~~~ The Humantics Foundation joins the Regush family in mourning the
loss of this wonderful man and fine investigative journalist ~~~

From October, 2003

Another Silicone Rally  

Is All of the Evidence In on Breast Implants and Disease?  

Despite the pronouncement of a blue-ribbon panel, the debate over
silicone breast implants will continue until long-term research
results
are in.  

Despite the pronouncement of a blue-ribbon panel, the debate over
silicone breast implants will continue until long-term research
results
are in.  

By Nicholas Regush ABCNEWS.com Junk science, junk journalism, junk
opinion, junk thinking. Quite a week for garbage pickup. And therefore
yet another occasion to demand a high-profile public debate, but more
on
that later.  The junk science I’m referring to is displayed well in
the new Institute of Medicine report on breast implants. The media zoo
that followed represents the worst in medical reporting I’ve seen in
years. And the so-called experts who stood up for the report  should
be
the envy of junkyard dealers everywhere.  

All in all, it was a rough day for the many women who have attributed
their illnesses to breast implants. They were trashed by  junk
thinking.  

Which, of course, immediately transports me to the front page of  The
New York Times, where, on Monday, reporter Gina Kolata scooped the
world
with her rendition of the institute panel’s report on breast
implants.
Junior Reporter

We learned at the top of her story that an independent panel of
scientists had concluded that silicone breast implants do not cause
serious illness. The panel, however, did point to the tendency of the
implants to rupture or deflate, and to lead to infection, hardening
and
scarring of breast tissue.  Well, hurrah for Kolata. She got right
what
the panel concluded. But as any junior reporter should know, and a
so-called “newspaper  of recordâ€? should expect from its reporters,
a
few probing questions about the nature of the science underlying the
panel’s report might be appropriate.  In fact, an editorial in the
Times the next day at least suggests that the conclusions reached by
the
panel represented the available science and that new studies might put
a
different face on implant problems. And it mentions that a long-term
National Cancer Institute study under way might be important in
resolving the controversy. Where’s the Harm? One mistake in
Kolata’s
report is that she doesn’t make a distinction between proof of harm
and proof of safety. Just because the  available studies suggest
there’s a lack of evidence of serious illness linked to the implants
doesn’t mean the implants are safe.  

Kolata should know by now (after many years of science reporting) that
in this country the onus is on the manufacturers to prove safety. And
this usually means quality, long-term studies with large populations.
Kolata should have informed her readers that the overall science
surrounding breast implants has been inadequate and highly
contentious.
But maybe she just doesn’t get it.  

The sad fact is that the type of available science to date on breast
implants wouldn’t qualify as strong evidence for the safety of any
prescription drug or medical device on the market today. Because
implant
manufacturers didn’t bother to do appropriate research before
doctors
started performing breast-enhancement or reconstructive surgery,
science
has been playing catch-up.  Usually when this happens, the data are
controversial because the companies fund the studies, and they’re
done
quickly and often with small numbers of subjects. Junkyard Dogging

This is what I term “junk science.â€? It is science that is geared
to
support points of view. It is highly politicized science. And because
junk science doesn’t prove safety, then so what?  

The IOM panel should have adopted this “so what?â€? attitude.
Instead, it reviewed the available science as though it truly meant a
lot. It doesn’t. The panel should have concluded that women with
breast implants got a raw deal from the start and are still getting a
raw deal because the required standards for evidence of safety
haven’t
been adequately fulfilled. And that until that evidence is in, we
should
adopt the cautionary principle and continue to view the relationship
between serious illness and implants as a plausible hypothesis.  This
also means that any science showing a link between implants and
serious
disease has to be taken, at the very least, as hypothesis-generating.
The truth won’t be known until good and verifiable evidence becomes
available. Angell Eyes Naturally, this complex kind of issue gets
muddied by junk media.  I have the impression that Kolata’s dismally
incomplete article served as a staging site for much of the reporting
that has gone on this week. Junk in, junk out.  

And then the so-called experts come on board, including The  New
England
Journal of Medicine’s Dr. Marcia Angell. This is someone who makes a
very big deal of the studies that have been done, including several
published in her own journal. Angell is convinced that the available
science showing there is no link between serious disease and implants
is
A-OK.  

Well, Doc, let’s do this: let’s you and I debate this issue
publicly.  The two of us. Face to face. Let’s examine the science
and
the concepts of harm and safety. You put your medical reputation on
the
line and I’ll put my reporting reputation on the line. Let’s find
the proper venue and ABCNEWS.com will videocast the debate  live for
the
world to see and hear. Do you have what it takes to fence with a
science
writer who has covered the breast implant story all the way back to
the
early 1980s? I think not. Dr. Munoz Rises to the Challenge In this
vein,
I’m extremely pleased to announce that Dr. Rodrigo  Munoz of the
American Psychiatric Association has agreed to  debate me on the issue
of antidepressant drugs and children.  This debate will likely take
place at APA meetings in New Orleans in October and will be videocast
by
ABCNEWS.com. If the APA takes me seriously enough to agree to a
debate,
then there  shouldn’t be any reason for Angell to ignore my
challenge.  

But if Angell should feel a tad inadequate to the task, then I’ll
even
encourage her to tag team with Gina Kolata of The New York Times.
I’m
still waiting to hear from the discoverers of the hepatitis C  virus
about my challenge to debate them on their so-called virus,  which
they
have not come close to proving actually exists. I’m beginning to
wonder if they too have deep-rooted doubts about their
“discovery.â€?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org