Untitled Page
kids Nederland

Coalition of Silicone Survivors
COSSkids is onderdeel van Coalition of Silicone Survivors - Boulder Collorado USA
26 oktober 2016
Vol. 38, No.2, Winter 1995
Pages 274-290

Supported by a grant from the George and Irene Lindler Foundation (Houston). The authors are grateful to Pam Louis.
*Department of Neurology, Baylor College of Medicine, 6550 Fannin Street, Houston, Texas 77030
Classical rhetoric distinguishes five topics under which any issue may be addressed: definition, comparison, relationship, circumstance, and testimony. I propose to examine Human Adjuvant Disease (HAD) in light of these topics.

Human Adjuvant Disease (HAD) is an autoimmune condition associated with foreign materials in contact with the human body. Its existence must be inferred because the manufacturer’s package insert says it may occur [1]; numerous medical articles on the subject exist [2-11]; there have been improvements post-explant of foreign materials that have been implanted [12-14]; and in animals, immune stimulation activity of foreign materials has been demonstrated especially epoxyresins, oleoanilides (the cause of Spanish Oil syndrome), vinyl chlorides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and octamethylpolycyclicsiloxane (D4), and silica [15-20].
   HAD means the disease produced by the immune stimulation caused by the effect of foreign material(s). Therefore, this definition excludes all naturally occurring disorders merely worsened by the immune stimulation of the foreign material. Such disorders should be classified as “_________ worsened by the adjuvant activity of__________ .” For example, systemic lupus that is believed to be worsened by adjuvant activity of polyurethane and free silicone in tissue should be classified as systemic lupus worsened by those adjuvants-and not as HAD.

   Most cases of HAD would be expected to exhibit the following characteristics, as adapted and modified from Miyoshi’s original description [21]:

1. Foreign material or materials in the body at some time prior to the development of the autoimmune disease;
2. Local reaction to the implanted material with any one or all of these things: encapsulation, pain, tenderness, heat, swelling, redness;
3. Some signs and symptoms generally associated with known autoimmune conditions, including but not
necessarily restricted to aches and pains in muscles and joints, stiffness, weakness, and easy fatigue;
4. At least one circulating autodirected antibody at some time after installation of the foreign material. Such
antibodies must be detected in amounts elevated above normal (Only university-based or certified commercial
laboratories can be reasonably and reliably used to fulfill this characteristic’s requirement);
5. No other condition or disease explains the patient’s illness, including infection, malignancy, or naturally occurring autoimmune disease. If, for instance, the patient meets the accepted criteria of the American Rheumatism Association for diagnosis of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis, HAD is excluded. The exclusion of typical diseases makes sense, because HAD usually produces atypical autoimmune disease;
6. Evidence is found for local immunological activation. This commonly consists of foreign body giant cells, but can be simply a chronic inflammation with plasma cells, some lymphocytes, but mainly lots of macrophages
marginated on or near the foreign material or surrounding the foreign material;
7. Improvement follows explantation when most if not all the foreign material is removed. Time to improvement
depends on the age of the patient, the duration of illness, the severity of the autoimmunity, and many other
influences and conditions not fully understood. In general, significant clinical and laboratory improvement in HAD
occurs within two years of explantation. If improvement fails to occur within this time frame, HAD probably was not the cause of the patient’s condition.

   These empiric defining criteria, like the criteria for rheumatic diseases in general [22], derive from a dynamic area of research which at present has an incomplete concept of the disease and an imperfect diagnostic technology. In the years ahead, improved knowledge and techniques will likely change refine and more accurately describe these characteristics.
Meanwhile, the seven divisions offer a standard against which individual cases or groups of patients can be identified, measured, and compared.

Similarities and differences among cases define HAD and help distinguish it from other conditions. Degree also indicates the type of illness and cause.

   Most HAD patients can be identified by the pattern distribution of abnormalities in their cases and their similarity to others who have had comparable problems. The usual patient has had foreign material installed within body tissues, followed sometime later by the development of local difficulties around the site of implantation and, after that, systemic signs and symptoms of reaction to the material. Local complications include pain, aching, heat, contracture, and tenderness around the foreign material. Prominent systemic symptoms include morning stiffness, aches and pains in muscles and joints, gel phenomena, memory loss for recent events, dry eyes, weakness and easy fatigue of skeletal muscle, regional lymphadenopathy, and skin rash. Signs include local heat, redness, induration, and irregularity around the implant, and generalized weakness, glove and stocking sensory loss, and evidence of other peripheral or central nervous system dysfunction or both. This pattern distribution of local complications near the foreign material associated
constitutes a combination unique to HAD. Future studies may show it the sine qua non of this disease, a stereotype of abnormalities usually not seen in conditions other than HAD. Incidentally, HAD does not occur exclusively in women. It happens in men in cases associated with ruptured pectoralis and testicular implants.

