My statement is correct as stated. The study detected no statistically
significant difference in relative risk for connective tissue disorders.
Consequently, it supports the conclusion that implants are not connected
to connective tissue disorders. You could quibble with that, but here's
one thing you can't quibble with. It certainly it does NOT support
support the conclusion that implants are associated with connective
tissue disorders.

Oh, BTW, I've read the whole article--the original study. Have you?

Sadly? I feel your pain ... and it's as real as Vera Teasdale's (the
woman Terry Polevoy prances around here pretending to be) ovaries.

More Hogwash Dave Gorski ... if I posted my own work, then you
Professional Quack Whiners would whine about that.

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm

Breast Implants: America's Silent Epidemic
 
by Ilena Rosenthal

Daily my phone rings and my email overflows with urgent and painful
calls from women just awakening from the ether of their breast
implants. Although their first surgeries may have been decades ago,
they are finally emerging from the web of deceit that their plastic
surgeons and the silicone manufacturers have woven through the media
for years in a brilliant, expensive public relations coup of enormous
proportions.

Now reality has struck as they join scores of thousands of ill and
disfigured women in learning the hidden truth - their cherished breast
implants may cost them their insurance, their health, their beauty,
their vitality, their families, their careers, and too often, even
their lives.

Everything I have ever done or thought or studied for 47 years brought
me to November, 1995 when I created a Newsgroup
(alt.support.breast-implant) on the Internet to provide an
International Forum to discuss this perplexing issue and create a
place for the women to connect with each other. I had no idea of the
depth, breadth, or width of the Pandora's Box I was opening.

Five years later, after unknown thousands of communications from
women, doctors, loved ones, attorneys, supporters and tormentors
alike, I admit I am no longer without bias. I now know that a huge
fraud has and continues to be committed on women, and the background
on this issue reads like a non-fiction espionage bestseller.

No stranger to plastic surgery (first nose bob during my Dallas high
school years) I do not now, nor have I ever had implants. There, but
for the grace of God go I. A few million of our sisters have made that
choice for a variety of reasons.

However, two common denominators remain the same -- they were always
assured they were "safe" and the "risks minimal," and eerily, they
have come up against a medical establishment unwilling and unable to
cure their illnesses.

In 1992, after 30 years of unimpeded marketing, the FDA finally banned
silicone gel implants for most women. Because of the lobbying of the
manufacturers and plastic surgeons -- who flew in around 400 women to
lobby Washington DC on their behalf -- women post-mastectomy were and
are still allowed to get these unproven, highly risky medical devices.

Even though early studies were resurrected, long hidden by the
manufacturers, proving they knew that their implants would break,
immune reactions would occur, the gel would migrate, and even more
disturbing, could cross the placenta and affect the unborn fetuses,
almost never did this information make it to the women it could have
protected.

They also hired visible spokesdoctors to misled the public into
believing that implant rupture -- a devastating medical event -- was
"only 4-6%." They also claimed to examine and find "no association"
between implants and a myriad of painful and debilitating autoimmune
diseases suffered in disproportionate percentages.

In fact, the Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine,
Dr. Marcia Angell, chose to publish two very flawed, small and short
studies funded by those who stood the most to gain by the results. She
then promoted and defended these studies as if they were gospel in her
pro-manufacturer book, Science on Trial, and flooded the media with
this corporate science while branding a scarlet "Junk Scientist" on
any doctor who dared to dispute the "experts."

This PR campaign includes labeling the women "crazies" and their
leaders and supporters "fear mongers" and "wackos" so desperate are
they to destroy the credibility of any of us who dared to speak out on
the dangers. The result is that for years, women have been lulled into
a false belief, that they had a 95% chance of being rupture free. The
contrary is true.

Alarming, indisputable evidence was released in October 2000, when the
FDA published a landmark study of implanted women, many still without
symptoms. This objective work revealed that 69% of these women had at
least one ruptured implant, most without any knowledge of it, although
implanted a median time of less than 17 years.

Other studies had already revealed over a 90% chance of rupture within
20 years.

Hardly, the "lifetime" product they were promised.

The cover up continues to fall apart . . .

Dr. David Feigal, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health at the FDA, said it so clearly, "When it happens to you, the
rupture rate is 100 percent." By January 2000, over 127,000 women had
written the FDA about the serious complications from their silicone
gel implants.

The tragedy is that still today, they are unable to get good medical
care as the majority of doctors refuse to believe the connection. Even
worse, doctors don't have a clue what to do to heal these assaulted
immune systems and rid women's bodies of the dozens of dangerous
ingredients found in implants such as platinum, silica, formaldehyde,
plasticizers and organic solvents.

Implant formulations were frequently changed -- shells and gel thicker
then thinner then thicker again -- and "new and improved" was marketed
so often, it appears silicone merchants believed their own hype.

