- Joined
- May 2, 2001
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 192
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 Germanys 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
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 Germanys 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
