differences area apparent in the women's
lives. For example, were some manufacturers' products more toxic than others,
were some batches of implants worse. It is my suspicion that since
there don't seem to have been any controls on what went into the implants,
some batches were worse than others.
Also, I would advise that most women who are involved in any
type of litigation are not able to participate in studies and surveys
because of the litigation process. Therefore, all samples are
self-selected away from the sickest women and in favour healthy
ones.
Elizabeth O'Dell
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am a plaintiff's attorney and, despite that, I thought your program was terrific
and well-informed. Anyone who has studied sience knows that if a sudy is well-done
and confirmed, it must be accepted. If O'Quinn has problem with this, well, that is
anecdotal confirmation of the old adage "it depends on whose ox is being gored." I
can understand it, but I will never accept it as honest and ethical behaviour by an
attorney.
B.R.
Des Moines, Iowa
Dear FRONTLINE,
"Scientists" on your program invited those of us who
are unrelated to the breats implant situation to review
the data. I did. It was not impressive. I am surprised at
the strength of your program and the weakness of your
data. May I suggest, have scientists and statisticians
outside the medical profession review the methods. We can't
do the histology but we certainly can read the numbers and
the experimental design. Experimenter bias need not be
intentional to be real. I would not impune the integrity of
your scientific sources, but they could be biased.
Charles Cliett, Ph.D.
Dear FRONTLINE,
It is so refreshing for you to come to the rescue of Poor Dow Chemical
after the vast abuse by the common man worldwide towards this innocent
chemical company. We must omitt Dows ongoing chemical experimentation upon the
all of mankind in its wonderous & complex flow into our bodies and
environment.
Huge companies like this deserve all the slanted support they can muster from our
few remaining truthseeking public programs.
Perhaps they can repay your kindness in future by funding your upcoming corporate
fairy tales.
DJ Sequim
WASHINGTON
ticn@daka.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you exposing yet another anti-science scam.
However, I was as much astounded by the show's perverse
attachment to impartiality as by the irrationality or greed
of those suffering women who are being all to easily misled by
their lawyers. Since when does
irrationality deserve the respect you gave it?
We're not talking about differences of opinion
between two camps, but rather whether facts should
be used in decision-making in all
aspects of life, legal or otherwise. Surely, taking
a stand on rationality will not be disputed by anyone.
Louis Emery
emery@aps.anl.gov
Dear FRONTLINE,
As one of the women who is affected by silicone implants, I feel that your
presentation of this program was not as objective as I expected. Although the
reporting was comprehensive, it was clear that the presentations were slanted
towards the medical establishment and scientific community. It is obvious that the
shows Producers feel that tort reform is the issue. Since this program ran right
after the Nova Alien Abductee show, I am presuming that you feel that women who
claim illness due to breast implants are suffering from some form of mass hysteria
similar to the alien abductee phenomenon. Well I have given up attempting to sway
opinion on this matter, but my medical opinion about what happened to me was not a
result of age or infection or anything other than immune responses to silicone
implants. I regret your interpretation of the issues.
Anne Lyons
Dear FRONTLINE,
After seeing your show on Breast Implants, I was outraged
that expert testimony, scientific research, and prestigious
research institutions where dismissed in favor of slick
lawyers and emotional appeals.
I don't think you can over-stress the importance of the
scientific method. If courts and juries can ignore evidence
based on these methods then we have a serious problem
with our legal system. When it is possible to win a case
with smoke and mirrors and passionate speeches (thereby
confusing the issue and casting doubt on the scientific
community (which is, by the way, subject to the most
stringent internal and external scrutiny)) over verifiable
proof we have arrived at a society where uninformed
citizens can make judgment calls based solely on the
most irrational of bases.
It is obvious in this time of educational lethargy that the
average citizen knows more about the current plot line
of "Friends" then anything about rational reasoning and
scientific research. As a result of this lawyers can
concoct the most outrageous and illogical arguments
and get away with it since the population at large is
unable to detect a well formed and valid argument from
the most common of fallacies.
Hit the text books America, our welfare as a nation depends
on it.
Michael T. DeCoster
mtdecoster@usinternet.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
It seems to me that with 20% of the women with breast
implants having the saline type, there should be some
study which shows the incidence of similar diseases
inhearent to THIS type. If the same numbers (percentages)
of women are diseased, that should be clear evidence that
the silicone is not the culprit. If more women are sick with
the silicone type it might point to a problem, and conversly
if more women are becoming sick with the saline implants
it should put the issue of what fills implant to rest, and
prompt these womens doctors and attorneys to look for other
causes of these obvious illnesses.
