A challenge for the forum readers

[droliver]

I've a project for the audience here:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with the idea that users will contribute the information and the online community will police itself with millions of potential editors to correct percieved inacuracies in the entries. This works well for most things except for controversial medical, religion, and political topics.

There are a number of areas where the daggers come out including autism & vaccines, aesbestos, and silicone breast implants.
For those of you unfamiliar with the silicone breast implant story:Since the early 1990's there's been an FDA moratorium on unrestricted use of gel implants. To make a long story short, in a maneuver more political then science, the implants were restricted limited to IRB-guided protocols for cosmetic & reconstructive use. Since then, silicone implants have been shown to be both effective & safe in several dozen major reports all over the world including a comprehensive Institute of Medicine review which can be reviewed online:

1991-1994 United Kingdom Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG)
1996 US Review US Institute of Medicine (IOM)
1996 France Agence Nationale pour le Developpement de l'Evaluation Medicale (ANDEM)
1998 Germany’s Federal Institute for Medicine and Medical Products
2000 US Review request of the United States Federal Judiciary
2001 Great Britain UK Independent Review Group
2001 US Review for court appointed National Science Panel
2003 Spanish STOA Report to the European Parliament Petitions Committee
2004 Danish Long-Term Followup Study
2005 Canadian expert review panel


In 2005 the FDA advisory panels endorsed approval of implants by the two larger manufacturers & everyone expects the restrictions on their use to be relaxed (similar to the conditions in every other country in the world). This has brought a great deal of distress to a group of people who are convinced silicone produces wide-spread auto-immune diseases, cancer, you-name-it.

As a the Surgery/Plastic Surgeon moderator here (and now in practice) with an interest in Internet media & medical information, I worked hard on the entry on breast implants only to run headlong into a militant hard-core anti-silicone partisan, Ms. Molly Bloom (a Boca Raton attorney apparently), who has continuously distortes this topic. Samples of her writing in the comments section (usually directed at me) include:
"I know that my ruptured silicone implants nearly killed me"

"I must say that you are correct when you suggest that I am suspicious of doctors. I am particularly suspicious of plastic surgeons who benefit financially by the approval of silicone implants"

"This 'neutral' editing does a disservice to any article about silicone breast implants and the women who are interested in these issues"

"My personal opinion is that an FDA of this White House administration is more likely to approve silicone implants than a different FDA. Bush has not shown he is interested in consumer safety."


This editor makes hundreds of edits to this entry this weekly, similar to the desperate and fiercly partisan editors on autism, George Bush (and other politicians), creationism, etc....

My challenge to this group of young doctors and students is to get involved with the editing and writing of not just this entry, but other topics in medicine you have an interest in. Attached below is the link to the article on implants I'm referring to. Read some of the instructions on Wikipedia participation before diving in. There is strength in numbers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jocomama]

Please follow the rules for this site. Thank you

I've a project for the audience here:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with the idea that users will contribute the information and the online community will police itself with millions of potential editors to correct percieved inacuracies in the entries. This works well for most things except for controversial medical, religion, and political topics.

There are a number of areas where the daggers come out including autism & vaccines, aesbestos, and silicone breast implants.
For those of you unfamiliar with the silicone breast implant story:Since the early 1990's there's been an FDA moratorium on unrestricted use of gel implants. To make a long story short, in a maneuver more political then science, the implants were restricted limited to IRB-guided protocols for cosmetic & reconstructive use. Since then, silicone implants have been shown to be both effective & safe in several dozen major reports all over the world including a comprehensive Institute of Medicine review which can be reviewed online:

1991-1994 United Kingdom Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG)
1996 US Review US Institute of Medicine (IOM)
1996 France Agence Nationale pour le Developpement de l'Evaluation Medicale (ANDEM)
1998 Germany’s Federal Institute for Medicine and Medical Products
2000 US Review request of the United States Federal Judiciary
2001 Great Britain UK Independent Review Group
2001 US Review for court appointed National Science Panel
2003 Spanish STOA Report to the European Parliament Petitions Committee
2004 Danish Long-Term Followup Study
2005 Canadian expert review panel


In 2005 the FDA advisory panels endorsed approval of implants by the two larger manufacturers & everyone expects the restrictions on their use to be relaxed (similar to the conditions in every other country in the world). This has brought a great deal of distress to a group of people who are convinced silicone produces wide-spread auto-immune diseases, cancer, you-name-it.

As a the Surgery/Plastic Surgeon moderator here (and now in practice) with an interest in Internet media & medical information, I worked hard on the entry on breast implants only to run headlong into a militant hard-core anti-silicone partisan, Ms. Molly Bloom (a Boca Raton attorney apparently), who has continuously distortes this topic. Samples of her writing in the comments section (usually directed at me) include:
"I know that my ruptured silicone implants nearly killed me"

"I must say that you are correct when you suggest that I am suspicious of doctors. I am particularly suspicious of plastic surgeons who benefit financially by the approval of silicone implants"

"This 'neutral' editing does a disservice to any article about silicone breast implants and the women who are interested in these issues"

"My personal opinion is that an FDA of this White House administration is more likely to approve silicone implants than a different FDA. Bush has not shown he is interested in consumer safety."


This editor makes hundreds of edits to this entry this weekly, similar to the desperate and fiercly partisan editors on autism, George Bush (and other politicians), creationism, etc....

