2. A collection of over 50 anecdotal and briefs "extracted out of context" statements attempts to support the validity of their claims. There are no citations of the findings, results, and conclusions of at least 15 major, tightly controlled, recent scientific studies, nor of major British and European plastic surgery congresses, all of which fail to connect silicone breast implants with any toxic conditions in the body. The arguments mostly employ a faulty logic described by the Romans 2,000 years ago, e.g. "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" which translates as "after this, therefore, because of this." The "reasoning" claims that if factor "A" occurred first, a subsequent condition, "B" must have been caused by Action "A", because "A occurred first and B appeared afterward." Using this method, one could "prove" that milk is the cause of all of mankind’s difficulties. After all, every one of us consumed milk from the time we were born, so with this logic, it must be that milk causes all human health and physical problems. Why so? Well, because the milk came first, therefore, whatever happened afterward must have been caused by that milk. Although this "post-hoc" is false argument, and they know it, it is one of the trial lawyers’ favorites.

The statement that silicone was injected into the body for breast enlargement in Japan in the 1940’s is as false as the charges that "silicone injections produce immunologically toxic effects...poisoning...early development of cancer...." "In 1961, the year the first implants were released...", is a predicate without foundation in fact. Actually, there were no silicone breast implants in 1961. The first one was under development, but not yet produced. The silicone breast implant story actually began in the fall of 1960 at the annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, where Dr. Thomas Cronin of Houston learned of the silicone substance "Silastic." It seemed that a silicon polymer, "dimethylpolysiloxane" could be structured so as to be a very thin (or thick) liquid, a jelly, a soft solid, or a very hard solid, depending upon the degree of cross-linking. From this knowledge, he pictured a breast shaped implant with a thin Silastic outer shell, and a soft jelly-like silicone Silastic filler. (Silicone was already in use in a few special surgical devices, where it was valued for its inertness, a very important, and critical quality.)

During the next 15 months a great deal of activity took place between Houston and Dow Corning in Midland, Michigan, resulting in the very first practical breast implant. The initial implants had "welded" seams around the rim, the shell was comparatively thick, and the back was covered with dacron mesh to promote adherence of the implant to the chest wall. How do I know all of this? I was there, I had a small part in the actual development of the first implants, and I was present at the first surgery, when they were inserted into a patient at Houston’s Jefferson Davis hospital in the second week of February 1962.

For the next 20 months Dow-Corning produced these implants on a "trial-experimental" basis, offering them to the few who knew they existed, myself included. Relatively crude devices compared to those which we have at present, their development was typical of any "learning curve," from which there are simply no exceptions.

In October 1963 at the International Plastic Surgery Convention in Washington D.C., Dr. Cronin dropped a breast implant blockbuster on the plastic surgical world by presenting these new implants. There were no other practical implants until that time. However, within a few years, the French had developed their own silicone breast implants, including the first saline inflatable models. During that same period of time, some doctors were injecting silicone into women’s breasts, a procedure advocated by some prominent Oriental plastic surgeons, such as Dr. Seichi Ohmori. While the idea had a certain appeal, organized plastic surgery in the United States never accepted nor approved of injections of free silicone into human breasts. Admittedly, some of this was done by a few practitioners, most notable non-plastic surgeons in Nevada. This generated a relative epidemic of problems, which persisted until Nevada plastic surgeons persuaded the legislature to ban such injections.

Contrary to the statements in this article, silicone breast implants are not, and never have been "toxic" (Webster’s toxic: adjective (Greek toxicon) 1. poisonous). It is marvelously interesting that there exist over 100 different silicone, or silicone covered devices which are implanted within the human body for medical/surgical purposes. If the claims of toxicity were true, these implanted devices should be causing an epidemic of poisonous complication in all these patients, not just the breast implants. Where is this epidemic? Where indeed? It does not exist!

Significantly, the only country in the world where silicone implants have been so assailed is the United States (and Canada, which copies much of what we do). Please note that this is situation made possible only with the U.S. legal system, also unique in the world. This is where even the winning defendant still loses, because the defense costs come from his own pocket one way or another, while a losing suer or plaintiff walks off having lost nothing. The lawyer has a low risk opportunity to plunder any unwitting victim with enough assets to tempt a plaintiff, who may think it worthwhile to gamble on "winning the lottery." It costs him little or nothing, especially when considering the possible gain. This is the prime reason the breast implant manufacturers caved in/went bankrupt/moved overseas; even if they won every individual case, the legal expenses would still have bankrupted them. This is "legal blackmail" in action. The bottom line is that this article was not an impartial scientific study, but a dramatic hit piece designed to promote the tort lawyers’ cause, and to appeal to the emotions of the general public.

Just two days before the final revised copy of this article was submitted, the San Diego Union-Tribune (November 14, 1998) published an excellent editorial summarizing the entire breast implant controversy. I strongly recommend it as an impartial evaluation and report.