As artificial as a breast augmentation surgery itself, the media's hype over dangers from silicone breast implants has been pretty much debunked by over a decade of scientific review. But that hasn't prompted the media to admit to and deflate the unfounded fears it blew up 16 years ago. From my colleague Julia Seymour's BMI newsletter article.
The FDA has put silicone breast implants back on the market. But journalists, who hyped the implants’ dangers more than a decade ago, have shown they’re not convinced.
“Given the history of this product, I think a lot of people are going to have a hard time with the government blessing for this particular product, being a foreign substance being sewn inside the bodies of women,” said NBC anchor Brian Williams on the Nov. 17, 2006, “Nightly News.”
Some will disagree with the FDA decision, especially if they listened solely to the biased media coverage of the implants during the early 1990s as fears first arose about their safety. But others have said science has finally won the debate on silicone breast implants.
In a recent article, Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health, described the FDA’s decision as a “welcome development to those of us who believe that regulatory decisions should be based on science, rather than activist hype.”
Throughout the early 1990s, media hyped the unproven dangers of implants by including dramatic examples, not identifying activists, and excluding relevant opinions. In 1992, FDA banned the implants except in controlled studies so that their safety could be examined. Years later, multiple scientific studies would show no connection between cancer and autoimmune diseases and the implants.
One of the most memorable one-sided stories was a segment on CBS’s “Face to Face with Connie Chung,” which warned only of dangers during a Dec. 10, 1990, broadcast. “But what’s shocking,” Chung warned, “is that these devices have never been approved by the federal government. Only now is the government looking at the dangers. But for some women, it may be too late.”
The segment included four women who believed their medical problems stemmed from their silicone implants and one doctor who agreed with them.
[...]
Chung’s story did not include anyone satisfied with silicone implants, despite the fact that 2 million women had breast implants at that time, including many who had reconstruction after a mastectomy. The story also left out any doctors who disagreed with Dr. Shanklin, or representatives of the implant manufacturers.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I knew they were just making
November 29, 2006 - 15:05 ET by Ten7sI knew that they were just making mountains out of molehills.
Tit for Tat!
November 29, 2006 - 15:10 ET by bigtimerTit for Tat!
the silicone problem
November 29, 2006 - 15:13 ET by misterbillthe silicone problem--sorry I have not kept abreast of the issues!
As Dennis Miller once said,
November 29, 2006 - 15:22 ET by Uncle JohnAs Dennis Miller once said, "What's 'tat', and how do I get some to trade for the other?"
By winning the booby prize!
November 29, 2006 - 15:26 ET by bigtimerBy winning the booby prize!
BT funnneeee
November 29, 2006 - 15:28 ET by misterbillROTFLMAO! I laughed so hard I hootered!
Bet you had to "rack&q
November 29, 2006 - 15:29 ET by Uncle JohnBet you had to "rack" your brain for that one...
uncle john
November 29, 2006 - 18:10 ET by misterbillI read yr post in a group. A titter ran through the crowd.
Deflating hysteria
November 30, 2006 - 07:07 ET by SportPoliticsMounds of evidence seem to have brightened things up.
What happened to a woman's
November 29, 2006 - 15:29 ET by n2soonersWhat happened to a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body? Isn't it supposed to be all about choice? This whole breast implant issue is just proof that there is no such thing as pro-choice, it is just a meaningless term to avoid saying pro-abortion.
n2sooner pro-choice
November 29, 2006 - 18:04 ET by misterbilln2sooner pro-choice.
Although I am a conservative I have to disagree with you on this. Pro-choice is appropriate--choose to murder or choose to let live.
<Irony off> I completely agree with you!!!
What the hell does this have
November 29, 2006 - 16:00 ET by Agnostic frontWhat the hell does this have to do with the "liberal" media? As I've always said, the media's not liberally biased, they just care about ratings. There's no story in "silicone is fine."