   Laboratory reports show a variety of abnormalities not unique to HAD but occurring in other autoimmune conditions. All of the abnormalities probably reflect diffuse rather than focal activation of the immune system. The ANA, rheumatoid factors, positive antibodies against human antigens, the antibodies against the major ganglioside in the central nervous system, anti-GM1 antibodies, myelin associated glycoprotein antibodies (anti-MAG), antisulfatide, and anti-beta-tubulin antibodies do not mean the patient has lupus or rheumatoid arthritis or the other relatively specific diseases associated with those positive blood tests, and certainly do not mean those diseases are present in the absence of clinical disease.
They are immune markers suggesting immune system activation by the foreign material.

   Other tests show what organ systems are adversely affected by the immune activation and by how much. So, when indicated, MRI, SPECT scan, EMG, and so forth can help define the extent of damage already present in an individual patient and can help organize the approach to treatment.

   Patients with HAD differ from other patients in a variety of ways, including the obvious presence of foreign material in their bodies and also in the multiplicity of signs and symptoms. They usually have at least 20 complaints and commonly circle over 50% percent of the lists of common symptoms of disease [23,24]. Other patients who do not have HAD have a much more circumscribed list of complaints. The large number of complaints in HAD makes sense if one considers the disease is likely due to a diffuse activation of the immune system and not a circumscribed focal activation of one part of the immune system. If the immune system is diffusely and globally activated, then there should be diffuse and global complaints referable to virtually every level of the nervous system, to the muscles and nerves, connective tissue, blood vessels, and skin.

   As the severity of local problems increases, the systemic problems do too, especially if the implant has ruptured or if the immunogenic foreign material directly contacts the immune system by regional or systemic spread. In our series of implanted patients who had systemic disease, the proven rupture rate was 60 percent at explantation [23,24], a number higher than the estimate of 1.5 percent by the manufacturer and the 15 to 20 percent mentioned by the FDA. Some foreign materials, such as polyurethane, seem to cause more immune activation and produce more skin rashes and other adverse systemic effects sooner than other materials.

   The presence of different time courses and clinical degrees of affliction associated with different foreign materials strongly suggests that the foreign material plays an etiological role and may actually cause the disease. For instance, the time course of vinyl chloride disease differs from that of toxic Spanish Oil syndrome. With silicone gel implants, six years usually elapse from the time of implantation to development of first systemic symptoms; silicone implants surrounded by polyurethane have a shorter latency.

   Taken together, the similarity of disease among patients exposed to the same agent, the differences that the induced disease bears to other naturally occurring diseases, and the fact that degrees of adversity depend on degrees of exposure, as well as the time-linked nature of the exposure to the subsequent development of the disease, all argue that the agents named actually cause the condition.

   The topic of relationship divides into three parts: cause and effect, antecedent and consequent, and contraries and contradictories.

   To assign a cause and make it stick requires four elements. The cause must be sufficient to produce the effect; it must be the most likely among several possible causes; conditions must not inhibit the cause from exerting its effect; and the cause must be invariably produce the effect. In the muddy waters of statecraft, real-life situations, the legal arena, and medicine “invariably” has given way “more likely than not” or with a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.”

   In HAD, all four elements apply to foreign materials that are associated with local complications, such as the rupture of an implant and spill of free silicone into tissue. The rupture of the implant alone is sufficient to produce the spill of silicone into tissue and to provoke a local inflammatory reaction.

   Systemic complications require no small degree of circumspection, and cases must be considered individually. It is not enough to show that the disease followed implantation. Dry streets get wet after rain and then dry; when rain recurs, they get wet again. This does not mean dry streets cause rain.

   Medicine abounds with post hoc propter hoc errors. There was a time when malaria was considered caused by swampy land that had bad air. Although we now know that malaria is induced from circumstances more complicated than that, yet when Roman engineers drained the swamps around the Tiber 2,000 years ago, they abolished malaria in that section of Italy. These things considered, most people will associate a ruptured implant with the systemic disease that follows, because most individual cases have strong evidence for unique activation of the immune system.