Joseph Evans
Dear FRONTLINE,
I thought I knew the answers after your in depth show until I got up the
this morning and saw the news about the latest findings published in JAMA.
I'm interested to hear how the FDA and the Drs. who supported the "no
connection" view are going to interpret these findings. I'm still shocked
but not surprised that the two jurors you interviewed thought somebody
should pay the womans medical bills even though there appeared to be no
liability on the part of DOW. Just another sign of the class war in
America.
Christopher Cicala
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am a medical device engineer, from Michigan, and was amazed that our
court system in the us could ignore the scientific evidence that was published by
Harvard and Mayo. If I were to base a filing with the FDA on emotion and
coincidence, I would never get a new product to the market. If someone were to pay
off Mayo or Harvard it would take more assets than the big three auto companies
could put together. We need to fix our justice system to accept scientific
findings and not base decisions on emotion.
Nelson Huldin
Dear FRONTLINE,
Though I strongly agree with the paradox that seems to arise
as truth seems to be a victim of the legal system, I think
there is some sense that this situation is brought on by
science itself. Recently we have been assulted by extremely expensive
solutions to various environmental 'problems' that too many
scholars and scientists have supported with virtually no
scientific justification. Maybe global warming, ozone depleation
asbestos dangers, endangered species act etc. etc. etc.
Isn't this a good example of the chickens coming home to roost?
Larry Lotter
llotter@aol.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
What a brave new world indeed for women's health
care. Now they will no longer blindly take medical advice
from their doctors or the scientific community. Instead,
they will get it from their attorneys. God help this country.
Patrick G. McHenry
Dear FRONTLINE,
After watching the PBS program about silicone breast implants, I am
appalled at the manner in which the legal system, juries and the public have
disregarded overwhelming hard scientific evidence to the contrary, and "convicted"
the silicone industry of harming women's health. As a scientist, this is
unacceptable and presents a serious threat to progress in a technological
civilization.
Norm Keegan
Dear FRONTLINE,
I find it frightening that the jury in the case against Dow
Chemical ignored all the scientific evidence that showed
that silicone breast implants do not contribute a connective
tissue disease. This indeed is the day in this society that
emotions and junk science is king in court.
Todd Dice
Rowland Heights, CA.
Dear FRONTLINE,
It's a shame that with all the bureaucracy
that our government has been spawned, (FDA et al)
our citizens are still subject to the dangers associated
with our own vanity. Perhaps the solution is not with all
the legalities but with a closer look at our circumspect
value system. It is that system that provided the fertile
ground for any possible threat to our health.
Rudy Thomas
rudythomas@attmail.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am currently a senior in biochemistry at the U. of Arizona.
Witch hunts such as that documented on this episode of
Frontline are one of the reasons that I have decided not to
persue an M.D. after graduation. Currently I plan to get a
Ph.D. Someday I envision doing research with prions or
some other equally mysterious disease causing agent.
However, when science is challanged in a manner that ignores
all evidence, it makes me re-evaluate my goals. Perhaps I
should go into basic research on plants. There maybe my
integrity would not be challanged on the basis of
testimonials and evidence that is sketchy at best. I don't
believe that anyone has a right to call me a liar without
substantial evidence. I have no problem with other
scientists questioning my data, but if you can not interpret
the data on your own you have no business questioning the
conclusions. Furthermore, while it MAY be possible for one
institution or scientist to be "bought", I find it difficult
to believe that all these top institutions lost their
integrity at once. I find it frightening that the law can
be won over solely on the basis of speculation.
E.J. Thompson
Dear FRONTLINE,
I work for a specialty chemical manufacturer and have first hand experience with
tort liability. I question what risk factors patients were advised of upon
implantation. It would have been intersting to interview some of the women or
better yet doctors to see what notice was given as to associated risks of wearing
some foreign material inside one's body. If standard practice advised of risks,
known or unknown, I would side with he manufacturers given the fact that very
respected institutions find no link between the various symptoms and implants. If
the products were sold claiming freedom from risk I would side with the women
plaintiffs. Its seems to me that tort liability has more to do with money than
questioning where personal responbility resides concerning the use of a product.
