This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Garry S. Brody, MD
Los Angeles, Calif

JAMA. 1994;272(4):271.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In their Commentary,¹ Dr Kessler and colleagues lament "the uncertainty and unease that patients are experiencing" without acknowledging the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) significant contribution to this incertitude. The FDA's risk-benefit deliberations have consistently dwelt on safety issues while undervaluing the benefits of implants. For example, their Commentary selectively cited two anecdotal clinical studies without adequate controls and a study in rats that used a physically altered gel form not seen in vivo. Recent, much more meaningful epidemiologic studies showing no increase in autoimmune disease^2,3 were ignored. Despite the efforts of many investigators, no good evidence yet exists supporting a causal relationship between implants and any known medical disease.

The FDA publications have consistently accentuated the negative while refusing to add reassurance for apprehensive patients where appropriate. This is exemplified in their literature on breast cancer and breast-feeding, which raises concern that the language . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?