Implant Maker Hid Defects From the Archives (2005)

Implant Maker Hid Defects, Workers Said
By GARDINER HARRIS MAY 22, 2005
Two former employees of a major manufacturer of silicone breast implants said in sworn depositions in 2003 that the company for years made defective implants that were prone to rupture and hid this information from customers and federal regulators.

Read the full article here:

"Implant Maker Hid Defects, Workers Said" New York Times Archive 2005

They knew in 1989 That Implants May Pose Risk Of Later Harm

Science : New York Times 1989

Data Suggest That Implants May Pose Risk Of Later Harm

By SANDRA BLAKESLEE

Published: July 25, 1989

The following quote comes from an article published in the Science section of the New York Times in 1989 when Science looked very different to the "FAKE" science surrounding breast implants today. 

Ruptured PIP breast implants

"...When a material is implanted, it sits in a protein-rich bath found throughout body tissues. Immediately, proteins begin sticking to the surface of the device and, after several hours, it is coated in a mixture of proteins. Depending on the type of material, physical interactions involving charged particles and magnetic fields occur between the implant's surface and the proteins. The interaction is sufficiently energetic to alter the shape of proteins sticking to the implant, so that the proteins expose binding sites that attract other circulating proteins designed to recognize trouble.

One set of circulating proteins initiates blood clots and covers the implant with thick layers of scar tissue called fibrin. 

Over a period of years, according to the accumulating evidence, the body's reaction to an implant can cause significant health problems in some patients.

Chronic inflammation, researchers say, can literally eat away bone. Some implant recipients suffer chronic, intermittent low-grade fevers. Some people seem highly tolerant of their implants but then experience flare ups years later. 

Implants can also become infected with bacteria many years after surgery. Dental surgery, for instance, can release bacteria that end up on the implant, causing an abcess-like condition. The failure of artificial hearts has been linked to chronic infections in most of the patients who received them. 

Problems With Breast Implants 

Many women who receive breast implants develop hard lumps, the result of scarring, that have to be cracked by hand. The silicone gel used in implants sometimes leaks, migrating to lymph nodes and other tissues.

Doctors also warn that is it extremely difficult to detect cancer in women with breast implants because the implant obscures small tumors. Two studies have found that when women with implants develop cancer, their prognosis is worse than women without implants, possibly because their tumors were not detected as early as would have been possible without the implant.

At the same time, a system of 18 circulating proteins, called complement, is activated in an acute inflammatory response to the surgery. The implant area gets red, hot, swollen and painful. Macrophages, or scavenger cells, ''graze'' on the fibrin coated implant, producing peroxide and other destructive forms of oxygen. Eventually the macrophages communicate with and activate other specialized proteins involved in inflammation and immunity. "...

Read the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/25/science/data-suggest-that-implants-may-pose-risk-of-later-harm.html?pagewanted=all&mcubz=0

Reporting Adverse Events Linked to Your Implants

Adverse event reporting is supposed to help the health & safety regulators identify potential problems. Not enough reports were being made all the time PIP were being used. In the UK the MHRA say they have been and will continue to monitor adverse event reports from PIP women. Most women have no idea they are able to report adverse events linked with their implants. But if we dont report our bleeds, ruptures, our lymph node surgeries and symptoms the MHRA and the government will continue to ignore us and our symptoms. 

If you have experienced an adverse effect you associate with your PIP implants, please report them and ask your GP and/or surgeon to do the same. 

Lets do it everyone! Report Yours!  ♡

♥ Together we can make a difference!

In the UK Report Yours to MHRA using this link

https://www.gov.uk/report-problem-medicine-medical-device

In France report adverse events to ANSM

In Australia report adverse events to TGA
https://apps.tga.gov.au/prod/mdir/udir03.aspx

In Germany report adverse events to Bfarm

In the USA report adverse events to FDA

In Sweden report adverse events to MPA

Please refer to your Medical Devices Regulatory authority if your country is not shown here.

Dear Emily❊

“More than 100,000 women and their families in the European Union have been affected by the PIP fraud,

I am one of these women, this is my story...”

PIP Action Campaign made a complaint to the EU Ombudsman regarding the treatment of the women affected by PIP implants. It is clear that the European Commission is not responding to the PIP crisis with honesty, credible science or compassion.