   This less rigorous form of cause and effect argument generally applies to implants and can be reduced to a rephrased syllogism: (1) Foreign materials produce local and systemic reactions; (2) an implant is a foreign material; therefore, (3) an implant causes local and systemic reactions. Whether the implant has in fact done so in an individual case depends on the individual evidence adduced.

   Contraries and contradictions offer an avenue of proof, since two contraries cannot be true simultaneously: either the implant causes local complications or it doesn’t. To prove that implants cause local complications, it is necessary simply to demonstrate one case of a local complication. Since numerous cases of local complications are on record-not to mention the numerous types of local complications-the proof of contraries is more than abundantly fulfilled.

   One can make the same argument for the causation of systemic complications. Either implants cause systemic complications or they don’t. If the implant doesn’t cause autoimmune disease, then why does the manufacturer Dow Corning state under section 17, paragraph 3, of the package insert that “if an immune response is suspected and the response persists, removal of the prosthesis is recommended along with the surrounding capsule tissue. Such patients should not be re-implanted” [1]? Are they suggesting operations for no purpose? Would they endanger the lives of the implanted patients for no valid reason? If implants and foreign materials cannot cause immune reactions, then why are there numerous published papers that say they do? Why are there animal studies that show foreign materials are immunogenic? Clearly the reasoning of contraries proves that implants cause systemic problems. Whether they have done so in an individual case must be determined on the basis of the evidence presented.

   The general heading of circumstance comprises two main lines of discourse: the possible and the impossible, and the past fact and future fact.

   The possible and impossible come in five Aristotelian flavors, most of which apply to the matter at hand. Their application is simple.

   First, if one pair of similar items is possible, then the other is possible also. Silicone directly injected into tissue causes local and systemic reactions; therefore, silicone indirectly injected into tissue after a silicone implant ruptures causes local and systemic complications. Second, if a difficult thing is possible, then the easier thing is possible also. If you can recite the alphabet backwards, chances are likely you can recite it forwards as well. If the bleed of silicone causes a local inflammatory reaction, then a rupture of an implant will cause a local inflammatory reaction.

   Third, if one problem-causing thing can do something, then two problem-causing things together can make things worse. If silicone causes a local inflammatory reaction, then silicone plus an additional foreign material like polyurethane (probably more irritant) must do so faster, and more severely. Fourth, if a thing is possible without aggravating or complicated conditions, then it is definitely possible with the complications. An intact implant may elicit a surrounding inflammatory reaction; therefore a ruptured implant may do so too.

   Finally, if the parts are possible, so is the whole. Hence, if the implant has been associated with Sjogren’s syndrome, Raynaud’s phenomena, scleroderma, memory loss, muscle weakness, and what have you in individual cases, then a patient who exhibits all of those afflictions can have a possible complication too.

   Whether a thing has happened or not is useful in establishing precedent. When companies have settled cases that purport injuries due to implants for large amounts of money, a precedent is established; the same occurs when a jury awards a large amount of money for the same reasons. Past fact suggests that reasonable people studying a particular situation reached a reasonable conclusion, and projects that similar people acting under similar circumstances may reach similar conclusions in the future, establishing a similar or identical future fact. What can be said about past fact hews closely to common sense: two events closely associated (implant and some disease) in the past produce event X (compensation). It is likely the same associated events will also produce the same consequences in the future, and that the other cases will be settled or large monetary awards made in compensation. What is right or wrong about this cannot be determined by this line of argument, since past fact merely predicts future fact-not what is correct, just, or right.

   In a larger sense, one can invoke the physical laws of the universe to predict the production of future fact. The second law of thermodynamics, for example, has never been violated and therefore is considered a sound predictor of what will happen. It tells us that everything is breaking down, headed towards disintigration and disorder. Since the implant is part of the physical universe, it is governed by the second law and therefore it too must break down. And if it breaks down, it must cause those things known by past fact to be caused by mechanical implant failure-including spilling silicone into tissue, local inflammation, scar formation, pain and tenderness, heat, and of course, deformation of the tissue in which that implant had been placed.

   Testimony, the last major topic, encompasses six subheads: authority, testimonial, statistics, maxims, law, and precedent.

   We tend to imagine some distant past where people unblinkingly accepted the dictates of Church or King, and therefore say that authority isn’t what it used to be. We try to believe in this modern, scientific, democratic age that people look at things skeptically and tend not to accept anything unless proven by evidence and reason.

