Breast impants..again..

Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN · Jan 28, 2004

I know of 2 ppl that got them, one because she had a double mastectomy and the other because she wasn't happy with a 36C.

The lady that had the double mastectomy said this helped in her emotional healing. I didn't ask any questions because it seemed like she wasn't ready to talk.

The other person who had them done regrets it big time because (like i've thought all along) she said "i had self esteem issues in my mind and i tried to fix it through surgery. Should have tried to fix the mental issues first".

I guess the thing is to make sure you get them for the right reasons. I realize those reasons are different for each person, but i'm meaning that there are some people who think they HAVE to have them to look good, or that "guys don't go for flat-chested girls".

hartsbur · Jan 29, 2004

hi,

one of my close friends got them. she was maybe a small a to begin with and now she's a full b. she has a small frame and prob would have looked silly with anything bigger.

i just called her and asked her about this question--she said go for it. she wish she would have sooner. she said she got saline and under the muscle.

good luck. she said it was the best 5 grand she'll ever spend.

hartsbur · Jan 29, 2004

hi,

okay...she just called me back and said you should go to

http://www.implantinfo.org

hope this helps.....

VickyRN, MSN, DNP, RN · Jan 29, 2004

My question is why do you need this to feel good about yourself? If YOU can accept yourself as you are, then it will not matter what others think. A lot of society is sick and superficial, especially when it comes to ideals about women's bodies and the desire to be young forever. I personally refuse to disfigure myself to satisy some twisted and unreal societal fantasy.

There are also many complications that can occur with breast implants. Here is a good link:

http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/6/breast_implants.htm

Breast Implants: America's Silent Epidemic

by Ilena Rosenthal

Daily my phone rings and my email overflows with urgent and painful calls from women just awakening from the ether of their breast implants. Although their first surgeries may have been decades ago, they are finally emerging from the web of deceit that their plastic surgeons and the silicone manufacturers have woven through the media for years in a brilliant, expensive public relations coup of enormous proportions.

Now reality has struck as they join scores of thousands of ill and disfigured women in learning the hidden truth - their cherished breast implants may cost them their insurance, their health, their beauty, their vitality, their families, their careers, and too often, even their lives.

Everything I have ever done or thought or studied for 47 years brought me to November, 1995 when I created a Newsgroup (alt.support.breast-implant) on the Internet to provide an International Forum to discuss this perplexing issue and create a place for the women to connect with each other. I had no idea of the depth, breadth, or width of the Pandora's Box I was opening.

Five years later, after unknown thousands of communications from women, doctors, loved ones, attorneys, supporters and tormentors alike, I admit I am no longer without bias. I now know that a huge fraud has and continues to be committed on women, and the background on this issue reads like a non-fiction espionage bestseller.

No stranger to plastic surgery (first nose bob during my Dallas high school years) I do not now, nor have I ever had implants. There, but for the grace of God go I. A few million of our sisters have made that choice for a variety of reasons.

However, two common denominators remain the same -- they were always assured they were "safe" and the "risks minimal," and eerily, they have come up against a medical establishment unwilling and unable to cure their illnesses.

In 1992, after 30 years of unimpeded marketing, the FDA finally banned silicone gel implants for most women. Because of the lobbying of the manufacturers and plastic surgeons -- who flew in around 400 women to lobby Washington DC on their behalf -- women post-mastectomy were and are still allowed to get these unproven, highly risky medical devices.

Even though early studies were resurrected, long hidden by the manufacturers, proving they knew that their implants would break, immune reactions would occur, the gel would migrate, and even more disturbing, could cross the placenta and affect the unborn fetuses, almost never did this information make it to the women it could have protected.

They also hired visible spokesdoctors to misled the public into believing that implant rupture -- a devastating medical event -- was "only 4-6%." They also claimed to examine and find "no association" between implants and a myriad of painful and debilitating autoimmune diseases suffered in disproportionate percentages.

In fact, the Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, chose to publish two very flawed, small and short studies funded by those who stood the most to gain by the results. She then promoted and defended these studies as if they were gospel in her pro-manufacturer book, Science on Trial, and flooded the media with this corporate science while branding a scarlet "Junk Scientist" on any doctor who dared to dispute the "experts."

This PR campaign includes labeling the women "crazies" and their leaders and supporters "fear mongers" and "wackos" so desperate are they to destroy the credibility of any of us who dared to speak out on the dangers. The result is that for years, women have been lulled into a false belief, that they had a 95% chance of being rupture free. The contrary is true.

Alarming, indisputable evidence was released in October 2000, when the FDA published a landmark study of implanted women, many still without symptoms. This objective work revealed that 69% of these women had at least one ruptured implant, most without any knowledge of it, although implanted a median time of less than 17 years.

Other studies had already revealed over a 90% chance of rupture within 20 years.

Hardly, the "lifetime" product they were promised.

The cover up continues to fall apart . . .

Dr. David Feigal, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, said it so clearly, "When it happens to you, the rupture rate is 100 percent." By January 2000, over 127,000 women had written the FDA about the serious complications from their silicone gel implants.

