Dow Corning Breast Implant Controversy

9 Pages 2217 Words

trade name "Silastic" without long-term testing or monitoring of the women who receive them. No mention whatsoever is made of possible health risks, and because the silicone is contained inside a "protective" bag the breast implants are not within the purview of the FDA regulations.
1964-- In a letter to the FDA, Dow Corning lawyers represent that liquid silicone, a major component of the silicone-gel implant, is not absorbed by the body. However internal Dow Corning testing had already conclusively demonstrated the exact opposite.

1965-- A study finds that lumps develop under the skin when silicone enters human tissue, but Dow Corning continues to insist that silicone is an inert substance.

1967-- Dow Corning and three of its top executives are criminally indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in Bay City, Michigan, for permitting deliveries of silicone without FDA approval.

1968-- When silicone bags are implanted into dogs the silicone leaks out and is dispersed throughout their systems, according to another secret study for Dow Corning.

1970-- Dow Corning reports to the scientific community that implants caused no adverse health consequences in four laboratory dogs. Later, because of the discovery process in court, it will be revealed that one of the dogs died and the other three suffered chronic inflammation.

1972-- Dow Corning pharmacologist, Don Bennett, notes in an internal memo that economic considerations are constraining research into the biological applications of silicone. Dr. Bennett later quits in a falling-out with the company over the lack of research.

1975-- Numerous plastic surgeons complain to Dow Coming that its newly redesigned silicone implants appear oily and seem to be leaking even before they are surgically inserted. Some surgeons report that the implants appear to have been soaked in Mazola oil. One Dow Corning executive instructs company salesmen to wash and towel-dry the implants before d...