My challenge to this group of young doctors and students is to get involved with the editing and writing of not just this entry, but other topics in medicine you have an interest in. Attached below is the link to the article on implants I'm referring to. Read some of the instructions on Wikipedia participation before diving in. There is strength in numbers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant

 

[droliver]

Please follow the rules for this site. Thank you

?????

 

[medhacker]

?????

don't pay attention droliver

 

[droliver]

Well, this is still on ongoing issue dealing with this topic on wiki-pedia. I would hope more people in training or interested in training would get involved in this sort of thing. There are an awful lot of people using wiki & others like it for all their information.

 

[Celiac Plexus]

I just checked out the wiki link that DrO posted. Holy mother of god... molly bloom is on a mission... I can only hope and pray that people are smart enough not to use wikipedia as a legit medical source.

I considered making a comment countering one of many of molly bloom's points, but I was exhausted from just reading 10% of her comments.

God save us.

 

[GSresident]

Rob,
She is clearly a nut. Furthermore don't forget that as a personal injury lawyer she has a vested interest in keeping the silicone breast implant victim scheme alive. I wish I could help you more with the fight but I am a little tied up at the moment learning to be a plastic surgeon.

Just as an aside, she may not be someone worth wasting your time on. You can site all the scientific evidence you want and totally discredit her but she will never go away. Her entire psyche is built on this conflict. It is essential to her to see you and all plastic surgeons as evil and herself as the perpetual victim and champion of justice. People who fleece money from businesses or do other evil things can't see themselves as evil people. The way she is deluding herself to see things is as follows: she was a "victim" of silicone breast implants. Therefore anything that goes wrong in her life is because of something that someone else did to her. She doesn't have to accept any personal responsibility for things like failed marriages, bad credit, personal failures etc. Also it gives her a license to loot companies in the name of 'justice.' Deep down she probably knows that she is the cause of her own problems and that her nonsense is just that - self deluding nonsense. She can't possibly admit that to herself and stay sober so she never will. I've seen these internet loonies before. Best just to let them burn themselves out. Your arguing with her probably props up her delusion for just a little longer.

I've a project for the audience here:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia with the idea that users will contribute the information and the online community will police itself with millions of potential editors to correct percieved inacuracies in the entries. This works well for most things except for controversial medical, religion, and political topics.

There are a number of areas where the daggers come out including autism & vaccines, aesbestos, and silicone breast implants.
For those of you unfamiliar with the silicone breast implant story:Since the early 1990's there's been an FDA moratorium on unrestricted use of gel implants. To make a long story short, in a maneuver more political then science, the implants were restricted limited to IRB-guided protocols for cosmetic & reconstructive use. Since then, silicone implants have been shown to be both effective & safe in several dozen major reports all over the world including a comprehensive Institute of Medicine review which can be reviewed online:

1991-1994 United Kingdom Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG)
1996 US Review US Institute of Medicine (IOM)
1996 France Agence Nationale pour le Developpement de l'Evaluation Medicale (ANDEM)
1998 Germany’s Federal Institute for Medicine and Medical Products
2000 US Review request of the United States Federal Judiciary
2001 Great Britain UK Independent Review Group
2001 US Review for court appointed National Science Panel
2003 Spanish STOA Report to the European Parliament Petitions Committee
2004 Danish Long-Term Followup Study
2005 Canadian expert review panel


In 2005 the FDA advisory panels endorsed approval of implants by the two larger manufacturers & everyone expects the restrictions on their use to be relaxed (similar to the conditions in every other country in the world). This has brought a great deal of distress to a group of people who are convinced silicone produces wide-spread auto-immune diseases, cancer, you-name-it.

As a the Surgery/Plastic Surgeon moderator here (and now in practice) with an interest in Internet media & medical information, I worked hard on the entry on breast implants only to run headlong into a militant hard-core anti-silicone partisan, Ms. Molly Bloom (a Boca Raton attorney apparently), who has continuously distortes this topic. Samples of her writing in the comments section (usually directed at me) include:
"I know that my ruptured silicone implants nearly killed me"

"I must say that you are correct when you suggest that I am suspicious of doctors. I am particularly suspicious of plastic surgeons who benefit financially by the approval of silicone implants"

"This 'neutral' editing does a disservice to any article about silicone breast implants and the women who are interested in these issues"

"My personal opinion is that an FDA of this White House administration is more likely to approve silicone implants than a different FDA. Bush has not shown he is interested in consumer safety."


This editor makes hundreds of edits to this entry this weekly, similar to the desperate and fiercly partisan editors on autism, George Bush (and other politicians), creationism, etc....

My challenge to this group of young doctors and students is to get involved with the editing and writing of not just this entry, but other topics in medicine you have an interest in. Attached below is the link to the article on implants I'm referring to. Read some of the instructions on Wikipedia participation before diving in. There is strength in numbers!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant

 

[droliver]

I think throwing in the towel for accuracy in medical related topics is not a good precedent. Whether it be breast implants or autism, if you cede such a popular forum to the extremists you'll have more patients getting inaccurate advice that they presume is valid becuase it came from an "encyclopedia". The more medically trained voices on these topics giving accurate information the better I think.

 

[droliver]

FYI This issue is still going on at WIKI for those with an interest in such things. I again encourage those who are interested in Plastic Surgery to take an interest in how the accuracy of areas in our field are portrayed.

The October/November Health Canada & FDA approvals have sent the activists into overdrive trying to do PR on this topic & spin it like a political issue rather then a medical one. Wiki pedia is an appealing target for them due to it's increasing influence in search engine results.