   Unfortunately, this belief remains unjustified by the facts: a new age of human intelligence has not dawned. While many old authorities have been simply shunted aside, they have been replaced by new authorities because humans crave simple answers to complex problems. Appeal to authority-any authority, even the manufacturer of the package insert or the FDA itself-remains illogical, because an authority can be right or can be wrong. What an authority says must be judged by the evidence and not by the position or reputation of the authority.

   Nevertheless, provided you cite authority that people accept, arguments citing authority carry considerable weight, especially if the authority cited is one of the new breed-such as the talk shows, the popular press, or public radio, or even better a famous movie star, television news personality, or public opinion surveyor. The new authorities are not disinterested. Instead, they have a financial stake in selling newspapers or getting people to listen to their broadcasts. Therefore, positions taken by modern authorities tend to be emotionally colored, sensational, and not based on a dispassionate analysis of evidence.

   Plastic surgeons continue to complain about the rather poor press coverage of the breast implant situation and the overblown emphasis on side effects and the supposed faults of the manufacturers. They railed that there were no scientific studies proving that implants caused problems and even claimed the extreme and untenable position that there were no problems. (Incidentally, this interesting statement itself had little scientific support, since it depended on both the genus definition of the words scientific and study, as well as the division definition of the same words. The statement could be true or false depending on how scientific you wanted to be and how seriously you wanted to examine the studies available.) Thus, plastic surgeons failed to realize the decisions were being made against them emotionally and not rationally, and therefore their arguments in this context meant little. They also failed to understand that as irrational as such media analysis was, it still had the full power of modern authority and as such determined how people viewed the issue. This remains important, because how the public thinks in a democracy determines how the events will transpire and what future outcomes will happen.

   That brings us to the real authorities that have power to enforce the prevailing opinions of our society: the Food and Drug Administration and the Congress of the United States of America. Let’s examine how these authorities viewed the situation.

   Food and Drug Administration-This organization, empowered by the Congress to regulate food, drugs, and medical devices, has acted against the implants and put the full weight of law against routine cosmetic augmentation with gel-filled devices. The detailed history of the regulation of the devices shows the FDA had clear-cut fears that the devices had not been tested properly; actual past decisions of the FDA always modified the device classifications into categories requiring tighter and tighter regulation [25].

   Furthermore, the FDA document released in February 1993 entitled Silicone Breast Implant Team Leaders’ Report, Surgical Device Panel, U.S. Food and Drug Administration Critique of Premarketing Applicationdetails the failures of the manufacturers in their premarketing applications [26]. The FDA failed the applications for defects in sterility, materials testing, animal studies, human studies, and in a host of other problems. It even accused the manufacturers of fraud, because information was submitted to FDA that the manufacturer knew or should have known was false. The FDA concluded that the manufacturers failed to prove their product was safe and effective, despite 30 years of use of the materials in the United States. (This represents the final authority on the subject.) Consequently, the FDA removed the silicone gel-filled implants from the American market for cosmetic augmentation. Subsequently, many manufacturers shut down operations, claiming they were afraid of further liability claims. They conveniently failed to mention that the FDA had closed the major market for their product: in fact, most of the market had disappeared overnight. Implants for cosmetic augmentation remain off the American market to this day.

   The citation of the FDA’s document and the House of Representatives staff report constitutes a powerful force in the implant issue because those documents determined whether the implant could continue, and made laws that implants could not continue. Some brief quotes from the documents follow here to show the style and impact of the statements. The net effect of these stands as a powerful persuasive argument to the reasonable average citizen that the implants were not proved safe and had in the past, and have in the present, substantial adverse effects on health. The documents taken as a whole indicate that the manufacturer failed to prove the devices were safe. They clearly state that the safety and effectiveness data were inadequate. Any defense of implants must try to get around the force of these papers, which-because of their authority and impact-appears difficult and may be almost impossible.

