Breasts Implants Belong in Quackery Museum

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery_museum

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quackery is never invested in a particular treatment method. It is a
characteristic of claims that are made for them. The implants did what
they were supposed to do extremely well. If manufacturers concealed
knowledge regarding side effects that has more to do with fraud than
quackery.

Breast implants of some kind will always remain the optimal way of dealing
with unilateral or bilateral breast underdevelopment or agenesis (absence)
and they are extremely helpful in simpler kinds of reconstruction after
mastectomy. That is not quackery either.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Breasts Implants Belong in Quackery Museum
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 4/9/2004 11:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quacke

ry_museum

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

No, that would be Barrett.

Jan

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery_museum

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quackery is never invested in a particular treatment method. It is a
characteristic of claims that are made for them. The implants did what
they were supposed to do extremely well. If manufacturers concealed
knowledge regarding side effects that has more to do with fraud than
quackery.
Breast implants of some kind will always remain the optimal way of dealing
with unilateral or bilateral breast underdevelopment or agenesis

(absence)

Quoted message said:

and they are extremely helpful in simpler kinds of reconstruction after
mastectomy. That is not quackery either.

Peter Moran

Done with full knowledge of side effects.
With a fully approved FDA product.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery_museum

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?
Let's see your webpages.)

Thanks for your highly biased, Quackbacked
two Aussie cents worth ... (for those unaware ... Aussie cents have
even less value than US) ...

He is a very, very respected physician and researcher ... and
unfortunately, one of Quack Inc's targets for years. He exposes the
pharmaceutical cartels dangers ... and those of the front groups
funded by them.

I am very grateful to him for helping so many of the women harmed by
breast implants whose systems can not tolerate the chemicals of
pharmaceuticals.

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Breasts Implants Belong in Quackery Museum
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 4/9/2004 11:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quacke

ry_museum

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

No, that would be Barrett.

Jan

Quack Inc head Barrett is also totally deceptive ...no where on his
many blasts at MCS and those working to help the many harmed by
chemicals ... does he admit that the Chemical companies have funded
ACSH who funded his one sided "get out of jail free card" for
industry.

May God protect those physicians and scientists he tries to get shut
down and who he calls for license investigations ... he ... who has
none and was NEVER board certified when he did.

The epitome of what a Quack is.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ilena Rose said:

Quack Inc head Barrett is also totally deceptive ...no where on his
many blasts at MCS and those working to help the many harmed by
chemicals ... does he admit that the Chemical companies have funded
ACSH who funded his one sided "get out of jail free card" for
industry.

May God protect those physicians and scientists he tries to get shut
down and who he calls for license investigations ... he ... who has
none and was NEVER board certified when he did.

It looks like I have to explain this yet again, as his enemies seem to
like to use these two red herrings to attack Barrett, simply because
they have a hard time addressing him on substantive issues. First, many
physicians let their medical licenses lapse when they retire. Depending
on what state they are in, it can be very expensive to maintain them,
both from fees and money necessary to attend continuing medical
educations classes. In some states, it is a requirement for licensure
that a physician have malpractice insurance, which can be a very large
expense for a retired doctor who is no longer practicing and therefore
no longer needs it. Consequently, Barrett's letting his license lapse
says nothing whatsoever about his level of competence. I'll almost
certainly let my medical license lapse when I retire, many years hence.
Second, Board certification was considered optional for many specialties
when Barrett finished his training (back in the 1961). Depending on
their specialty, many doctors from that era never bothered to get their
Board certification and were basically grandfathered in decades later,
when it became less optional to obtain Board certification (and in fact
became mandatory in many cities in order to get on a hospital's medical
staff or to enroll in various insurance plans). Barrett's lack of Board
certification says absolutely nothing one way or the other about his
level of competence. It is completely neutral. It says absolutely zero,
zip, nada, about the competence of a doctor who completed his training
43 years ago.

