NewsRX.com tells us about a new study in the Annals of Plastic Surgery. Here’s the synopsis:

A report, ‘The safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants: a review of the epidemiologic evidence,’ is newly published data in Annals of Plastic Surgery. “Few implantable medical devices have been studied for their safety more extensively than silicone gel-filled breast implants. We summarize the epidemiologic evidence on the safety of breast implants, most of which is drawn from large cohort studies with long-term follow-up,” scientists in the United States report.

Hmm, they’re pulling out that old line — “Few implantable medical devices have been studied for their safety more extensively than silicone gel-filled breast implants” — AGAIN? We often hear this as a defense of the manufacturers and plastic surgeons. I can’t tell you how many times I heard it at the FDA hearings. I wonder where the results of these “extensive” studies are? We know the manufacturers did not come up with any data longer than two to three years. So WHERE is this “safety” data? Why wasn’t it presented at the hearings?

The old paid-for-by-the-manufacturers studies have been looked at and reviewed over and over again, but NO NEW studies have been done that are peer-reviewed or credible. There has been press covering the controversy for years, and the FDA’s own studies have shown connective tissue problems and horrible local complication problems in the longer term.

It is so annoying that these companies can keep putting out this information like it’s true. And people read it and BELIEVE it must be so. If they say it enough, you start to believe it!!!

Well, we KNOW this is not true. Scrutiny is not science.