General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

FDA's silicone vote not binding

Started by Ilena · · Last activity · 2 posts · 252 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
3 November 2003
Last activity
5 November 2003
Original author
Ilena
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
252
Views / 30 days
0

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

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://www.sagamore.iupui.edu/33_12/viewPoints/lettEdit_fdaSilicone.html

    FDA's silicone vote not binding

    To the Editor:

    Thank you for your excellent editorial. After spending two days at
    the FDA's meeting on silicone breast implants on October 14-15, I too
    was amazed at the corporate indifference to women's health.
    Unfortunately, many of the plastic surgeons were equally indifferent,
    insisting that implants were safe despite the heartbreaking testimony
    of women who had traveled at their own expense to tell their stories.

    The 9-6 vote recommending approval is not binding. Of the 15 panel
    members who voted, most of those who voted for approval were plastic
    surgeons or breast surgeons – clearly they had a conflict of interest.
    Even so, those voting in favor demanded additional research to
    determine whether the implants are safe. Those voting against
    approval included a toxicologist, radiologist, epidemiologist,
    statistician, cancer surgeon, and dermatologist. They stated that the
    company should prove that the implants are safe before the FDA
    approves them.That happens to be what the law requires.

    The next step is for the FDA to decide whether or not to approve
    silicone gel implants for the first time.Unfortunately, the press
    coverage was unclear on that point. We have heard that plastic
    surgeons are already telling patients that silicone gel implants are
    now FDA-approved. They are not. They are still restricted, and the 9-6
    vote is relatively close, making it unclear what the FDA will do.

    There are many reasons to be concerned. In the short term, breast
    implants can cause pain and often require additional surgery within
    three years. The greatest health risk of silicone gel implants is that
    they break, usually within ten years. If they leak inside the body,
    the silicone can get into the lungs, lymph nodes, and possibly brain.
    Nobody knows how that will affect health, but a study by the FDA found
    that women with leaking implants were more likely to have a painful
    autoimmune disease called fibromyalgia. Also, when the silicone gets
    into the breast area, it can be very difficult to remove, and many
    women have been deformed as a result.

    For science-based information about the risks of breast implants,
    please see www.breastimplantinfo.org

    Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., is Presidnet of the National Center for Policy
    Research for Women & Families

    ~~~~~~~~

    For more info on the FDA debacle, the Dow Bankruptcy and links to
    other studies and implant related sites, please visit:

    www.BreastImplantAwareness.org

  2. "Ilena" <[email hidden]> clucked in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    http://www.sagamore.iupui.edu/33_12/viewPoints/lettEdit_fdaSilicone.html

    FDA's silicone vote not binding
    To the Editor:

    Thank you for your excellent editorial. After spending
    two days at the FDA's meeting on silicone breast implants
    on October 14-15, I too was amazed at the corporate
    indifference to women's health. [...]

    When the FDA has banned silicone breast implants,
    lotsa wimmins were [censored] that _that_ action showed
    "corporate indifference to women's health".

    Sheesh!

    As for the Dow Chemical lawsuits, those were based
    on emotionalism and swaying jurors, not science. The
    science shows that silicone breast implants do not
    pose the sort of hazard that the anti-implant feminists
    hysterically claim.

    The reality is that feminists resent women who want
    to be attractive. The most agitated of those feminists
    want to ban anything that women who seek to be
    attractive want -- call it more feminist Beauty Myth
    cow cr*p! All such feminists do, besides punish
    women who dissent from the feminist orthodoxy,
    is prove Rush correct.

    Feminism was established as to allow
    unattractive women easier access
    to the mainstream of society.

    #24 in Rush Limbaugh's "35 Undeniable Truths"
    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur52.htm

    Oh well, once again we see that all excuses for feminism
    depend on the stupidity of their swallowers -- and there's
    a lot of excuse swallowers with soaring stupidity indexes
    on university faculties!

    --
    Naomi Wolf came out with that ridiculous book
    _The Beauty Myth_, in which she basically blamed men
    and the entire advertising industry for the fact that
    women had to remain thin and beautiful all their lives.
    But for millions of years, men have been attracted
    to women who look youthful. That was an evolutionary
    adaptive response on men's part because clear eyes,
    white teeth, smooth skin, a youthful appearance indicated
    that the woman was more likely to have fresher eggs
    and more likely to bear viable young. As a result, men
    have forever been attracted to women who look healthy
    and young. If the New York City advertising, cosmetic
    and clothing industries fell into the Hudson River
    tomorrow morning, women would recreate them, because
    the female human animal instinctively seeks
    to look youthful, healthy and attractive.

    Helen Fisher, Ph. D., anthropologist and author of
    _The Sex Contract: The Evolution of Human Behavior_
    as quoted in _Good Will Toward Men_ by Jack Kammer,
    New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994;
    page 27.
    http://www.erols.com/jkammer/index.html

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.