 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / September 2005health canada seeks comments on silicone breast implants
Health Canada has invited individuals and organizations to comment on the safety, risks and benefits of silicone gel-filled breast implants that are currently under review by Health Canada. To register to be part of this public consultation process, and for more details, please visit: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/md-im/activit/sci-consult/implant-breast- mammaire/implants_e.html Note: DEADLINE FOR REGISTRATION IS SEPTEMBER 9, 2005. ~~~~~~~~ http://www.cwhn.ca Thanks so much Zee ... I'll send this out again to my group ... I've heard that a few of our women will be there. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org >Health Canada has invited individuals and organizations to comment on >the safety, risks and benefits of silicone gel-filled breast implants [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >http://www.cwhn.ca Online and written submissions from individuals would be very helpful too. Zee > Thanks so much Zee ... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > >http://www.cwhn.ca Very good idea ... I'm hearing from women already. Thanks very much, Zee. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org >Online and written submissions from individuals would be very helpful >too. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> > >> >http://www.cwhn.ca > Health Canada has invited individuals and organizations to comment on > the safety, risks and benefits of silicone gel-filled breast implants [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.cwhn.ca COMMENT: Get your comments in, folks. For democracy is that system where everybody gets what only the majority deserve. And in Canada, medicine has been democratized. Do you women NEED silicone in your breast implants? Or is is merely something you only WANT? Silicone has risks, albeit unquantitated ones. Your question: is silicone a mere "lifestyle" filler? If so, then why would you rationally put your lives at risk? Vote it down! Forbid all to have it! That is the way of social community needs-awareness networks. SBH > > Health Canada has invited individuals and organizations to comment on > > the safety, risks and benefits of silicone gel-filled breast implants [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > SBH Make up your mind. From rant #2: "Why don't we get some input from patients themselves, as to the tradeoffs between safety and lifestyle, ..." > Make up your mind. From rant #2: > > "Why don't we get some input from > patients themselves, as to the tradeoffs between safety and lifestyle, > ..." ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. Deciding if a sports car or snowmobile is too risky for the pleasure it gives you to drive it, is NOT a proper thing for your "community" to decide. I don't care how much "grass-roots" input your politicians get. All that does is make an essentially perverse process maginally more palitable. It doesn't fix the essential wrongness and wrongheadedness of it. Yes, I know we have seatbelt laws. Yes, I know we have the war on drugs. The fact that we're far down the path of privacy invasion doesn't necessarily mean that any old thing we want to do, is fine. There are some things it's just indecent to let your community decide. What drugs you can or can't ingest. What color your bathroom is. Who you sleep with. How squishy your tits can legally be. It's an outrage. Why aren't you outraged? SBH > > Make up your mind. From rant #2: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > SBH I am. You didn't ask pre-rant. No-one. Absolutely no-one, tells me what I can and cannot do. I don't think, to take just one of your examples, that women should have to settle for *dangerous* squishy tits. Let's get a real option for them. If this is real, then let's find out. If not let's find out how we go about safer tits. Zee zee Zee > > > Make up your mind. From rant #2: > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I am. You didn't ask pre-rant. No-one. Absolutely no-one, tells me what > I can and cannot do. COMMENT: Sure they can. If they sue Dow out business, then later decide they were wrong, nobody pays them back. The government doesn't apologize. You know, DOW got sucessfully bankrupted for allegedly *knowing* but NOT TELLING all the safety things that we're still not sure about, and have admitted that NOBODY really knows. Why doesn't THAT outrage you? Because it's a big nasty corporation, and who gives a damn? Unless you want it to make something for you? And if your Health Canada doesn't approve the things again, out of sheer inertia, they they ARE telling you what you can do. You can't have them, even if you want them. Even if you're willing to sign a paper, saying you're aware of the risks and won't sue, like you do before your first skydive, you can't have them. The COLLECTIVE has decided it knows what's best for you. > I don't think, to take just one of your examples, that women should > have to settle for *dangerous* squishy tits. COMMENT: "DANGEROUS" is like "beautiful". Not only is it in the eye of the beholder, but it's a totally relative term. Everything is dangerous to some degree, even sitting on your butt doing nothing. The question is HOW MUCH danger are you willing to tolerate? And in exchange for WHAT? Which is worth WHAT to you? How can the collective decide THOSE things for you? Is seeing the Canyons of Kauai from the air worth the risk of a helicopter ride? Is having the experience of parasailing worth the risk of trying it? Why should the government, or your neighbors, be involved in deciding that? Any more than they are in your decision to risk your life to bear a child? > Let's get a real option for them. If this is real, then let's find out. If > not let's find out how we go about safer tits. COMMENT: All risks are real options. I'm sure whatever tits out there are less risky than riding the space shuttle. Perhaps we should forbid THAT to women because the fairer sex needs special protection from danger (and from making decisions about what dangers are "real options.") Everytime I hear NASA say they're not going to fly the thing again until it's SAFE, I want to barf. That's public spin. Maybe they believe it. Maybe the word doesn't mean the same thing to them that it does to me. Maybe it's shorhand for "safe enough for how bad I want to do it". Which is actually a rational concept, but dependent on individual (not collective) desires and values. But that goes for silicone tits, too. Why are you having such difficulty with this concept? SBH > > > > Make up your mind. From rant #2: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > SBH Because it's my body they'd go in (if...) so I have more at stake than whether or not they're squishy. Choice, and safest options. Note: safe(st). Your take here is the same as with statins; you think its statins or death. Black and white thinking Stevie. But as to whether or not this Health Canada initiative is worthwhile, I agree it isn't. But I don't stop those who want to still believe they have some say in how these things are done with giving it a try. Just because I'm jaded... These focus groups and reasonable facsimilies are almost always a waste of taxpayers money. Pharma decides. And the lackeys who are on their payroll carry out their interests. The rest of your blather is just carcinogen laden smoke from a wet wood fire. > Because it's my body they'd go in (if...) so I have more at stake than > whether or not they're squishy. Choice, and safest options. Note: > safe(st). Your take here is the same as with statins; you think its > statins or death. Black and white thinking Stevie. I've always talked about statins in terms of % mortality risk reduction, and you know it. SBH "fresh~horses" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message > The rest of your blather is just carcinogen laden smoke from a wet wood > fire. Like burning Sweetgrass? An evil practice (even done in hospitals by alternative practitioners) that I assume you find disgusting. Either that or the above is a sincere compliment. Which? moo >Sure they can. If they sue Dow out business, then later decide they >were wrong, nobody pays them back. That's one of the two arms of their vast PR Campaign ... "Poor poor Dow is anything but "out of business" ... in the last 10 years 'protected' by bankruptcy ... they have vastly explaned their silicone and other businesses at great financial gains ... As far as breast implants ... they are a very dangerous, non life saving med device with huge complication rates ... including massive infections, necrosis, immune breakdown and too frequently death. The FDA is currently ignoring their own scientists who do not believe the short studies by Mentor prove anything about their safety ... On most of Mentor's so called 'studies' they would drop from the 'study' any woman who had her implants removed ... On another ... their follow up rate was an abyismal 5%. Fibromyaligia ... a painful and debillitating disease has been linked to ruptured implants ... as have high rates of suicide, and brain and lung cancers. www.BreastImplantAwareness.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.