Dr. Marcia Angell is Executive Editor of the New England Journal Of Medicine. "We have to wait for the science.

What was so startling to me in this case was the disconnect between the science, which largely was not there in 1992, and what was happening in the courts and in the FDA and what was happening in public opinion," she exclaimed on Frontline TV, Breast Implants On Trial, in 1993.

The time to wait for the science was before the implants were ever put on the market. We have 300 pages of Dow Chemical's and Dow Corning's scientific studies. They conducted toxicological and biological tests proving silicone is NOT INERT. In 1956, Dow Chemical used specially labelled radioactive tracers to trace the path of the silicone in the animals' bodies. The labelled-silicone was found in the intestines, right adrenal, skin and hair, heart, skull bone, brain, kidney, urine, liver, muscle, lung, renal fat, blood, and spleen of the rats.

In the lactating dogs, the labelled-silicone was found in the skin and hair, brain, bile, liver, kidney, milk, urine, skeletal muscle, lung, adrenal, blood, spleen, heart, thyroid, pancreas, and blood from the lung. Breast implants today contain these very same materials. Dow's own scientist, Spencer, identified SYMPTOMS WHICH MIGHT BE OBSERVED and listed adverse effects such as breathing effects, central nervous system effects, depression, and

neuromuscular co-ordination, when the silicone elastomer or trilucent shell that holds the contents of all implants was inhaled, causing death to animals. "We must assume until proven otherwise that low concentrations over long periods of time are detrimental to health", Spencer exclaimed.

(Received from a U.S. law firm)

Somehow the mathematics of this controversy don't make sense to me. Marcia Angell, a full-time salaried employee of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), claims she has no financial interest in the drug industry. Lets analyse that statement.

If the NEJM has 230,000 subscribers who pay an average of $160.00 per year for their subscriptions, the revenue from subscribers are in the range of $36.8 million per year.

The average NEJM has approximately 70 pages of "science" and 105 pages of advertising, mostly drug company advertising. That means the NEJM is roughly 60% advertising by volume.

Assume (conservatively) that each page of advertising brings in $50,000 of revenue and the magazine is published weekly, the revenue from advertising can be conservatively estimated at 50,000 x 52 or roughly $273 million per year.

That means that over 85% of the gross revenues earned by the NEJM comes from drug company advertising.

How can a full-time salaried employee of a magazine that draws 85% of its revenue from one industry claim that she has no "financial interest in that industry"?

Why would a drug company spend millions of dollars to develop a slick Madison Avenue multicolour advertisement for the NEJM if it thought that magazine would publish bad things about its products?

Why is our Canadian Government promoting Marcia Angell's book? Dow Chemical and Dow Corning in their own scientific labs (that were at the time proclaimed to be the world's best) found long ago how toxic silicone was, yet Dr. Marcia Angell says the science is still to come. Dr. Marcia Angell totally ignores the science as does Dr. Elizabeth Connell, chair of the FDA General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel.

These two women appear to believe, as Adolph Hitler said in his political past, "if you tell a lie often enough, it sounds like the truth, and soon others will tell it with conviction".

The world is slowly learning this is all about the big lie, "THE SCIENCE IS NOT HERE".

The science has been here since as early as 1944. Anyone can go to a PATHOLOGY LIBRARY and look up the toxic evils of silicone, it has been recorded this long.

Please do not purchase Marcia Angell's book, Science On Trial. It only perpetuates the big lie. Most public libraries have a copy.

For whatever reason a woman gets a breast implant, it is still for cosmetic purposes. If she loses a breast to cancer and gets implants, she has a good chance of losing her breast more than once. The women of the Implant Awareness Society have learned this the hard way through experience. Also, implants will compromise your health.