General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

The Silicone Cloud

Ilena · 2003-10-18T14:47:22+00:00

http://www.fool.com/Server/FoolPrint.asp?File=/news/mft/2003/mft03101709.htm By W.D. Crotty October 17, 2003 Medical device maker Inamed (Nasdaq: IMDC) won a victory recently when an FDA advisory panel recommended that the company be approved to sell its silicone breast implants. But does the slim 9-to-6 panel margin portend problems for this profitable and quickly growing company? To be sure, breast implants are big business. Between 1992 and 2001, the number of operations increased by 533%, and doctors performed 236,888 breast enlargement operations in 2002 alone. Prior to 1992, when silicone implants were outlawed, they were manufactured by Baxter (NYSE: BAX), Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY), 3M (NYSE: MMM), and Dow Corning, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW). Complications arose, and all four companies fell victim to multiple lawsuits. In March 1994, they agreed to a $4.25 billion settlement -- the largest class action settlement at that time. Unfortunately, a safer saline product proved inferior to the softer, more natural feel of silicone gel, as evidenced by the fact that, in Europe, women select silicone 9 to 1 over saline. By being first to market with the new silicone, Inamed expects to steal share from leader Mentor (NYSE: MNT). Both have been manufacturing breast implant products for decades, and neither was swamped by litigation. Should Inamed shareholders be concerned about silicone? Yes! The company acknowledges that in-place implants can rupture or simply leak. The company's latest quarterly filing acknowledges that it has not found a carrier willing to provide "risk-shifting liability insurance on terms and conditions which are acceptable to the Company." Then there's always the risk the FDA will not green-light its advisory panel's recommendation. High-profile women's groups and others are still trying to prevent approval. A full 55% of Inamed's sales are derived from breast implant products. So, yes, the company's top-line growth of 14.5% will accelerate if FDA approval is granted. But even with the increased sales -- and one other interesting product for obesity -- at 46 times earnings, Inamed's uninsured risks are a bit too much. W.D. Crotty can be reached at [email hidden]. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more information on the silicone implant debacle ... you are welcome to visit www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Started by Ilena · 18 October 2003 · Last activity 19 October 2003 · 6 posts · 396 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postThe Silicone CloudIlena · 18 Oct 2003 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6Jan · 19 Oct 2003

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 18 October 2003
Last activity: 19 October 2003
Original author: Ilena
Posts: 6
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 396
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Ilena
Archived post

18 October 2003, 14:47 UTC #1

http://www.fool.com/Server/FoolPrint.asp?File=/news/mft/2003/mft03101709.htm
By W.D. Crotty
October 17, 2003
Medical device maker Inamed (Nasdaq: IMDC) won a victory recently when
an FDA advisory panel recommended that the company be approved to sell
its silicone breast implants. But does the slim 9-to-6 panel margin
portend problems for this profitable and quickly growing company?
To be sure, breast implants are big business. Between 1992 and 2001,
the number of operations increased by 533%, and doctors performed
236,888 breast enlargement operations in 2002 alone.
Prior to 1992, when silicone implants were outlawed, they were
manufactured by Baxter (NYSE: BAX), Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY),
3M (NYSE: MMM), and Dow Corning, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical (NYSE:
DOW).
Complications arose, and all four companies fell victim to multiple
lawsuits. In March 1994, they agreed to a $4.25 billion settlement --
the largest class action settlement at that time.
Unfortunately, a safer saline product proved inferior to the softer,
more natural feel of silicone gel, as evidenced by the fact that, in
Europe, women select silicone 9 to 1 over saline. By being first to
market with the new silicone, Inamed expects to steal share from
leader Mentor (NYSE: MNT). Both have been manufacturing breast implant
products for decades, and neither was swamped by litigation.
Should Inamed shareholders be concerned about silicone? Yes! The
company acknowledges that in-place implants can rupture or simply
leak. The company's latest quarterly filing acknowledges that it has
not found a carrier willing to provide "risk-shifting liability
insurance on terms and conditions which are acceptable to the
Company."
Then there's always the risk the FDA will not green-light its advisory
panel's recommendation. High-profile women's groups and others are
still trying to prevent approval.
A full 55% of Inamed's sales are derived from breast implant products.
So, yes, the company's top-line growth of 14.5% will accelerate if FDA
approval is granted. But even with the increased sales -- and one
other interesting product for obesity -- at 46 times earnings,
Inamed's uninsured risks are a bit too much.
W.D. Crotty can be reached at [email hidden].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information on the silicone implant debacle ... you are
welcome to visit www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Report
David Wright
Archived post