I have no problem with your disagreeing with Barrett. However, please do
so honestly on issues of substance, not based on red herrings, such as
the fact that he let his license lapse when he retired or his choice not
to get Board certification back in a time when it was not mandatory and
in fact didn't even confer any significant advantage on a young
physician.

I realize that your hatred of Barrett is such that you'll dismiss or
ignore what I just said, but I say it anyway, for the benefit of those
who might not know that his letting his license lapse at retirement and
his lack of Board certification say nothing whatsoever about his level
of competence when he did practice.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery

_museum

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS(Eng)

I also have thirty years experience in breast surgery (but never inserting
implants myself) and assure you there are many women who desperately need
breast reconstrructions. Your blind, complete rejection of the simplest
way of achieving that has more to do with with your own biases and limited
knowledge of the field than medical needs.

Non-biological implants of various kinds are playing a larger and larger
part in medicine, and it is inevitable that an adequately safe beast implant
will eventually be developed, even if the presently available ones are
proved to have too many problems to enable their use in any but the most
needy patients. They are still, for example, in wide use in England in
post-mastectomy and other patients.

I am inclined to agree that plastic surgeons overdid their use in women who
proabably just needed counselling. Many women had their breast augmented
because they thought it would save a failing marriage. It never did, in my
observations.

But medicine is always work in progress, with advances and retreats, always
getting there in the end. . There are many examples where early technology
was not up to the mark.

Quoted message said:

Let's see your webpages.)

God, woman, don't you know that any old rubbish can be put up on web pages.
Look at Mercola!!
He is a nut. He claims polio vaccination is unnecessary because you can't
get polio if you don.t eat sugar, aming other nonsenses.

Peter Moran

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ilena Rose said:

Quack Inc head Barrett is also totally deceptive ...no where on his
many blasts at MCS and those working to help the many harmed by
chemicals ... does he admit that the Chemical companies have funded
ACSH who funded his one sided "get out of jail free card" for
industry.

May God protect those physicians and scientists he tries to get shut
down and who he calls for license investigations ... he ... who has
none and was NEVER board certified when he did.

It looks like I have to explain this yet again, as his enemies seem to
like to use these two red herrings to attack Barrett, simply because
they have a hard time addressing him on substantive issues. First, many
physicians let their medical licenses lapse when they retire. Depending
on what state they are in, it can be very expensive to maintain them,
both from fees and money necessary to attend continuing medical
educations classes. In some states, it is a requirement for licensure
that a physician have malpractice insurance, which can be a very large
expense for a retired doctor who is no longer practicing and therefore
no longer needs it. Consequently, Barrett's letting his license lapse
says nothing whatsoever about his level of competence.

Perhaps Ilena is looking for another law suit, with lies about Barrett never
being licensed. Oh, I forgot, you can get away even with propagating Tim
Bolen's slanders if done on the 'net.

I perhaps needed to have have mentioned that although retired, I do maintain
my own medical registration to practice for now, in order to be able to
provide simple medical services to my family. But it is expensive, and like
Barrett I will have to drop it fairly soon.

Peter Moran ( for Ilena's benefit --- MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS(Eng)
medically registered as specialist in General Surgery.)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Moran said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery_museum

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Hear, hear. The whale.to website is worse, but Mercola is bad
enough. The article about the horrors of microwave cooking is
sufficent all by itself to prove that Mercola is an idiot. (I
know he didn't write the article, but he put it on his web site.)

Quoted message said:

Breast implants of some kind will always remain the optimal way of dealing
with unilateral or bilateral breast underdevelopment or agenesis (absence)
and they are extremely helpful in simpler kinds of reconstruction after
mastectomy. That is not quackery either.

They also aren't any kind of "alternative" treatment, which makes
Ilena's fanatical insistence on posting in m.h.a all the more
incomprehensible, though I admit she's nearly as loony as Jan and
a lot more self-important.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ilena Rose said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery_museum

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?
Let's see your webpages.)