  In February 1993 the FDA recommended disapproval of the premarketing applications of all implant manufacturers because of failure to provide adequate clinical, mechanical, and toxicologic testing data [26]. The animal testing employed was considered outdated and nonscientific; the chemical and mechanical descriptions were deemed variable and inadequate; the extractable and leachate propensities were inadequately tested and the metabolic effects of the gel inadequately tested. In addition, the psychological benefit of the device was improperly tested. Adequate depression, fatigue, stress, strain, abrasion, and energy to rupture tests were not prepared. Also, cohesivity, valve competence, and joint integrated tests were inadequate, and the effects of the heat and other risks of sterilization on the materials and the components were never properly evaluated. The report goes on and raises the question that if this presentation of risk and benefit, formulated after 30 years of experience in an attempt to obtain governmental approval, fails to support claims of safety and efficacy, what was the safety data in the past? The FDA concluded that none of the clinical investigation(s) provided sufficient quantitative data to measure risk.
  The Committee on Government Operations of the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House of Representatives issued a report in December 1992 with opinions of the staff and not necessarily the members of the Committee [27]. The 51-page document reviews the local and possible systemic complications of implants and states among other things that “Dow Corning scientists made repeated references to the lack of safety data, expressing concern that company spokesmen were misleading doctors when they said they had evidence that their product was safe.” It accuses the companies of scientific misconduct because of Dow Corning’s failure to publish or disclose to FDA their own research results when they showed problems: “For example, the company (Dow Corning) did not report that some of the animals they studied showed inflammation of the lymph nodes and other symptoms that could indicate immune disorders. Instead, Dow Corning published reports that indicated no problems, and in their submission to FDA, they excluded studies which showed problems. As a result, the FDA advisory panel and FDA staff could not judge
the true risks of the implants.” Complete discussion of the report exceeds the scope of this disquisition, but the
conclusions reached put authority behind the idea that implants must be more tightly regulated and controlled and more complete information about safety and effectiveness obtained. The report warns the women involved by stating that the “FDA [should] require implant manufacturers to provide information about safety and effectiveness to patients as well as physicians… since problems can occur long after the physician is involved in the patient’s medical care.”

   Testimonials come in a jillion forms. All quote the opinion of others who are presumably honest, disinterested, and unbiased. Testimonials cannot constitute proof because they are not an appeal to reason. When plastic surgeons hire almost 400 implanted women to fly to Washington to lobby their Senators and Congressmen about the importance of breast implants to their self-esteem, or when surgeons and their nurses write more than 20,000 letters to the Congress or FDA [27], these statements appear so biased that they are discredited, all too easily. Similarly, statements that a given survey by some plastic surgery society or other shows, despite a return rate of only 60 percent, most women are satisfied with their implants cannot mean much. Nor can the statistics associated with such studies mean much, as discussed below.

   As everyone knows, statistics called forth a lot of derision from Mark Twain, who said, “First get your facts together, then distort them at your leisure.” Some statistics are merely a way of laying out the findings of an opinion survey. They are therefore testimonials with the characteristic weaknesses of the polling processes: faulty sample, skewed questions, unwarranted assumptions, and so forth. Even those statistical studies done correctly require intense scrutiny because of willful distortion by preselection of starting and finishing points.
   For example, among women with augmentation mammoplasty for cosmetic reasons, all investigators to date, the author included, have found that initially the overwhelming majority of recipients are satisfied with the results. The cosmetic effect at first is a dramatic increase in breast size, which was of course what the women wanted. Consequently, these women suddenly feel they look better in a swimsuit and an evening gown. For several years these cosmetic benefits continue, perhaps falling slightly due to gel bleed and partial deflation and sagging of the device. Only later, after variable periods of time-say, after 6 years for the silicone implant and 2.4 for the silicone implant covered with polyurethane-are the local complications in some of these women severe enough to give them second thoughts about what they have done. Further ahead, especially after repeated surgeries for local or systemic problems, the same individuals who once spoke in favor of the device might speak against it. Thus, a statistically significant survey of the same implanted women might show favorable and unfavorable results depending on when the survey was done in relation to the time that the implant had existed in the woman’s body.

   Large studies comparing the incidence of various conditions in implanted women with non-implanted controls matched for age, income, educational level, and other items might or might not reveal significant information [29-33]. Negative studies mean less than positive studies because of the nature of negative data: failure to show something must always be less impressive than showing something. The reason for this involves the nature of knowledge itself and can be summarized with the maxims: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and “If you see it you believe it, if you don’t see it you don’t know.” If I say that I see no bacteria, my statement is not as powerful if I am looking through a telescope than looking through a microscope, and both conditions mean nothing if my eyes are shut. So the instrument used to gather data and the circumstances surrounding that gathering remain as important and sometimes more important than the data itself. And that brings us to the next item: maxims.