In the 80's, as "the" answer to capsular contracture, over 100,000
women received gel implants with polyurethane foam glued to them. Not
only did the foam disintegrate, often within just weeks of
implantation, but it broke down into TDA, a known carcinogen, decades
ago removed from hair dyes.

These women are amongst the most ill, and even when these dangerous
implants were hurriedly taken off the market in 1991, no recall or
even courtesy call was made to warn the implanted women.

The most recent implant disaster was exported to Europe, where well
over 5,000 women, mainly in Britain, were implanted with soy oil
filled implants, unlovingly known as "tofu titties." The American
protocol for this product required this new round of female "lab rats"
to be past childbearing age, but somewhere on it's way across the
Atlantic, this requirement was dropped.

Health advocates and cautious scientists were warning of the serious
potential dangers but were ignored and the "experts" made fortunes
implanting them even in very young women. Their bubble burst as
shocking reports and the rancid soy oil leaked out in Spring of 2000,
and all the women were advised to have them removed as quickly as
possible.

The damage to many had already been done. Now, like the millions with
failed gel implants, they are faced with yet another difficult
decision, should they replace them with saline filled implants? Is
Saline the Solution?

From her wheelchair, Jackie Strange, the former Deputy Postmaster
General of the United States spoke of the destruction of her life at
hearings by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of
Sciences in Washington, DC.

Infections, peripheral neuropathy, and a myriad of autoimmune diseases
struck in both rapid and slow succession following her implantation
with saline filled, silicone implants. Concurrently, the manufacturers
and plastic surgeons were creating a multi-media blitz touting saline
implants from billboards, glossy magazines and TV. With ads
reminiscent of "You've come a long way, baby," young women were
featured praising their implants and plastic surgeons did the Talk
Show circuit assuring women that saline was "natural" and leakage
benign.

In Spring, 2000, in spite of over 50,000 reports of serious adverse
reactions from water-filled implants, the FDA made the fateful
decision to give their highly valued stamp of "safety approval" on two
brands of saline implants, declaring them "safe enough." How can this
be?

The manufacturers own studies show that within just the first 3 years,
nearly 40% of post-mastectomy patients had to have additional
surgeries with these implants.

The complication rate for these women is around 80% in just 4 years
time. After cancer, invasive surgery to remove the tumors, often
radiation and / or chemotherapy, the body is simply not strong enough
to handle this foreign invader.

Even for women wanting implants just for augmentation to boost their
self-esteem, the complication rates are staggering. Glamour Magazine,
in their November 2000 issue published a full page photo revealing a
saline filled implant, entirely black with aspergillus niger and other
fungi.

Breast Cancer and Implants - No Easy Answers

Nearly 200,000 American women -- our sisters, mothers, teachers,
lovers, daughters, friends -- will be diagnosed with breast cancer
this year. Cancer and implant survivor, retired Professor of Health
Education, Henrietta Farber, recently summarized the feelings of many
who know, "The cancer was challenging.

The implants almost killed me." While the manufacturers press releases
rage "The Case Against Implants Collapses," and try to close this ugly
chapter in medical history, the women, now united, have a plan of
their own. With the health of women and their offspring at stake,
Martha Murdock, Co-Founder of the National Silicone Implant Foundation
in Dallas, with four generations of her family affected by silicone
toxicity, says it best, "It's not over 'til we win."

Risks of Breast Implants

1. Implants can rupture during mammography.

2. Implants make routine self exams and mammography more difficult.
More views are necessary, meaning additional radiation each time.

3. Implant rupture can go undetected for years and silicone is known
to migrate through the lymph system and has been found in the brains,
spinal fluid, ovaries, livers, and other organs of implanted women.

4. Implants are not lifetime devices, and may need to be replaced
(even without systemic problems) more than once a decade.

5. At any time infections are possible, including fungal and
antibiotic resistant bacterial infestations.

6. Loss of breast sensation, especially around the nipple area is
reported, as well as hyper-senstivity to touch.

7. Capsular contracture can be very uncomfortable, to the point of
severe pain and deformation.

8. Many women have experienced severe necrosis and other forms of
breast tissue loss.

9. Many women have experienced serious autoimmune diseases post
implantation including: rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, multiple
sclerosis, Sjøgrens Syndrome (severe dry mouth, eyes, etc.), and
lupus.
Those women with pre-existing compromised immune systems are now
warned to avoid implants.

10. Disproportional numbers of implanted women have reported
neurological and cognitive complications, as well as endocrine
disruption including hysterectomies, miscarriage.

11. Children born of implanted women have experienced the same
autoimmune conditions and have been seriously inadequately studied.

12. Breast implants often negatively affect the ability to produce
milk for breast-feeding.

13. Health insurance carriers are routinely denying coverage for
implanted (and explanted) women.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't about you Dave Gorski ... it's about millions of women with
aging breast implants.

Here is what the authors said ... what you say is just Quacking.