I'm all for tort reform, not to limit a corporation's liabilty for wrong doing but
adressing the issue of personal responsibility. My gut tells me this case rests
more with the individual choices of women rather than big bad DOW
and how they brought a bad product to market and knowingly deceived the public. Take
any issue of misfortune, throw in a good attorney and a settlement will be in the
offing. That just makes good business sense rather than litigating. It's less
expensive!
J.M.G.
Atlanta, GA.
Dear FRONTLINE,
I'm certain that my wife ate a hamburger on the day our
daughter was conceived. Could I not prove to a jury of
sympathetic, though not scientifically inclined individuals
that beef injected with growth hormones, unsanitary
slaughter houses and the like could lead to my wife's
condition? Shouldn't I be able to make the cattle farmer,
slaughter house, meat supplier and hamburger
establishment responsible and make them pay too? How
many other pregnant women ate hamburgers prior to their
pregnancies? They are the evidence too - RIGHT? This
argument is illogical and stupid, just as the silicon breat
implant argument is. As for the women involved, WAKE
UP! YOU ARE BEING USED!
W F Paez
Dear FRONTLINE,
While watching this program I found myself getting the helpless and
frustrated feelings I often get when confronted with hysteria.
Like so many things, we only get part of the story. From the lawyers
we get sanctimonious protestations about the plight of their
"victims"....what I saw was the greed and salivation over a big payday.
From the doctors we get "the need for studies" only when the funding
from the vested interests are there. I must say however, I have more
faith in the New England Journal of Medicine than I do in a couple of
good ole' Texas lawyers with a flair for dramatics.
Finally, from the media all I saw was blatant manipulation. It is a sad
commentary on our nation and our ability to think when we turn to
talk show hosts for scientific information. What's next; Sally Jesse
Raphael with prescription privileges?
Perhaps the doomsayers are right.....the age of reason is dead, and
the world really is about to end! Run for your lives! Rush Limbaugh
is running the country, and Geraldo is president of Harvard! And the
ratings are through the roof!
Thanks for listening to my ramblings.
Sincerely,
Henry Yennie
henryy@premier.net
Dear FRONTLINE,
Despite my distrust of big corporations and their influence
on the political and legal processes in America, after watching
last night's Frontline on breast implants, I found
myself actually feeling sorry for Dow Corning and Dow Chemical.
While I sympathized with the women who have health problems and
complications with their silicone implants, I found myself
wondering if perhaps their problems were not simply due to their
breast implants; I wanted firm scientific evidence. It seems that
there is no one person/company at fault here. Dow Corning was
certainly negligent in allowing silicone implants to be widely
accessible to the public while these implants held a risk to the
patients involved, but the FDA was also responsible for allowing this
product to be available to the public. A better route would have
been to let the product be tested on a volunteer basis for a
number of years, until more was known about the implants.
I was stunned at the cost of health care for the woman who
won her court case at the end of the show. It seemed as if
her doctors had taken advantage of her situation, just like
the vulturous lawyers, and I wondered which was more costly,
her litigation or her healthcare?
I found myself shocked at the overall desire of many to disregard
the lack of sufficient scientific evidence. While I must admit
the possibility of corporations influencing politicians and
laws, and sometimes even science, I find it doubtful that many
long-standing and ethical institutions such as the NE Journal of Medicine
and the Mayo Clinic would risk the scorn and distrust of their colleagues
simply to doctor the trials in favor of Dow Corning, etc.
Perhaps the most disappointing moment I had was while watching
the interviews with the jurors who said they did not have enough
scientific proof for either verdict. Has our jury system failed its duty to dole
out fair and just verdicts? It certainly seems as though verdicts
are now based on how the jurors "feel" about the plaintiff/defendant,
and not on a clear understanding of the facts and evidence.
Frontline presented a well-documented and objective viewpoint.
Anonymous
Dear FRONTLINE,
Great job! I was expecting this to be an indictment of Dow Corning but
was pleasantly surprised by the thorough and fair job you did. The bottom line
here, and an issue you only touched upon, is the failure of our legal system. I am
increasingly
disheartened by these juries that simply ignore the facts and reach their verdics
based purely on
emotion. The interviews with the jurors made it clear this is what happening. The
Simpson trial, of course
is another example. Perhaps this should be the focus of a future program. What can
be done? How can jurors
be so blind to the facts? Is there any way to fix this mess?
