Myrl Jeffcoat wisgroup_leader@yahoo.com

Written by Myrl Jeffcoat

for: "In the Know" and "Command Trust"

http://www.beautyandthebreast.org

January 14, 2008

For more than a decade now, I have watched women who harmed by silicone breast implants try to sort out the illness and symptoms they experienced post-implantation, try to separate real dragons from the paper ones. What disease and symptomatic conditions really do come from silicone and breast implants? Since 1995, I have been a conduit of scientific studies and evidential material that fall into my hands, distributing the information among women made ill by implants. More than one doctor or scientist has appeared on the scene heeding the call for help figure it out, but they have mostly been beaten down or back by an army of defendant-supported doctors and scientists. So, who is right and who is wrong?

Looking back (and for many years, I have) has allowed me some clarity. I would like to share a little of it here, for the benefit of those who find themselves corralled in monstrous product-liability class action suits, which are not so different from those breast implant victims have endured for so many years.

In the breast implant litigation – and, I think, in all product-liability litigation centered on health – the science brought into judicial process had an agenda. Scientists brought their knowledge and expertise into the courtroom either for the benefit of the defendants or the plaintiffs. Those agendas presented an overwhelming barrier for the victims who needed to know what their real health issues were or were not. And the competing agendas obscured accuracy and truth, preventing the identification of meaningful paths to wellness for the victims.

The silicone breast litigation also showed that the best evidence of disease is likely found in the evidence files, the actual medical records of the victims themselves, and the "discovery" material that comes out during trial and litigation. For instance, in the case of breast implants, more often than not the most damning scientific material came from the manufacturers themselves. And just as often, there was evidence of their acting to stop studies that were not heading towards the findings they wished for or that were in fact demonstrating very real harm to study subjects. Among the litigation documents were actual memos between manufacturer entities demonstrating such attempts even as they were continuing to push for the marketing of their harmful products.

The global settlement for breast-implanted women was set up to apply only to a special moment in time. It’s available to the implanted women who received breast implants and became ill from them during that critical window before the deadline to sign-up, and only covered the medical conditions they had in that moment. It did not clearly address what to do with women who received their implants before the class action and/or didn’t become ill until considerably later. More than once, I have seen women who were significantly ill at the time of settlement return to decent health after a few years. Yet others, who weren’t so ill at the time of settlement later become significantly more ill, but received nothing from the settlement to help them weather their plight.

The lesson from the breast implant litigation is that given the murkiness of agenda-driven science, the case should not have focused on the victims’ health. Rather, it should have focused on the evidence that laid a clear path to manufacturers committing fraud and showing reckless disregard for the safety, health and lives of their customers. Not only would this have helped the breast-implant victims better understand their medical conditions to help them seek proper treatment, it would have put all breast-implant victims on a more equal footing, and helped more women over a longer period of time.