Just because there's no story
November 29, 2006 - 17:54 ET by mattmJust because there's no story in "silicone is fine" doesn't mean the media aren't liberally biased. The evidence for that is overwhelming.
Ooook, but what does silicone
November 29, 2006 - 17:56 ET byOoook, but what does silicone have to do with this so-called 'liberal' bias? Shouldn't all of the articles on this site serve to support this hypothesis?
"Ooook, but what does
November 29, 2006 - 18:06 ET by ckc1227"Ooook, but what does silicone have to do with this so-called 'liberal' bias? Shouldn't all of the articles on this site serve to support this hypothesis?"
Actually, I think the people who run this site get to make that decision, not you.
Oh burn. Good one tiger.
November 29, 2006 - 18:08 ET byOh burn. Good one tiger. I would argue that the Mission Statement of Newsbusters runs this site. The people that work for NB have the sole goal of putting forth and supporting the mission statement.
So I ask you again. What does silicone have to do with liberal media bias? What does it have to do with anything?
Oh Syg don't get your tit in
November 29, 2006 - 18:16 ET by bigtimerOh Syg don't get your tit in a wringer about it...if you don't like how this site is run take your melons somewhere else and play.
I like how this site runs.
November 29, 2006 - 18:17 ET byI like how this site runs. I just occassionally disagree with some of the posts. Don't you worry your little head about it.
Various doctors at the time
November 30, 2006 - 03:35 ET by sarcasmoVarious doctors at the time knew that it was all feminist-activist hype, egged on by a news media which hyped the activists' positions while not identifying their financial interest in a bogus lawsuit which bankrupted a small company you may have heard-of, called Dow Corning. Since trial lawyers with close ties to those same media-hyped anti-knocker activists are never political, and since big-government agencies like the FDA obviously can't be influenced in antiscientific ways by activists with a lawsuit to win, I guess you must be right, and this has nothing to do with the pervasive pro big government media bias I'm always seeing for some reason. Like, "it's plainly there."
JMR
Not necessarily. Any story
November 29, 2006 - 18:11 ET by mattmNot necessarily. Any story can provide an example of how the media function. In this case, it's a demonstration of how the media hype a story as factual even though there is no factual basis, yet once that is established, they refuse to admit it.
Come to think of it, why isn't "silicone is OK" a sellable story? It sounds like it could be entertaining as well as informative. I think I just might check the news tonight to find out.....although I prefer the natural look.
I hear what you're saying. Va
November 29, 2006 - 18:16 ET byI hear what you're saying. Valid points, but I don't think it applies to this story.
First of all, there were real dangers with silicone. Real women were being poisoned by their breast implants. Sure the media may have made it seem more prevelant than it really was, but at the time this was a scary scenario so the media covered it.
I guess I just don't get this particular example.
Syg, surely you jest
November 29, 2006 - 18:28 ET by CharliedocSyg sez:"First of all, there were real dangers with silicone. Real women were being poisoned by their breast implants."
Actually,.....
there never has been anyting more than anecdotal evidence that silicone implants cause any of the maladies the hysterical media blamed on it.
Secondly, no one has every been shown to have been "poisoned" by medical grade silicone implants.
You're joking right? You mu
November 29, 2006 - 18:33 ET byYou're joking right? You must be joking.
Ha I get it. A nice wednesday joke. Good one.
Go to any search engine and type "silicone poisoning"
I'm positive you'll find that you are dead wrong. Poor guy.
Syg,Actually, could you g
November 29, 2006 - 21:48 ET by hydrodynDMSyg,
Actually, could you give a reference to a medical study that supports the idea that these implants were responsable for any of the problems (like connective tissue disease, for example) that the media attributed to them.
And I'm sorry, but a Google search on "silicone poisoning" doesn't really address the issue here.
No Joke
November 29, 2006 - 23:39 ET by CharliedocSyg, you are misinformed (I'm trying to be kind.)
I am a Physician, and you don't have a single legit medical study to refute my assertions.