Thanks for your highly biased, Quackbacked
two Aussie cents worth ... (for those unaware ... Aussie cents have
even less value than US) ...

He is a very, very respected physician and researcher

In *your* dreams. Mercola's web site contains some of the most
preposterous medical articles I've seen on the web.

-- 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)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Moran said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery

_museum

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS(Eng)

I also have thirty years experience in breast surgery (but never inserting
implants myself) and assure you there are many women who desperately need
breast reconstrructions. Your blind, complete rejection of the simplest
way of achieving that has more to do with with your own biases and limited
knowledge of the field than medical needs.

Non-biological implants of various kinds are playing a larger and larger
part in medicine, and it is inevitable that an adequately safe beast implant
will eventually be developed, even if the presently available ones are
proved to have too many problems to enable their use in any but the most
needy patients. They are still, for example, in wide use in England in
post-mastectomy and other patients.

I am inclined to agree that plastic surgeons overdid their use in women who
proabably just needed counselling. Many women had their breast augmented
because they thought it would save a failing marriage. It never did, in my
observations.

We might postulate that Ilena, being flat-chested herself, has
concluded that because she can get along without 'em, so can
everyone else.

-- 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)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ilena Rose said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quac

kery_museum

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?
Let's see your webpages.)

Thanks for your highly biased, Quackbacked
two Aussie cents worth ... (for those unaware ... Aussie cents have
even less value than US) ...

He is a very, very respected physician and researcher

In *your* dreams. Mercola's web site contains some of the most
preposterous medical articles I've seen on the web.

Didn't Dr Stephen Barrett MD win a substantial settlement and retration from
Mercola?

Quoted message said:

-- David Wright

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Peter Moran said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>
>"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>>
http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quackery

_museum

Quoted message said:

>
>Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

>Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS(Eng)

I also have thirty years experience in breast surgery (but never inserting
implants myself) and assure you there are many women who desperately need
breast reconstrructions. Your blind, complete rejection of the simplest
way of achieving that has more to do with with your own biases and limited
knowledge of the field than medical needs.

Non-biological implants of various kinds are playing a larger and larger
part in medicine, and it is inevitable that an adequately safe beast implant
will eventually be developed, even if the presently available ones are
proved to have too many problems to enable their use in any but the most
needy patients. They are still, for example, in wide use in England in
post-mastectomy and other patients.

I am inclined to agree that plastic surgeons overdid their use in women who
proabably just needed counselling. Many women had their breast augmented
because they thought it would save a failing marriage. It never did, in my
observations.

We might postulate that Ilena, being flat-chested herself, has
concluded that because she can get along without 'em, so can
everyone else.

Its an exercise in futility. Its kinda like putting a crystal chandelier in a
haunted house.

Quoted message said:

-- David Wright

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Breasts Implants Belong in Quackery Museum
From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
Date: 4/10/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ilena Rose said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quac

kery_museum

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?
Let's see your webpages.)

Thanks for your highly biased, Quackbacked
two Aussie cents worth ... (for those unaware ... Aussie cents have
even less value than US) ...

He is a very, very respected physician and researcher

In *your* dreams. Mercola's web site contains some of the most
preposterous medical articles I've seen on the web.

David says this because he proves what Barrett says is all lies and opinions.

Jan

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Breasts Implants Belong in Quackery Museum
From: [email hidden] (I Dream of Ilsa9)
Date: 4/10/2004 4:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ilena Rose said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>
>"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>>

Quoted message said:

>http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quac

kery_museum

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

>Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?
Let's see your webpages.)

Thanks for your highly biased, Quackbacked
two Aussie cents worth ... (for those unaware ... Aussie cents have
even less value than US) ...

He is a very, very respected physician and researcher

In *your* dreams. Mercola's web site contains some of the most
preposterous medical articles I've seen on the web.

Didn't Dr Stephen Barrett MD win a substantial settlement and retration from
Mercola?

If you weren't so lazy, you could look it up.