It's a sad day in America when corporate giants can be brought to financial ruin by
greedy, unprincipled lawyers whose only
real purpose is getting rich. The American legal system has, in essence, become a
lottery for the lawyers.
Tony Briggs
briggs@n-jcenter.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am a grade 12 student
doing a research project on the breast implant controversy
and your program has been infinately helpful. Not only that
but your website proves that the web can be put to good use
by helping inform people. In your one website you have
brought together so much information that I could either not
find at all or had to go to numerous different sources.
Once again, thank you very much for your excellent program
and keep up the good work.
M.G.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dear FRONTLINE,
1--an excellent summary of the facts surrounding the breast implant debate. As
usual, we have come to expect this degree of excellence from PBS!
2--Two very frightening conclusions from this show, and from the entire debate:
A: the complete failure of the Americam jury system to serve the public and bring
justice to its citizens (including corporate ones!). In spite of overwhelming
scientific evidence, twelve not-so-well educated individuals can be persuaded
(usually by emotional means) to award huge sums of money to plaintiffs even when
they (the jury members) admit that silicone implants have not been proven to cause
any medical illnesses! The reasons they give for awarding settlements are pain and
suffering by the individuals involved! Let us then parade every suffering
individual in society in front of twelve similar compassionate people and award
them with millions of dollars because they, too, unforntunately, have some type of
cross to bear!
B: the total disregard--actually, the arrogant disdain for valid, sound scientific
research performed by some of the most prestigious institutions in our country
(viz. Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic, as well as the New England
Journal of Medicine). Again, in spite of overwhelming evidence which is
indisputable to "educated" individuals--these zealots, attorneys, and unfortunate
chronically ill women simply say that they don't believe the data!
It is despicable that attorneys like John O'Quinn and his type would accuse
prestigious hallmarks of medical education such as Harvard and the Mayo Clinic of
"selling out" to Dow Chemical and other corporate entities! They cannot imagine
that there may be some people in this world who do not have a "price" for which
they will "whore" themselves, as these gentlemen do every day of their lives! God
bless the fact that there still exists in America a few institutions and
individuals who cannot be bought for the holy dollar, and who are interested in
scientific knowledge for the betterment of mankind, as opposed to their wallets.
God help this country if what we saw tonight metastasizes to other aspects of
American life!
T. F. Tenczynski, M.D.
tft@village.ios.com
Dear FRONTLINE,
Thank you for airing this story.
It was quite informative from several different angles. While I am still not sure
if my implants present a danger I continue to be convinced that attorneys are
taking advantage of us, and probably more agressively simply because we are women.
I too was promised the implants would last forever and, most importantly, were
completely safe. Things have sure gotten complicated. All I want to know is if my
health, the most important thing in my life, is in danger. Without health one has
nothing!
Finally, you might consider doing a story on the proposed new settlement. It
appears to be quite worthless.
Thanks again!
PS: I am finding it terribly difficult to get an attorney to represent me because
my case does not currently promise millions of $$$$$.
M. Vanesa Sanabria
MVSANABRIA@AOL.COM
Who would blame Dow Corning for closing its
medical research plant? As the "lawyer" O'Quinn said, next
year they (the lawyers) will be going after some other
medical device manufactured by some large corporation, just
to get some money. I have no doubt that the women are
suffering from some type of disease(s), but whether or not
it is caused by silicone breast implants is highly questionable
People wonder why lawyers take such a bad rap, they could be
convicted of creating a media hype to wrongly make a chemical
giant pay them! What about those doctors doing all those
"necessary" tests and treatments for a supposed silicone
sickness? Any chance those doctors get some of that money?
Let us not forget "Dr." Kassovsky and his autoimmune disease
blood test and the damaging testimony he has given. Plaintiff
lawyers see no problem with him. And he, of course, doesn't
make any money off his alleged blood test. What is truly
disgusting is that those doctors and lawyers are ripping off
Dow at the expense of those women. It's the women who are
being used, by the lawyers!
Dear FRONTLINE,
I wish to commend you on a fine presentation of implants.
It is interesting to note that "Discover" magazine reported
on the implant fiasco in its December '95 issue. I, like
the editor for the New England Journal of Medicine, am
absolutely appalled that tort lawyers would suggest that such
institutions as the Mayo Clinic and Havard Medical are
bought by private corporations. I am finishing my doctoral
dissertation and am quite familiar the scientific process.
Above all, researchers/scientists
Barry Prior