We are encouraging all women affected by PIP implants to write to Emily O’Reilly the EU Ombudsman with details of their own personal stories and experiences of PIP.

We want to let the authorities know the extent to which the current policy has added to the stress and horror of PIP for each and every one of us.

We would like everyone affected to take part and add their voice. Of course, the more women who write the better.

We know that behind every PIP implant there is a broken heart. This is why each “Dear Emily” letter will be a painful, emotional and a courageous act.

But we hope it will make a difference Dear Emily.

Lets try it and see!
Full details of PIP Action Campaign’s complaint to the Ombudsman, reference 174/2015/FOR, can be found on the Ombudsman website. In the final decision Emily O’Reilly stated “The Commission should continue to evaluate new scientific data relating to the safety of PIP implants." And that’s what we want!

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/decision.faces/en/61195/html.bookmark

To contact Dear Emily, the EU Ombudsman, use the contact form on the Ombudsman website. 

You can type into the form or you can attach a file.
Find the Contact form here:
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/shortcuts/contacts.faces

You will also find web links to the Contact Form on all PIP Action Campaign & PIPSLEAK social networks.

If you have been affected by the PIP fraud you are invited to take part.

What? Chemicals in Implants? Are they SAFE?

What chemicals & what manufacturing procedures were used by PIP in manufacturing fraudulent implants? ANYONE KNOW?

Doctor Brawer in the USA says:

The Australian Regulator (TGA) did some tests on PIP

From TGA Australia

TGA on Cyclic Siloxanes D4, D5, D6

Presence of D4, D5 and D6 siloxanes
AFSSAPS noted that some batches of unauthorised gels contained higher amounts of small silicone molecules (called low molecular weight siloxanes) than the authorised gel. Thus, the TGA is testing the gels to determine the presence of D4, D5 and D6 siloxanes. Test results from GC-MS analyses indicate D4 is present in the gels of PIP breast implants at between 0 and 261ppm, with a median of 136ppm. D5 is present between 0-710ppm, with a median of 434ppm. D5 is present between 0 and 1005, with a median of 470ppm. There does not seem to be any relationship between the year of manufacture of the gel and the presence of D4, D5 and D6 siloxanes. These values could change with the testing of further samples.
Information provided by the suppliers of the raw materials, which were used to produce the gel used in PIP breast implants, together with more recent detailed information provided to the TGA by AFSSAPS, does suggest that the TGA findings are a reasonable estimate of the content of these siloxanes.

http://www.tga.gov.au/alert/pip-breast-implants-tga-update-2-april-2012

The SCENIHR report reproduced this table showing the concentrations of D4, D5 and D6

Published in SCENIHR 

Can EU identify EDC's Staring Them in the Face?

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY
Brussels, 22th of July 2015 

Report on public consultation on defining criteria for identifyingendocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the Plant Protection Product Regulation and Biocidal Products Regulation

This consultation was different from other public consultations in that respondents were asked to provide data (for example methodologies used to select endocrine disrupting substances or to identify the socio-economic impact of identified endocrine disruptors). No specific questions were included that asked respondents’ opinions. This report cannot, therefore, provide quantitative information on the views held by different stakeholders. 

"The socio-economic impact of identified endocrine disruptors" limiting jobs for poisoning women and harming children! 

A risk-based approach for regulating endocrine disruptors was proposed by many respondents who identified themselves as farmers, private companies, industrial or trade organisations, or authorities in non-EU countries. Many respondents supported the use of the WHO/IPC 2002 definition as a starting point for defining an endocrine disruptor.  

That's a very interesting figure DG Health & Food Safety ... "Many Respondents" 

EU Priorities for Health

SPEECH - 16 July 2015By COMMISSIONER 

Vytenis Andriukaitis

(2014-2019)Health & Food Safety

Speaking points on priorities for Health - European Policy Centre -

I have already said that on many occasions – a high level of health protection in all EU policies and activities is enshrined in the treaty. What does this mean in practice? For me it means that I need to strive for health to be included in all policy areas. I need to ensure that the Commission puts the health of European citizens first.
I personally made a commitment before the European Parliament to pursue Prevention, Promotion, and Protection in relation to health.