   Maxims embody the accumulated wisdom of the tribe. They constitute an appeal to authority, but this time to theauthority of our now anonymous ancestors. Maxims gain authority when we consider them the received wisdom of generations who survived, learned the secrets of living, and passed them on to us. Applying maxims to HAD is easy and fun.
   Penny wise and pound foolish.-This might mean the companies should have been more generous in offering women who experienced complications of implants help to get those problems solved. If the companies had paid for the medical care of those who were sick and had offered reasonable reimbursement for explantation of the failed implants, then the companies might have saved themselves much more money. They might have saved themselves the enormous sums-in some cases millions of dollars and in one case 25 million dollars-which are now being awarded by the juries and the courts. If the companies had spent more money on material testing, animal studies, basic polymer chemistry, and more careful registry and follow-up of the original implanted cases, then they might have learned more, and perhaps developed a better, safer device. Thus, they would have saved money they are now spending in legal defense.
   A stitch in time saves nine.-This might mean the companies should have taken the advice of their own workers, the plastic surgeons, and other people who complained long ago about the lack of safety data. The companies should have done the studies needed to prove the safety and effectiveness of the device or to disprove it. If those studies had been done, the manufacturers might have been able to avoid the embarrassment of having the FDA tell them the studies were needed. They might have avoided the embarrassment of having their products withdrawn from the markets. If, on the other hand, the studies had been done and showed the devices were not safe and effective, then the manufacturers could have removed them from the market sooner, preventing further injury and the medical and legal consequences thereof.
   People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.-This might mean the implant manufacturers and the plastic surgeons should realize the rather negative situation they find themselves in at the present time. Attacking responsible, sincere physicians who are trying to help patients with implant problems, calling them “sh*t or junk scientists,” calling into question their individual professional standing, and attacking them on personal levels with ad hominem arguments can do nothing but provoke an even more vigorous counterattack.
   Law refers to and comprises any and all documentary evidence that can be dragged into court proving or tending to prove one thing or another. Internal company documents in which people in charge of implant manufacturing complain that not enough work is being done on gel bleed or the problem with migration or autoimmunity can be, and have been, adduced in court to show that such problems were not adequately addressed and that therefore managers were negligent in performing their duties towards the implant recipients [27]. Most of these documents should have no great weight, because they are selected and displayed out of context and the true situation might or might not be reflected by the documents. Nevertheless, documents taken from the manufacturers tend to incriminate some of them as dismissive of the legitimate concerns of plastic surgeons, regulatory authorities, their own workers, and the public. For instance, recent disclosure of internal memos indicate Dow Corning Corporation, formerly a major silicone-gel breast implant maker, tried to destroy documents implying that it knew the implants were unsafe. The memo written by researcher Mary Ann Woodbury stated that “25.9 percent of the devices had some type of problem associated with them.” Greg
Theiss told Chuck Dillon, then Dow’s medical director, and Woodbury to destroy all copies of Woodbury’s memo [28]. It remains to the credit of the company that the memo still exists, but it is likely that some jury may interpret the document to the detriment of the company.

   Precedent is a courtroom argument and involves the idea that since previous cases have been compensated for similar supposed injuries that the current case should be also. However, this is not so in real life, where contingencies and circumstances are beyond number and every situation must be appraised in its own distinct terms.
   At this point, a classical rhetorician would summarize the position with a peroration. When applied to human adjuvant disease, the peroration might run as follows.
   Human Adjuvant Disease (HAD), defined by genus, constitutes the autoimmune conditions of humankind associated with contact with foreign materials. The cause relates to the rejection of non-self as a form of protection against invading organisms or any foreign antigen. Seven items define by division the existence of HAD, facilitating diagnosis: (1) foreign material in contact with the body; (2) immune reaction to the contact; (3) clinical signs and symptoms of autoimmune disease; (4) at least one circulating autodirected antibody reliably measured; (5) no malignancy, infection, or naturally occurring disease to explain the entire condition; (6) histologic evidence, especially in cases of implantation, of inflammation usually accompanied by foreign body giant cells; (7) improvement after contact with the foreign material stops.
   Patients with HAD retain similarities to each other and differences from others that help identify the nature of the disease process. Foremost among these stands the diffuse activation of the immune system and the local and systemic consequences of that activation. The profile of affliction and degree of disease differs for the agents involved, further characterizing the unique nature of the illness. Cause and effect relationships, although difficult to prove in individual cases, exist based on the large number of cases reported after a given exposure; this is particularly so when the diseases reach epidemic proportions among subgroups of the general population exposed to the foreign material, as occurred among the women who have silicone filled breast implants, or as occurred in the 1980s among thousands of people exposed outside Madrid to contaminated cooking oils.
   The conditions either exist or they don’t. Since so many cases have been published in medical journals, the rule of contraries applies, proving that if one case has happened the contrary remains defeated and the condition must be accepted as real. Individual cases, of course, must be appraised individually, but the possibility that the condition exists must be accepted as proven.
   Analysis of the present circumstances, including rigorous working through of the possibilities and using past fact as a predictor of future fact, indicates that further cases will materialize and further compensation for injury will follow. Since implanted foreign materials are subject to the physical laws of the universe, all of them will break down at some time. When they do, they will cause problems associated with that breakdown as described in extenso in the package inserts [1].
   Force of authority, including restrictions by the Food and Drug Administration, likely will continue against the use of foreign materials, because that has been the historical trend over the last decade [25-27]. The documents produced in court will continue to impress reasonable jurors that large awards of damages are justified.
   In general, one may reasonably conclude that intimate contact of the human body with immunogenic foreign materials probably equals a bad idea.
   At this point in a disquisition, a classical orator would resort to some figure of speech to hammer home the message. In this case I shall resort to anaphora, the figure of speech that starts a sequence of clauses with the same word or the same phrase. This almost barbarously rudimentary device is the stock in trade of evangelists, rabble rousers, and politicians, perhaps because the repetition of a formula at the start of each clause gives them time to think before they proclaim their next (non?) sequitur.
   Anaphora sets a powerful rhythmic structure, something akin to an incantation which takes us back -far back to the primitive origin of our race. Because it strikes a tribal chord, it is effective and deeply moving and should be used when it’s the business to stir emotion. Alert readers will also note the use of anadiplosis-starting a clause or sentence with the last word of the preceding clause or sentence-and they will recognizeepistrophe, using the same word or phrase at the end of successive clauses.
Hence, in conclusion:
   Foreign materials in contact with the human body can be a bad idea.
   And Foreign materials installed within the human body are a bad idea.
   A bad idea for those who made them.
   A bad idea for those who put them in.
   And a bad idea for those who have them in.
QED (Quod erat demonstrandum)
1. Package Insert. Mammary Implant H.P., Gel-Filled Design by Dow Corning Write, 1-11, 1984. Available
            from Dow Corning Wright, Marketing Department, P.O. Box 100, Arlington, TN 38002.
2. KUMAGAI, Y.; ABE, C; and SHIOKAWA, Y. Scleroderma after cosmetic surgery: Four cases of human
            adjuvant disease. Arthritis Rheum. 22:532-537, 1979.
3. VAN NUNEN, S.A.; GATENBY, P.A.; and BASTEN, A. Post-mammoplasty connective tissue disease.
            Arthritis Rheum. 25:694-697, 1982.
4. BALDWIN, C.C.JR. ; and KAPLAN, E.N. Silicone-induced human adjuvant disease? Ann Plast. Surg.