18 October 2003, 20:02 UTC #2

In article <[email hidden]>,
Ilena said:
http://www.fool.com/Server/FoolPrint.asp?File=/news/mft/2003/mft03101709.htm
By W.D. Crotty
October 17, 2003
Medical device maker Inamed (Nasdaq: IMDC) won a victory recently when
an FDA advisory panel recommended that the company be approved to sell
its silicone breast implants. But does the slim 9-to-6 panel margin
portend problems for this profitable and quickly growing company?
As usual, Ilena is incapable of realizing that silicone breast
implants are not an alternative therapy. I would suggest that
sci.environment is also inappropriate.
What is it with you, Ilena? Why are you so stupid that you keep
posting this off-topic [censored]?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Report
Ilena
Archived post

19 October 2003, 04:01 UTC #3

[email hidden] (David Wright)
Quoted message said:
What is it with you, Ilena? Why are you so stupid that you keep
posting this off-topic [censored]?
Naughty words already ... bad Davey.
You've busted me, Davey ...
my only purpose in posting information about the very real dangers of
breast implants for 8 plus years ... is to help you fulfill your
apparent purpose in life as Quackwatch Net Nanny.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/disinfoagentsfaq.htm#wrongerthanWright
~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information, please visit:
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

Report
David Wright
Archived post

19 October 2003, 05:50 UTC #4

In article <[email hidden]>,
Ilena said:
[email hidden] (David Wright)
Quoted message said:
What is it with you, Ilena? Why are you so stupid that you keep
posting this off-topic [censored]?
Naughty words already ... bad Davey.
You've busted me, Davey ...
Finally, you get one right. But the only way to bust you would be to
give you implants. I'm sure you don't want that.
Quoted message said:
my only purpose in posting information about the very real dangers of
breast implants for 8 plus years ... is to help you fulfill your
apparent purpose in life as Quackwatch Net Nanny.
And the only purpose of your web site is to glorify you -- your
protestations to the contrary.
Meanwhile, being called a "Net Nanny" by you doesn't sting. It just
means that I've once again pointed out your typical off-topic [censored].
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Report
Mark Thorson
Archived post

19 October 2003, 05:57 UTC #5

David Wright said:
Ilena said:

You've busted me, Davey ...
Finally, you get one right. But the only way to bust you would be
to give you implants. I'm sure you don't want that.
But what if we could give her the same implants we put
in David Allen Kube? Maybe she would suddenly become
rational or something.

Report
Jan
Archived post

19 October 2003, 06:12 UTC #6

Quoted message said:
Subject: Re: The Silicone Cloud
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 10/18/2003 9:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>
In article <[email hidden]>,
Ilena said:
[email hidden] (David Wright)
Quoted message said:
What is it with you, Ilena? Why are you so stupid that you keep
posting this off-topic [censored]?
Naughty words already ... bad Davey.
You've busted me, Davey ...
Finally, you get one right. But the only way to bust you would be to
give you implants. I'm sure you don't want that.
Quoted message said:
my only purpose in posting information about the very real dangers of
breast implants for 8 plus years ... is to help you fulfill your
apparent purpose in life as Quackwatch Net Nanny.
And the only purpose of your web site is to glorify you -- your
protestations to the contrary.
Thus once again showing the hate on this ng.
News for David, opening up your home to injured women makes your point both
hateful and ridiculous.
Quoted message said:
Meanwhile, being called a "Net Nanny" by you doesn't sting. It just
means that I've once again pointed out your typical off-topic [censored].
I hate to say this, but perhaps you would like some fake testicles that give
the same problems are silicone breasts.
You have some balls, to talk as you have.
This off topic bit is getting sickening.
Jan

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread