Talk:Breast implant/Archive 4

message: Unfortunately, the last month of discussion crashed and is not available in the archives.  Can anyone salvage it? 
This is what JFW wrote on Rob's talk page:
I've been working on breast implant and seem to have reached the stage where the atmosphere has reached one of intense collaboration. Simply deleting negative material without discussion is now more or less impossible. You may wish to list your objections to particular material on the talk page, and we'll all weigh in. Who knows, we may end up with something neutral at the end! JFW | T@lk 07:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a level of professional collaboration as pointed out by jgwlaw.  More importantly, we made headway on the article. Oliver, you continue to breach the professional agreement to "collaborate before making changes." Your posts are predictable..as is what you have to say.   The other editors have brought information, data and perspective to the table which has been discussed by all.   These are the things that enhance the article. Not you going off individually doing your own thing...just because you can.Sheehs1 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on platinum in the 'controversies' section is inappropriate. It is not an issue of concern to patients, physician or manufacturers and there have been no sensibly proposed ill effects of platinum catyalysts. The section should be removed. Will TALK 08:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: DZ, What don't you understand about the FDA's & others response response to this? In no certain words this was largley dismissed in their review. You also have a number of chemists saying that the finding is incompatible with contemporary understandings of  platinum free radicals.Droliver 18:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only 'other' was Will.  I disagree, and Sheesh1 disagrees.  So it hardly is a consensus.  As to the FDA....that is discussed in the article.jgwlaw 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly do disagree with the comments of both Oliver and Blake.  I would like to ask Will if he read the full articles on the most recent research on platinum ionization found in woman implanted with silicone gel implants.  If so, how can you deny others the right to this information thru this Wiki article? Need I say yet again that this section is absolutely required under the quidelines of informed consent.Sheehs1 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Droliver cites "a number of chemists" but gives no references.  I have spoken with several occupational health experts on platinum --platinum is an occupational health issue because of the platinum in catalytic converters, etc.  It is NOT surprising to them that platinum in breast implants could become platinum salts when the implants are in vivo.  That's why in vivo studies are important.  Drzuckerman 05:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going Forward

message: Is there any reason to include this?jawesq 16:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, IMODroliver 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.jawesq 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a few extreme examples, specifically what I'm thinking of is people are famous because of their breast implants. i.e. Pamela Anderson. But of course not just any famous people, then the list would be waaaaay too long. Those mentioned must only be included if some of their fame comes from some interesting and relevant aspect of their breast implants. For instance I'd be very interested to know who is the first public figure to acknowledge having breast implants. This would be a very handy thing to know, because breast implants have not always had the same level of acceptances as they do now. Mathmo 07:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People who have had breast implants

message: I updated the rupture section to 
::1. Add some saline rupture data for context
::2. reflect more accurately the silicone rupture data we have on devices currently being used (rather then those no longer made). These would be the "3rd generation" made since the late 1980's. An article published this month gives us another source [] to index rupture rates at close to a decade at ~8%. The isolated subset (145 implants out of 317) of 3rd generation implants in this paper [] also had the rate at 5%. This is as good data as we're going to have for another 5-6 years until the US core study matures
::3. place the MRI/clinical detection section at the header
Droliver 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rupture data

message: :Image:1200cc Breast Implants.jpg
Most of the images are clinical. Shouldn't there be another image included? --evrik 02:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinical images

message: Other articles have external links organized alphabetically.  IT becomes problematic when a controversial article has links organized by 'relevance'.  According to JFW, for example, all links that question the safety would be least relevant.  In fact, Fumento's article, which is on a libertarian political site, would be more relevant than the NOW letter or The Center for Women's Health.  I think not.  And according to JFW, Alliance for Justice Releases Important New Study; Silicone Implant Saga Illustrates Vital Importance of the Civil Justice System is not relevant and he removed it entirely.   It most certainly is relevant and appropriate as an external link.   Leonard60 21:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Fumento has a long checkered history as a right wing political writer.  Hardly 'relevant' for a NPOV article and certainly not more relevant than The Alliance for Justice.  Similarly, the Manhattan Institute is also an extremely political organization, and does not merit a 'relevant' status.Leonard60 04:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links