            0:270-273, 1983.
5. OKANO, Y.; NISHIKAI, M.; and SATO, A. Scleroderma, primary biliary cirrhosis, and Sjogren’s  
            syndrome after cosmetic breast augmentation with silicone injection: A case report of possible human
            adjuvant disease. Ann Rheum Dis. 43:520-522, 1984.
6. KUMAGAI, Y.; SHIOKAWA, Y. ; MEDSGER, T.A. JR.; and RODNAN, G.P. Clinical spectrum of
            connective tissue disease after cosmetic surgery: Observations on 18 patients and a review of the
            Japanese literature. Arthritis Rheum. 27:1-12, 1984.
7. FOCK, K.M.; FENG, P.H.; and TEY, B.H. Autoimmune disease developing after augmentation
            mammoplasty: Report of 3 cases. J. Rheumatol 11:98-100, 1984.
8. BYRON, M.A.;VENNING, V.A.; and MOWAT, A.G. Post-mammoplasty human adjuvant disease. Br. J.
            Rheumatol. 23:227-229,1984.
9. WEINER, S.R.; and PAULUS, H.E. Chronic arthropathy occurring after augmentation mammoplasty.
            Plastic Reconstr. Surg. 77:185-187, 1986.
10. SERGOTT, T.J. LIMOLI, J.P.; BALDWIN, C.M., JR.; and LAUB, D.R. Human adjuvant disease, possible
            autoimmune disease after silicone implantation: A review of the literature, case studies, and speculation
            for the future. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 78:104-114, 1986.
11. ENDO, L.P.; EDWARDS, N.L.; LONGLEY, S.; et al. Silicone and rheumatic diseases. Semin Arthritis
            Rheuma. 17:112-118, 1987.
12. SPIERA, H. Scleroderma after silicone augmentation mammoplasty. JAMA 260:236-238, 1988.
13. BROZENA, S.J.; FENSKE, N.A.; CRUSE, C.W.; et al. Human adjuvant disease following augmentation
            mammoplasty. Arch Dermatol. 124:1383-1386, 1998.
14. VARGA, J.; SCHUMACHER, H.R.; and JIMINEZ, S.A. Systemic sclerosis after augmentation   
            mammoplasty with silicone implants. Ann. Int. Med. 111: 377-383, 1989.
15. BALLANTYNE, D.L.; REES, T.D.; and SEIDMAN, I. Silicone fluid: Response to massive subcutaneous
            injections of dimethylpolysiloxane fluid in animals. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 36: 329-331, 1965.
16. WORSING, R.A., JR.; ENGBER, W.D.; and LANGE, T.A. Reactive synovitis from particulate silastic. J.
            Bone Joint Surg. [Am]. 64:581-585, 1982.
17. ALLISON, A. C.; HARRINGTON, J. S.; and BIRBECK, M. An examination of the cytotoxic effects of
            silica on macrophages. J. Exp. Med. 124:141-154, 1966.
18. MANCINO. D.; VUOTTO, M.L.; and MINUCCI, M. Effects of crystalline silica on antibody production to
            T-dependent and T-independent antigens on BALB/c mice. Int. Arch. Allergy Appl. Immunol. 73:10-13,
19. ERASMUS, L.D. Scleroderma in gold miners on the Witwatersrand with particular reference to
20. RODNAN, G.P.; BENEDER, T.G.; MEDSGER, T.A., JR.; and CAMMARATA, R.J. The association of
            progressive systemic sclerosis (scleroderma) with coalminers’ pneumoconiosis and other forms of
            silicosis.Ann Intern. Med. 66:323-334, 1967.
21. MIYOSHI, K.; MIYAMURA, T.; KOBAYASHI, Y.; et al. Hypergammaglobulinemia by prolonged
            adjuvanticity in man: Disorders developed after augmentation mammaplasty. Jap. Med. J. 2122:9-14,
22. SCHUMACHER, H., JR., ed. Primer on Rheumatic Diseases, 9th ed. Atlanta: Arthritis Foundation,   
            1988. 316.
23. OSTERMEYER-SHOAIB, B., and PATTEN, B.M. Silicone adjuvant breast disease: More neurological
            cases. Annals of Neuro. 32:2254, 1992.
24. OSTERMEYER-SHOAIB, B., and PATTEN, B.M. Rheumatological and neurological findings in silicone
            adjuvant breast disease. Arth. and Rheum. 6:25, 1992.
25. ZONES, J. S. The political and social context of silicone breast implant use in the United States. J. of
            Long Term Effects of Med. Implants 1(3): 225-241, 1992.
26. Silicone Breast Implant Team Leaders Report, Surgery Device Panel, U.S. Food and Drug
            Administration Critique of Premarket Application. Confidential report and attached memos provided by
            Aaron M. Levine, Sunderland Place, 1320 Nineteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036. Feb. 9,
            1993. 1-337.
27. The FDA’s Regulation of Silicone Breast Implants. Staff Report prepared by the Human Resources and
            Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. U.S.
            Government Printing Office ISBN0-16-039937-8. 1992. 1-51.
28. GREEN, A.D. Dow Corning tried to destroy memos on danger of implants. Houston Chronicle 51:1 and
            14A, Dec 4, 1993.
29. BRIDGES, A.J., and LORDEN, T. Sicca syndrome in women with silicone implants: Absence of serum
            autoantibodies.  Arth. and Rheum. 36(a): S70, 1993.
30. BORENSTEIN, D. Clinical manifestations of 100 consecutive women with silicone breast implants. Arth.
            and Rheum. 36(a): S117, 1993.
31. OSBORN, T.G.; WILSON, V.G.; HANNA, V.E.; et al. Laboratory evaluation of rheumatologic patients
            with silicone gel breast implants. Arth. and Rheum. 36(a): S118, 1993.
32. EDWORTHY, S.M.; MARTIN, L.; and TALAVERA, R. Symptoms reported by breast implant patients:
            Rheumatic disease or not? Arth. and Rheum. 36(a): S118, 1993.
33. CUÉLLAR, M.L.; SCOPELITIS, E.; CITERA, G.; et al. A prospective clinical evaluation of 300 women
            with silicone breast implants (SBI). Arth. and Rheum. 36(a): S219, 1993.
Publicatie wetenschap-pelijk onderzoek Prof. Dr. Bernhard Patten en Dr. Britta Ostermeyer Shoaib
naar boven
naar boven