General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

FDA's silicone vote not binding

Started by Ilena · · Last activity · 2 posts · 426 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
16 December 2003
Last activity
16 December 2003
Original author
Ilena
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
426
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. sagamore.iupui.edulettEdit 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:


    sagamore.iupui.edulettEdit 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"
    lectlaw.comcur52.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

    as quoted in _Good Will Toward Men_ by Jack Kammer, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994; page 27.
    erols.comindex.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.