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" 

PIP PUBLIC CONSULTATION

PUBLIC CONSULTATION on the preliminary opinion on the 'safety' of Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) Silicone Breast Implants (2013 update)

The European Commission has launched a public consultation on the above-mentioned preliminary opinion following the Stakeholder Dialogue Procedures (Annex IV to the Rules of Procedures) of the Scientific Committees.

Background

In 2012, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, SCENIHR, was asked for an update of theOpinion on the safety of Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) Silicone Breast Implants.

This was mainly due to the fact that the data available on PIP silicone breast implants was limited at the time of the opinion

In its 2012 Opinion, the SCENIHR concluded that the evidence to date, indicating a health risk for women with PIP silicone breast implants, was not strong. However there was some concern regarding an increased inflammation from ruptured PIP silicone breast implants. It was not possible to make a general risk benefit statement at that time. It was also concluded that the risk benefit assessment needs to be based on a patient by patient basis by the aesthetic surgeon, bearing in mind the time since the implantation and the psychological state of the patient.

The aim of this new Opinion is to update the rapid opinion from 2012 based on additional data produced by and collected from the Member States and other international fora, such as the International Laboratory Testing Panel for PIP breast implants.

Please note that this preliminary Opinion has been approved for public consultation in view of gathering specific comments and suggestions on the scientific basis of the opinion, as well as any other scientific information regarding the questions addressed to enable scientific Committees to focus on issues which need to be further investigated.

Submission of comments

All interested parties are invited to submit their comments and proposals on the preliminary opinion to the following website.

The deadline for submission of comments is 3 January 2014.

NOTA BENE:

1. In line with the transparency principle outlined in the Rules of Procedures of the Scientific Committees, all submissions and the names of the submitters in response to this public consultation may be made available to the general public via SANCO's website.

2. Only comments submitted in accordance with the Rules of Procedures (Annex IV) will be taken into account.

3. For more information

Top British doctors call for removal of every PIP breast implant

Women paying unacceptably high costs of CE & MHRA Regulatory Failures 

Calls for Government to remove all PIP breast implants Damning new research shows their shells are faulty putting women at risk

By JO MCFARLANE

PUBLISHED: 00:50, 7 April 2013 | UPDATED: 00:51, 7 April 2013

Mail on Sunday

"The doctors who conducted the research, including nanotechnology professor Alexander Seifalian and top plastic surgeon Professor Peter Butler, now say all PIPs should be removed... 

...The researchers, from the Royal Free Hospital in North London and University College London, tested the strength of the material in the PIPs... 

Senior surgeons last night said the study should be taken seriously amid claims that the NHS has been failing to address the needs of women."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305166/Top-doctors-removal-breast-implant-given-50-000-British-women.html#ixzz2Q6xsDE6r 

All PIP Implants must be REMOVED