Diana Zuckerman dz@center4research.org
18 mai, 2006 09:55
Who pays for the research influences the outcome -- and lack of safeguards for implants
Dear Friends,
We were glad to have a letter to the editor published in the Washington Post health section. They had a short article describing a new study that concluded that breast implants aren't linked to cancer. We pointed out that the study was one of 40 funded by the major silicone manufacturer in America, all of which concluded that silicone implants are safe. We also pointed out new, independently funded research that shows reason for concern.
We also had a letter to the editor published in the LA Times, in response to an excellent article about the lack of safeguards for prescription drugs. We pointed out that the same safeguards are lacking for medical implants and vaccines.
Best wishes,
Diana
Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.
President
National Research Center for Women & Families
1701 K Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 223-4000
Remember us when you donate to United Way or CFC -- we're # 9884
Washington Post Health Section
Interactions
Tuesday, May 9, 2006; HE02
More to Know About Breast Implants
Quick Study is a great resource, but sometimes ["Silicone does not seem to raise the risk of cancer in women," May 2] important points are missed.
After a successful class action breast implant lawsuit against them, Dow Corning has funded more than 40 research articles on breast implants. All include one or more authors from the new study and all conclude that breast implants are safe. In contrast, researchers who do not have financial conflicts consistently report implant problems.
Cancer is not the only concern. The National Cancer Institute found a more than doubling of suicides among women with breast implants compared to other plastic surgery patients. And a new study in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal, Analytical Chemistry, found toxic levels of platinum in the breast milk, urine, hair and nails of women with silicone gel breast implants. Platinum is used in the manufacture of breast implants.
Diana Zuckerman, PhD
President,
National Research Center for Women & Families
Washington
Editor's Note: The Quick Study report should have noted that the institute that funded the study has received support from Dow Corning.
------------------------
Los Angeles Times,
To the editor:
As a former congressional investigator who initiated hearings on FDA issues, I have seen FDA morale rise and fall through the years, but it has certainly been at an all-time low in recent months. Lack of safeguards and political interference are not just issues for prescription drugs, however.
As baby boomers near retirement age, their increased reliance on implanted medical devices also necessitates a permanent commissioner and a focus on science.
Whatever the FDA is reviewing, long-term safety data are essential. Unfortunately, such data are rarely required by today's FDA.
In addition, fears about the avian flu should remind us that the FDA needs to focus its resources on safe and effective vaccines as well. The Plan B controversy is the tip of the iceberg. All FDA decisions need to be based on solid science, not ideology or industry pressure. That is true for medical devices and vaccines as much as for prescription drugs.
DIANA ZUCKERMAN
President
National Research Center
for Women & Families
Washington