No. that's just ANOTHER lie.

http://www.healthfreedomlaw.com/Court%20Documents/Mercola/Dismissal/Dismis
sal.JPG

Jan

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

We might postulate that Ilena, being flat-chested herself

It takes a lowness of character to start wth this kind of personal trashing.

Quoted message said:

When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it

generates comments about your own.
David Wright

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:49:15 GMT, [email hidden] (David

Wright) said:

In *your* dreams. Mercola's web site contains some of the most
preposterous medical articles I've seen on the web.

-- David Wronger Than wright

Try the Quack sites healthwatcher.net and quackwatch.com ... it will
expand the meaning of preposterous for you.

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 07:24:06 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Your blind, complete rejection of the simplest

Quoted message said:

way of achieving that has more to do with with your own biases and limited
knowledge of the field than medical needs.

I have no blinders on with regards to implants... there is no shortage
of information on the benefits ...

The manufacturers and PS's hire plenty of propagandists to implant
into the media the benefits ... and I've communicated with thousands
and thousands of women worldwide with implant experience.

It's the huge downside that concerns me .... especially to women post
mastectomy ... the worst candidates.

With at least one of these women
3 women needing even more surgery within just 5 years ... and the
high rejection rate ... the risks are considerable. I've had women
tell me that they've lost their breasts three times... once in
surgery, then when their first implants fail ... then the second set
goes.

The women are left scarred and in worse shape ... and having endured
several surgeries ...

What medical need does a breast implant fulfill?

Quoted message said:

Non-biological implants of various kinds are playing a larger and larger
part in medicine, and it is inevitable that an adequately safe beast implant
will eventually be developed, even if the presently available ones are
proved to have too many problems to enable their use in any but the most
needy patients. They are still, for example, in wide use in England in
post-mastectomy and other patients.

They are in wide use in the US ... with horrific consequences.

Quoted message said:

But medicine is always work in progress, with advances and retreats, always
getting there in the end. .

O really ...?

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article

<[email hidden]>
,

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran said:

"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 17:50:35 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>
>"Ilena Rose" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>>

Quoted message said:

http://www.mercola.com/blog/2003/jul/10/breasts_implants_belong_in_quacker

y

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

_museum

Quoted message said:

>
>Mercola is one of the most unreliable opinions around.

>Peter Moran

In your dreams.

(Never seen your credentials posted Pete ... what are they?

MB BS BSc(Med) FRACS FRCS(Eng)

I also have thirty years experience in breast surgery (but never

inserting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

implants myself) and assure you there are many women who desperately need
breast reconstrructions. Your blind, complete rejection of the simplest
way of achieving that has more to do with with your own biases and

limited

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

knowledge of the field than medical needs.

Non-biological implants of various kinds are playing a larger and larger
part in medicine, and it is inevitable that an adequately safe beast

implant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

will eventually be developed, even if the presently available ones are
proved to have too many problems to enable their use in any but the most
needy patients. They are still, for example, in wide use in England

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

post-mastectomy and other patients.

I am inclined to agree that plastic surgeons overdid their use in women

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

proabably just needed counselling. Many women had their breast augmented
because they thought it would save a failing marriage. It never did, in

my

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

observations.

We might postulate that Ilena, being flat-chested herself, has
concluded that because she can get along without 'em, so can
everyone else.

One does wonder. You would expect Ilena to have some sympathy for at least
some of her sisters who seek implants, or at least some type of
reconstructive breast surgery. That is of necesssity more major if
implants are not used, with much more extensive scarring,. .

A young women with a nicely formed right breast and a completely absent left
breast; what do you do? Post-mastectomy, women can't go swimming or
wear a nice evening gown because their chest is so lopsided.

Everyone will have a different threshold at which they might think surgery
for appearance sake only is justified. Mine was always a good bit higher
than was the norm about ten years ago, but the results were often so
brilliant, and there were so many women showing off new breasts to their
mates that plastic surgeons could scarcely keep up. There were bad results
too, of course..

Peter Moran