Talk:Breast implant/Revised

message: I basically reverted to the original.  Unless Rob Oliver can work with editors and discuss paragraphs, eg work coooperatively, this article will never happen.  I am not going to allow him to completely gut everything I did so h e can make it an advertisement.  I again suggest we get some other editors to help who will discuss paragraphs, or sections.  I will talk to Dr. Laub, and see if he will help start this.
Oliver only inflames, because he guts the entire section and writes only what he wants - no discussion, no cooperation.  It is outrageous.  He has already been requested not to do this in other articles, especially when he added links to his own website. This is  not Wiki, and it is also not professional. molly bloom 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've replaced the table in the section on systemic disease. If you can convince the community at large that verbatim investigational reviews/reports from western nations is "POV" then go for it. I'll will leave it to the group of editors to decide on this. Presently, there is no indication that any signifigant work in this area of excluding systemic ilness has been done which is ironic for what's been called the most studied device ever presented to the FDA. Molly, you've had a free run for several weeks on editorial control and this article is a confused and alarmist view of what is a fairly simple subject as a result. The inflamatory factoids, quotes, and reports have made the sections on saline/PTU/silicone implants, systemic disease, and complications into an unacceptable narrative. 65.89.98.20 18:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: table

message: Only changed "most plastic surgeons...feel silicone ...is the superior device" to "has a more natural look".  molly bloom 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saline Implants

message: Rob changed this without any discussion,  As a result, I reverted back to original.  Secondly, there is no need to go into detail about approvable letters.  The FDA has not yet lifted the ban,.  That is sufficient.  When and if the FDA does, then that can be stated.  Further, Dr. Kessler did not unilaterally restrict silicone implants.  He certainly voiced his concerns, and as the FDA commissioner then, he acted for the FDA.  You don't write the names of those who decided to write an approvable letter.  This is nonsense. And again, please DISCUSS the changes you make here.molly bloom 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Local complications and mammography do not need to be in "Risk & Controversy" section.  They are already in the main section.molly bloom 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing redundant sections

message: The sentence "According to the New York Times, at least three women died when silicone obstructed their blood vessels and lungs.[2]" does not belong in the passing reference to injectable silicone as it does not accurately reflect what you do in fact see. These patiets present with granulomas & silicone "lakes" within the breast & can have some lymph nodes enlarged. There are better references, reviews, and treatment recomendations of this particular problem in the literature if we want to devote attention to this Droliver 12:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History PPG

message: Both the 2005 FDA approvable letters & the current Canadian environment (including the 2005 re-review of safety issues) should be referred to in the intro paragraphs to provide an accurate current snapshot of where things are in North America.Droliver 13:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Silicone gel PPG

message: We should add the transumbilical approach & endoscopic transaxillary techniquesDroliver 13:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Techniques PPG

message: In the absense of closed-capsulotomy procedures where you used to squeeze a hard capsule unil it 'popped' (which were very common but are no longer done by and large)extra-capsular migration rates are extremely low (something like 1/40,000 from some of the international rupture studies). I think that information should be referenced for context if I can find it in print (it's from a talk by Scott Spear (chief @ Georgetown)on silicone implant safety that's going to be part of the FDA requisites for surgeon training for implanting these devices)Droliver 13:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually do have some information inferred on rates of extracapsular rupture from  several studies which is distinct from the overall device rupture rate, which we  do have very good 4 year data to tell people (which has to be prefaced by the fact we have little clue how the failure curve looks at a decade to 15 years which is where older devices sharply increased their failure rate.)Droliver 11:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rupture PPG

message: This deserves a good bit more attention as it's one of the things both the FDA & Surgeons are most concerned with improving. As mentioned above, educating patients & surgeons on proper device & technique selection has been shown by some authors to reduce this almost 80-90%65.89.98.20 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an educational article for surgeons, Rob.  Why can't we just discuss the facts, and not conjecture or a few studies that you want to highlight?molly bloom 17:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molly, the facts are that local complications requiring reoperation (and reducing those rates) are what's being most elevated by the FDA in their concerns in recent hearings rather then systemic illness issues. I'm was simply proposing incorporating some of the concepts of this through various parts of the entry before adding them.Droliver 15:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then why don't you discuss it here first.  And, let's see what others think.molly bloom 04:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: additional surgeries

message: The two links Rob keeps removing STAY.  I would like to hear what others have to say about it.  There is no harm in providing both sides, to this discussion, since there is controversy. Also, we should have links to more European information - I have added two that discuss recent EU Parliment decisions..67.35.126.14 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These links STAY, Robbie.  You said the IRG summarized the information I included.  Could you please explain to us all how that can be, when the IRG publication is older than the links I provided?   I would really appreciate it if you would try to be honest in your comments.  Otherwise, this whole discussion is pointless.molly bloom 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob you need to stop deleting links.  I will report your vandalism, if it continues.  You are not discussing, you are merely deleting.molly bloom 22:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EXTERNAL LINKS

message: Oliver, this stays as it was.   The reference cited explains the regulation.  That is ALL that this paragraph is about.  The reference cited and the text ARE ACCURATE.  It does not imply anything.  IT is a statement of fact.  That is still the regulation in Canada.  IT STAYS.  molly bloom 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molly, the context of this is important when you discuss Canada. It's important to show what the contemporary environment is there & as you'd like that paragraph to read that is unclearDroliver 18:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not.  You didn't even cite anything for your comments.  This is ONLY about regulation.  This is FACTUAL about Canadian regulation as it exists now--this IS the contemporary REGULATORY environment.  When and if it changes, then we can add the new regulation.  Your comments are misleading and factually incorrect.   THIS STAYS AS THE ORIGINAL EDITOR (NOT I) WROTE IT, unless or until a consensus of editors decide otherwise.  This is not a paragraph about how many surgeries occur, but about the regulation.  What is written is still the law of Canada.  molly bloom 21:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada & Silicone Implants

message: This is a quote from one of many many women who say the very same thing about their silicone implants :
Do you know if there is anything I can do legally? I am outraged that I was never followed up on by M entor or my implanting PS. And when I called and told them I felt I was having problems with them I was ignored. If they really wanted to learn anything from a study not only do they need to follow up but they need to LISTEN to the people in the study.
I personally think a class action  may be in order.MollyBloom 12:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty clear to me the plastic surgeons and manufacturers do NOT want to learn anything.12:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sham of the Adjunct Study