The tragedy is that still today, they are unable to get good medical care as the majority of doctors refuse to believe the connection. Even worse, doctors don't have a clue what to do to heal these assaulted immune systems and rid women's bodies of the dozens of dangerous ingredients found in implants such as platinum, silica, formaldehyde, plasticizers and organic solvents.

Implant formulations were frequently changed -- shells and gel thicker then thinner then thicker again -- and "new and improved" was marketed so often, it appears silicone merchants believed their own hype.

In the 80's, as "the" answer to capsular contracture, over 100,000 women received gel implants with polyurethane foam glued to them. Not only did the foam disintegrate, often within just weeks of implantation, but it broke down into TDA, a known carcinogen, decades ago removed from hair dyes.

These women are amongst the most ill, and even when these dangerous implants were hurriedly taken off the market in 1991, no recall or even courtesy call was made to warn the implanted women.

The most recent implant disaster was exported to Europe, where well over 5,000 women, mainly in Britain, were implanted with soy oil filled implants, unlovingly known as "tofu titties." The American protocol for this product required this new round of female "lab rats" to be past childbearing age, but somewhere on it's way across the Atlantic, this requirement was dropped.

Health advocates and cautious scientists were warning of the serious potential dangers but were ignored and the "experts" made fortunes implanting them even in very young women. Their bubble burst as shocking reports and the rancid soy oil leaked out in Spring of 2000, and all the women were advised to have them removed as quickly as possible.

The damage to many had already been done. Now, like the millions with failed gel implants, they are faced with yet another difficult decision, should they replace them with saline filled implants? Is Saline the Solution?

From her wheelchair, Jackie Strange, the former Deputy Postmaster General of the United States spoke of the destruction of her life at hearings by the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC.

Infections, peripheral neuropathy, and a myriad of autoimmune diseases struck in both rapid and slow succession following her implantation with saline filled, silicone implants. Concurrently, the manufacturers and plastic surgeons were creating a multi-media blitz touting saline implants from billboards, glossy magazines and TV. With ads reminiscent of "You've come a long way, baby," young women were featured praising their implants and plastic surgeons did the Talk Show circuit assuring women that saline was "natural" and leakage benign.

In Spring, 2000, in spite of over 50,000 reports of serious adverse reactions from water-filled implants, the FDA made the fateful decision to give their highly valued stamp of "safety approval" on two brands of saline implants, declaring them "safe enough." How can this be?

The manufacturers own studies show that within just the first 3 years, nearly 40% of post-mastectomy patients had to have additional surgeries with these implants.

The complication rate for these women is around 80% in just 4 years time. After cancer, invasive surgery to remove the tumors, often radiation and / or chemotherapy, the body is simply not strong enough to handle this foreign invader.

Even for women wanting implants just for augmentation to boost their self-esteem, the complication rates are staggering. Glamour Magazine, in their November 2000 issue published a full page photo revealing a saline filled implant, entirely black with aspergillus niger and other fungi.

Breast Cancer and Implants - No Easy Answers

Nearly 200,000 American women -- our sisters, mothers, teachers, lovers, daughters, friends -- will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year. Cancer and implant survivor, retired Professor of Health Education, Henrietta Farber, recently summarized the feelings of many who know, "The cancer was challenging.

The implants almost killed me." While the manufacturers press releases rage "The Case Against Implants Collapses," and try to close this ugly chapter in medical history, the women, now united, have a plan of their own. With the health of women and their offspring at stake, Martha Murdock, Co-Founder of the National Silicone Implant Foundation in Dallas, with four generations of her family affected by silicone toxicity, says it best, "It's not over 'til we win."

Risks of Breast Implants

1. Implants can rupture during mammography.

2. Implants make routine self exams and mammography more difficult. More views are necessary, meaning additional radiation each time.

3. Implant rupture can go undetected for years and silicone is known to migrate through the lymph system and has been found in the brains, spinal fluid, ovaries, livers, and other organs of implanted women.

4. Implants are not lifetime devices, and may need to be replaced (even without systemic problems) more than once a decade.

5. At any time infections are possible, including fungal and antibiotic resistant bacterial infestations.

6. Loss of breast sensation, especially around the nipple area is reported, as well as hyper-senstivity to touch.

7. Capsular contracture can be very uncomfortable, to the point of severe pain and deformation.

8. Many women have experienced severe necrosis and other forms of breast tissue loss.

9. Many women have experienced serious autoimmune diseases post implantation including: rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, Sjøgrens Syndrome (severe dry mouth, eyes, etc.), and lupus.

Those women with pre-existing compromised immune systems are now warned to avoid implants.

10. Disproportional numbers of implanted women have reported neurological and cognitive complications, as well as endocrine disruption including hysterectomies, miscarriage.

11. Children born of implanted women have experienced the same autoimmune conditions and have been seriously inadequately studied.

12. Breast implants often negatively affect the ability to produce milk for breast-feeding.

13. Health insurance carriers are routinely denying coverage for implanted (and explanted) women.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ilena Rosenthal is the author of Breast Implants: The Myths, the Facts, the Women. Ms. Rosenthal has been connecting, supporting and educating women harmed by breast implants for over 5 years. As director of The Humantics Foundation for Women based in San Diego, she created and heads the largest Breast Implant Support Group in the world. E-mail: [email protected] phone: 858/270-0680.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Health for Longevity Magazine November/December 2000, Volume 22, Number 6 pages 41-42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

Many thanks to Ilena for allowing me to reprint her excellent article on breast implants. If you suffer with complications from implants I would strongly recommend joining her support group.

rnnurse2b · Feb 19, 2004

Anyone else have any personal breast implant experiences they would like to share? Feel free to PM me if you dont want your response posted on the board...thanks!

crankyasanoldma · Feb 19, 2004

I do not have nor have I considered getting implants. I, personally, would not care to undergo any surgical proceedure that wasn't a necessity. That is just my opinion, about me, and is neither here nor there.

I have seen many breast implant results during my work as an OB-GYN nurse. Most of them were quite natural appearing and had minimal scarring. Only occasionally have I seen women who appreared "over filled", and the effect was not aesthetically pleasing to me, but they seemed to like the results.

The worst appearing plastic surgery I saw was on a person who had had a tummy tuck that had developed an infection and also had some keloid scarring. Her naval was particularly strange looking. I don't know what she looked like before, so maybe this was an improvement.

I have sometimes wondered what a mess might live under say, Pamela Anderson's, bra. She has had at least a couple of augmentations. I saw a cable show on augmentations "gone bad" and it was frightening.

If you are seriously considering an augmentation, I would recommend having realistic expectations, going for a very natural look, and making sure you research your surgeon well.

Best Wishes!

Dave ARNP · Feb 19, 2004

I was consulting with a plastic doc one day about a patient who was considering them after a double mastectomy.

One of the things I was interested in was under the muscle -vs- over the muscle. Ofcourse medically, he suggests under the muscle, as this reduces the risk of decreased cancer detection during mamography.

However.. he mentioned one thing which I sorta found interesting. When you place the implant under the muscle, you increase the size of the base of the breast. Bascially if you were laying supine, this would be the part of the breast closest to your body. Now turn yourself over. Imagine things drooping. According to him, the breast will actually make a cone shaped appearence when in this position (now what you'd be doing in this position, I didn't ask).

His suggestion for appearence sake, was over the muscle.

Don't know if it applies a whole lot, but I thought I'd share my little bit of wisdom.

Dave

Alnamvet · Feb 20, 2004

Disfiguring, superficial, twisted, ...if there is a medically necessary, for self esteem, psychological post mastectomy, why on earth do woman subject themselves to such risk? Brings to mine other threads about body alterations that are medically unnecessary. Society is sick and superficial, and advocating medically unnecessary body alterations/disfigurements are not the mark of a true health care provider.

iliel · Feb 20, 2004

I have them. I was flat as a board...really flat. I did under the muscle. I did it for self esteem reasons but I first made sure it was the only self esteem issue I was having. They aren't too big or small, I'm very happy and no more self esteem issues. I guess I would say that now I feel like a woman and look like a woman.

It's all up to you. Some ppl told me to wait until I have kids but even my mom is still flat as a board so I took the chance.

Good luck in what you decide.

mitchsmom · Feb 20, 2004

Now turn yourself over. Imagine things drooping. According to him, the breast will actually make a cone shaped appearence when in this position

LOLOL ...This just totally made me laugh.... I don't know who you've been looking at in that position lately but mine have always taken on more or less that very appearance when they hang straight down (leaning over). I'm sure it depends on the individual breasts in the first place... LOL I guess maybe that's an advantage to fake ones... they don't take on a natural shape when hanging, stay more rounded and pretty?? LOLOL (at least while you are young before the skin and tissue around them starts to atrophy and you have to go get more work to maintain the look.)

As you can tell I'm personally anti-fake-boobs, but hey I guess whatever floats your boat. If I had that kind of cash floating around I would take the money and travel with it, no contest. India, an overwater bungalow in Tahiti,... so many choices! I have a friend who got them, she looks great, and that's what all the guys notice for sure. But she looked great before, too. Does anyone else notice that a lot of people with fakes look better only in tight shirts? If they wear looser shirts it makes their whole midsection look heavy because of the way the fabric draps down over the boobage? I wouldn't want that effect because I don't always want to wear certain types of shirts for my body to look the way I want it to. I don't know, maybe I'm nuts, has anyone else noticed this? Also, another opinion: my dh only likes them in clothes, he doesn't like the look of naked implanted boobs. Man, I hope my boys don't grow up wanting penile implants or biceps implants or something. Good luck in whatever you decide is best for you :)

iliel · Feb 20, 2004

Mitchsmom...I think it depends on how big the person gets their boobs. I hardly look big in the midsection. Besides, you could say that for anyone who is large chested with out fake boobs. :rolleyes: