Specific Purpose: To persuade my audience to boycott silicone breast implants, and to inform others of the dangerous risks.

Central Idea: Because of the serious health risks of silicone breast implants, they should be boycotted.

Method of Organization: Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Charlotte Mahlum, a former coffee-shop waitress, received silicone breast implants in 1985. One of the implants ruptured and leaked silicone into her breast, body, and skin. Ten years after she received the implants, she was forced to wear diapers. She has been diagnosed with the following symptoms: Incontinence, which means unable to control the bowels or bladder or both, hand tremors, atrophy in one foot, and brain lesions. She can no longer work in the coffee shop. Her husband has to constantly take care of her. She was only 46.

This is a true story that appeared in a 1996 issue of the magazine, "Extra."

There are many more stories like this. One particular story by Bill Siemer, illustrates the lethalness of the issue. In the mid 1980’s his wife, Gina, received breast implants. But then she started having many ill symptoms. Gina finally found a doctor who told her that the symptoms were related to her implants. On the day of the surgery, the mammogram showed no signs of any problem. But when they were removed, numerous cysts were found that had to be taken out. The silicone had migrated to her lymph nodes. Though the implants had not ruptured, they had each lost about 25 grams of silicone. A little more than two years had passed and her symptoms still hadn’t improved. On March 9, 1997, Gina passed away.

Over one million women have had implants, and thousands claim to be having health problems from these implants.

I have been in touch with one woman whom today is feeling the serious health effects of silicone breast implants. She wants me to read a poem to you. She wrote the poem herself. Although time does permit me to read the entire poem, I will read the first stanza:

Breast implant! Worst nightmare! It’s a hell of a life.

I was your victim with you inside me, your poison.

Horror! Fear! Hatred! Confusion!

That’s what I have to go through; That’s my life.

- Micheline B. Lambert

Breast implants are mainly accused of two possible disorders: autoimmune-like disorders and Fibrositis-like disorders. The FDA says that these are possible risks of breast implants.

A. The FDA defines autoimmune-like disorders as the following:

1. Signs include joint pain and swelling; swollen glands or lymph nodes; unusual fatigue; general aching; greater chance of getting viruses and flu; unusual hair loss; memory problems; muscle weakness or burning; nausea or vomiting; and irritable bowel syndrome.

1. The FDA defines Fibrositis-like disorders as the following:

1. Before I get into explaining the complexity of the subject, I will give you a short history of breast implants.

1. The history goes back to Japan, during the 1940’s.

1. Japanese prostitutes injected their breasts with substances such as paraffin and silicone because they believed that American servicemen liked large breasts.
2. According an article in "Arthritis & Rheumatism", by 1960 many negative health effects were reported in these patients.

1. They included chronic and granulomatous inflammation.
2. These conditions basically mean a mass of inflamed granulation tissue, usually associated with ulcerated infections, or lesions on the skin.

1. In 1962 Dow Corning manufactured the first silicone gel implants.
2. In July of 1991, the FDA forced Dow Corning to prove their implants were safe. Dow Corning submitted 329 studies, which was not enough to prove they were safe.
3. In January of 1992, the FDA put a moratorium, or prohibition, on silicone breast implants.
4. In March of 1992, Dow Corning stopped manufacturing implants.
5. In April of 1992, the FDA lifted the moratorium, but only women having breast reconstruction and who consent to a survey can receive silicone breast implants.
6. By June of 1995, 440,000 women have filed suits against Dow Corning.
7. To this date, the FDA has not approved silicone breast implants.

1. The two most popular of these is the Mayo Clinic Epidemiological study and the Harvard Nurses Epidemiological study, both of which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Both studies reported finding no increased risk of connective tissue disease in women with silicone implants. But I have a few comments to make on this.

1. Both the Mayo study and the Harvard study have definite problems. I will describe six of them for you. My research here has been taken from the magazine "Extra."

1. The first problem is that these studies looked for traditional connective tissue disorders, but the problems women are dealing with are not typical disorders.
2. The second problem is that the time frame for these studies is too short. The National Institute of Health finds that it takes seven to fifteen or more years for silicone-related diseases to show up. The average for the Mayo study was less than 8 years and the average for the Harvard study was only about 9.
3. Third, the results were skewed in one of the studies because women were included who had implants for only 30 days.
4. Fourth, researchers from both studies gave a warning of the lack of proof they had in the New England Journal of Medicine. For the Mayo study they reported, "Our results cannot be considered definitive proof…," and for the Harvard study they reported, "Our study cannot be considered definitively negative."
5. Fifth, it is interesting to point out that Dow Corning funded each of these studies, either in direct or indirect ways.
6. Sixth, in the Harvard study of about 88,000 nurses, only one percent had silicone breast implants.

1. You can see that these studies don’t say a thing, and in fact show just how sloppy science can be.

1. Just as I presented six pieces of evidence against these studies, I will now present six pieces of evidence that help to prove my argument.

1. The first piece of evidence, from Extra, is a second, larger Harvard study. This study was funded by Dow Corning. It found a 45 percent to 59 percent increased risk of rheumatoid arthritic, but this study emerged only in court.
2. The second piece of evidence is a lab report. It is documented in record number 7029 of the Plaintiff’s submission and proposed findings to the NS Panel, or the National Science Panel (10/16/97). The company Heyer-Schulte hired an outside lab. The lab conducted a 90-day animal implantation study of Dow-Corning gel and reported a chronic inflammatory reaction.
3. The third piece of evidence comes from NS Panel. Albino rats were injected with silicone. It migrated to bone marrow and affected the rats brain weight.
4. The fourth piece of evidence comes from the panel as well. The only long-term study done by Dow Corning, for ten years, that about 20% of the women showed symptoms like the ones appearing in Japanese literature – such as arthritic problems.
5. The fifth piece of evidence is again from the panel. In the 1960’s, a study done for Dow Corning, found that various silicones had unexpected results on the immune system.
6. The sixth piece of evidence is this: Doctors from the National Cancer Institute and FDA, state, "silicone was initially thought to be an inert substance. Recent evidence, however, has documented that it is immunogenic. . . ." Immunogenic means it has the ability to produce an immune system response.

1. With this information about possible effects, I will now proceed into the final effects of silicone breast implants. These are real risks from implants and surgery, which no scientific studies can argue with. The FDA, in their Information Update from 1997 documents these risks:

1. Hematoma is collection of blood or a blood clot. It can cause scarring and is painful.
2. Infection causes pain and fever. The surgeon should be contacted immediately. If infection does not subside, the implants will have to be removed.
3. Silicone breast implants can rupture, leaking silicone into the body. The FDA doesn’t know what the chance of rupture is, but they say it can be up to 50%. Upon rupture the breast implants must be removed immediately. Silicone also leaks out of the breast implant even though it doesn’t rupture.
4. Capsular contracture is the tightening of scar tissue around the implant. It can cause pain and hardening of the breast. If the changes are severe, more surgery will be needed.
5. Calcium deposits can form in surrounding tissue as well. This may cause pain and hardening of the scar tissue. The deposits need to be surgically removed in some cases.
6. Changes in nipple or breast sensation due to implants can be temporary or permanent. It may affect sexual response and breast-feeding.
7. Breast implants can also interfere with mammogram readings, and hinder the detection of breast cancer.
8. The implants can also shift inside the body and lead to deformed breasts. Further surgery is needed in this case. One example of this contained in a book called, "Silicone Survivors." The author explains that one breast implant of a women she interviewed, had migrated from normal breast position to her armpit.

1. Because of the risks, women have a 24% chance of having another surgery in the first five years after implantation. Additional surgeries can result in loss of breast tissue.

1. I will now show you some very graphic pictures. If you feel uncomfortable at any time, please close your eyes.

1. All of these women have or have had silicon breast implants.
2. The first picture shows a woman who had her implants removed.
3. The second picture is a photo taken after surgery to remove painful lumps from her skin.
4. The third picture shows hematoma on the abdomen.
5. The fourth picture is necrosis of the nipples or where the nipples died and scar tissue remained.
6. The fifth and sixth picture is necrosis of breast tissue. Her silicone breast implant ruptured.

I do not have an elaborate solution drawn out. I am not a doctor, nor a politician. I do know, however, that there is a problem. Therefore, I propose a simple solution that all of you are capable of. That solution is to boycott silicone breast implants. Be a walking, talking, information source on the risks of implants. If someone you know is thinking about getting silicone breast implants, tell them the dangers. Tell them to boycott.

You learned about the history of implants which shows you how it affected the Japanese. You heard how sloppy scientific studies can be. You realized that there are scientific studies that support what I am saying. You learned the possible and real risks of silicone breast implants. You saw with your own eyes what these implants can do to people. Implants aren’t luxuries. They’re frivolous; they’re poison filled bags.

This could be your wife, mother, sister, daughter…

Boycott these poisons … Thank you.

Flanders, Laura. "Beware: P.R. Implants in News." EXTRA! January/February 1996: Online. Frontline: Breast Implants on Trial.

http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/fairarticle.html

8 November 1998.

Alt.Support.Breast-Implant Group.

8 Novemeber 1998.

Definitions:

History:

Frontline: Breast Implants on Trial. "Chronology of Silicone Breast Implants."

http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/implants/cron.html

8 November 1998.

Record numbers of the Plaintiff’s submission and proposed findings to the National Science Panel:

Women In Health.

http://womnhlth.home.mindspring.com/PSC/INTRO.HTM

and

http://womnhlth.home.mindspring.com/PSC/BIOPLAUS.HTM

8 November 1998.

Known Risks:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Breast Implants An information Update. Rockville, Maryland: July 1997.

Micheline B. Lambert. Pictures 5 and 6.

http://www.info-implants.com

8 November 1998

Note:

All the pictures mentionned in this speech can not be reproduced. They were included in Hans’speech..