I said there only anecdotal stories of illnesses caused by implantation of medical grade Silocone products.
( I never said that other forms of Silicon were not toxic.)
The joke is on you.
You have blindly accepted the hysterical claims as legimitate cause and effect.
Clearly (see my post above,
November 30, 2006 - 07:00 ET by sarcasmoClearly (see my post above, referencing my friend Harlan, who said this very thing at the time) hysterical/anecdotal claims by angry anti-knocker activists trump rational scientific evidence/arguments from silly old doctors when it comes to the news media, now, or back-when the bogus lawsuit was bankrupting a Fortune 500 company and unjustly enriching science-challenged/ethics-challenged trial lawyers, but somehow we're all supposed to believe that's not slam-dunk evidence of mediabias. For credibility, I think I'd take the Tooth Fairy over this little fable any day.
JMR
Go to any search engine and
November 30, 2006 - 07:20 ET by Jack BauerGo to any search engine and type "silicone poisoning"
This is what passes for thinking.
Tell you what sir, why not also type in "flat earth".
There are people who believe that, so I guess it must be true if you find it on a search engine.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Lawyers loved it...along with
November 29, 2006 - 18:39 ET by bigtimerLawyers loved it...along with the clients.
First you need to understan
November 29, 2006 - 18:42 ET by Junk Science SkepticFirst you need to understand that "liberal" is just a quick and polite way of referring to those who are anti-capitalist, socialist, etc.
As for the connection between liberal media bias and the great silicone hooter scare, what could be more anti-capitalist than using non-scientific propaganda passed off as real journalism to wreck a successful company that produces a safe product?
What, you mean like "cli
November 29, 2006 - 21:06 ET by UnsaneWhat, you mean like "climate change"...oh, I mean, global warming? You know, that theory promoted by a gaggle of guilt-ridden Leftists who want to demolish the First World so that they can feel better?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Implants
December 1, 2006 - 01:33 ET by pbanks7This is exactly the point John Stossell made in his book. He used to be a liberal, but realized something was wrong with this ideoloy.
The trial lawyers portrayed a certain amount of a symptom as elevated when it was actually normal. Juries (and the press) never believe the eeeevvvilllll corporation's rebuttal. That's why there are so many out of court settlements, and the trial lawyers blame the eeeeevvviiilll corporations for this tactic as a cost-cutting measure.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Let's not forget the (hundred
November 30, 2006 - 10:28 ET by taznarLet's not forget the (hundreds?) of millions payed out in civil lawsuits. Keep in mind, even back then there was no scientific indication that the implants were responsible or were dangerous. Every study showed them to be safe. But that didn't seem to matter much to juries faced with a "victim" who obviously suffered a major medical crisis.
In other news, DDT is also making a come-back after being banned for decades even though every scientific review found it to be safe*. Maybe the vast number of lives ravaged by malaria over the years has started to haunt those responsible.
*I'm sure many of you remember the study that fueled public support for the DDT ban. In the study (going by memory) 6 of 10 Bald Eagle eggs exposed to DDT failed to hatch. A thin shell caused by DDT was blamed. We know how the MSM reports stuff like that. But every good scientific study has a control group -10 eggs not exposed to DDT. How many of those failed to hatch? 5. You do the statistics.
I think the former sharehol
November 30, 2006 - 10:36 ET by sarcasmoI think the former shareholders of Dow Corning who lost money might have a civil cause of action against the various trial lawyers dishonest enough to bring the bogus case and use biased activists to manipulate an already-biased news media. Sadly, despite the huge numbers of lawyers these days, I doubt we'll ever see it, and if we did I'm sure the media will again go unquestioningly to the activists for "unbiased" info.
JMR
Come on, sarcasmo, get with i
December 1, 2006 - 03:43 ET by UnsaneCome on, sarcasmo, get with it. Why should people WORK for their money when they can steal from the producers instead?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)