by GINA KOLATA 05/16/95
(c) 1995 N.Y. Times News Service
In the case of silicone breast implants, the courts and much of the
scientific world have proceeded on strikingly unparallel tracks.
While the courts have handed down multimillion-dollar awards based on
the presumption of a health hazard, leading Monday to Dow Corning's
declaration of bankruptcy, the heavy-duty scientific studies now
being completed have pointed to exactly the opposite conclusion, that
there is no evidence that breast implants are harmful.
Part of the reason for this clash of cultures is that the legal world
looks at individual cases of illness, whereas scientists hold that
specially designed studies of whole populations are the only sure
touchstone of truth. The cases that have persuaded the courts concern
women who complain of debilitating and mysterious maladies that they
attribute to silicone leaking from their breast implants. Several
years ago, those individual cases, typically described as "anecdotes"
by scientists, prompted several epidemiological studies to be
undertaken in an effort to search for statistically valid links
between the implants and any disease. The conclusions of seven large
epidemiological studies have now been reported, with the surprising
result that none have found any evidence of health effects from
breast implants. These findings have carried particular weight among
scientists. "I don't know a single, high quality immunologist who is
convinced that there is a definable disease related to implants,"
said Dr. John Sergent, a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt
University in Nashville and a former president of the American
College of Rheumatology.
Health officials in other countries have also been persuaded by the
epidemiological studies. France allowed the implants back on the
market in February and Britain's Medical Devices Agency, which never
stopped the sale of the implants, concluded again in December that
they were safe.
The beginning of the end for breast implants in the United States
came in 1992, when Dr. David A. Kessler, the head of the Food and
Drugs Administration, announced that his agency was calling a
voluntary moratorium on their use. He explained that there were
insufficient data on record to show that the implants were safe and
he was concerned by the numbers of women who had come forward with
health complaints. Lawsuits by women claiming injury from the
implants thenbegan to snowball. Many were based on the theory that
although silicone was an inert substance, the chemical or its
breakdown products nonetheless deranged the immune system, causing a
variety of otherwise inexplicable maladies.
Medical experts summoned by the plaintiffs cited experiments showing
that silicone could harm the immune systems of mice.Like many such
experts, Dr. Nir Kossovsky, a materials scientist at the University
of California at Los Angeles, who runs a testing laboratory for women
with implants, said this "means that silicone can account for many of
the symptoms reported by breast implant patients."
These medical experts have also criticized the epidemiological
studies, saying that had they continued for longer or examined more
women they would have found the same kind of illnesses that afflicted
But scientists who are persuaded by the new epidemiological studies
view the treatment of the issue in the courts as a regrettable misuse
of scientific evidence. They regard the medical experts who testified
for the plaintiffs as hired guns who do not represent the consensus
of opinion developing among authorities in the medical field.
Dr. Shaun Ruddyof the Medical College of Virginia, the president of
the American College of Rheumatologyand a specialist in connective
tissue diseases like those being claimed by women with implants, said
that so much money was at stake that "it is very easy for people to
lose their objectivity." He said he knew of academic doctors who
started filling out forms for lawyers "at 1,000 bucks a pop."
"I'm tremendously bothered," said Dr. Elizabeth Connell, a professor
of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine
in Atlanta. "I'm horrified." Dr. Connell headed an advisory panel to
the Food and Drug Administration that concluded in 1991 that implants
represented a public health need and should remain on the market
while more studies went on.
In a second meeting on the devices, the group concluded in 1992 that
there was still no evidence positively linking silicone implants to
diseases and that there was still a public health need for the
devices, but it recommended that women receiving them be followed in
scientific studies to answer questions about their safety.
Kessler did not respond to a request for an interview.
Dr. Bernadine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of
Health who is now director of health and science policy at the
Cleveland Clinic, described the breast implant litigation as"an
abomination for women," and added, "It's an abomination
economically." Dr. Healy said women were the pawns and the losers in
what she regarded as a trial lawyers' game. "I find it hideous," she
Scientists who have produced evidence or spoken against the link
between implants and illness say their treatment by the plaintiffs'
lawyers amounted to harassment in some cases. One of the most
influential papers that criticized the supposed link between implants
and disease appeared on June 14, 1994, in The New England Journal of
Medicine. It was a study by Dr. Sherine E. Gabriel and her colleagues
at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The study examinedthe medical records of all the residents of Olmsted
County, from 1964 to 1991, just before the implants were removed from
the market. They investigated a long list of medical problems,
including connective tissue diseases, and concluded that of 749 women
in the county with implants, none had excess medical problems.
Dr. Gabriel's study was accompanied by an editorial by Dr. Marcia
Angell, the executive editor of the journal, noting that the courts
had awarded multimillion-dollar awards on the basis of case histories
that by no means showed cause and effect. Yet, she said, this
misleading information "became accepted by the courts and the public
as nearly incontrovertible truth."
Dr. Gabriel said that she was not naive when she published her paper,
and that she knew it would infuriate lawyers for women with implants,
particularly because it was financed in part by the Plastic Surgery
Educational Foundation, the educational arm of the American Society
of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. But, she said, she had never
taken sides on the implant issue, the study had been conceived and
designed by the Mayo Clinic investigators and had been under way for
several months before the group received the grant from the plastic
surgeons and she did not think anyone would seriously accuse her of
As soon as the paper was published, plaintiffs' lawyers charged that
the study was tainted because of the plastic surgeons' money. Dr.
Gabriel was hit with demands by Charles E. Houssiere, a Houston
lawyer who says he represents 2,000 to 3,000 women women who are
suing implant manufacturers, that she produce documents.
"The magnitude of the demands is staggering, the burden is
staggering," Dr. Gabriel said. "They want over 800 manuscripts from
researchers that were here, they want hundreds of databases, dozens
of file cabinets and the entire medical records of all Olmsted County
women, whether or not they were in the study."
The ordeal has continued for a year so far, Dr. Gabriel said. "It has
taken a huge amount of time and it has been extremely stressful," she
said. "It has severely compromised my ability to do research."
And, she said, it has had a chilling effect on implant research in
general. She said that colleagues had told her that after seeing what
happened to her, they would not do an implant study. "Some determined
that the price in terms of their own research careers is too high to
pay," Dr. Gabriel said.
Mr. Houssiere said he asked for the documents to understand why Dr.
Gabriel had concluded that there was no evidence that the implants
caused illnesses. "The intent was to find out the basis of her
opinion," he said. And, he added, he did find some things he will use
against the implant makers in court. But he said that he could not
reveal what he had found because "if I tell them, then they'll know
and they'll be able to use it to defend themselves."
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.