Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 06:45:06 -0700

From: "Myrl Jeffcoat" myrlj@jps.net

Last night, after seeing in the news, the latest article on "Beryllium," I

did a search of my files for it. I found the following highly englightening

document, I forgot I had.

It had been sent to me last year by Pam Dowd. Pam believes she had saved it

this document from CATCH back in about 1995-1996). We don't know the

writers of the Heyer-Schulte/Baxter info. Walt Monger apparently took their

identity to his grave. Whoever wrote this, appear to have had some real

insider information.

Myrl

-------

Why did each manufacturer flagrantly disregard the results of their own scientific and other scientific research concerning the adverse reactions of silicone on tissue (Heyer Schulte Hot Memos/Dow Documents/scientific journals, doctor reports, etc.?) What did they hope to gain in their continued use of poisonous silicone implants? Did perhaps their real corporate gains outweigh the cost of certain future lawsuits? Were we women plaintiffs used as human silicone and pharmaceutical research guinea pigs to justify their application for FDA approval? In their rush to obtain patents, it was not up to the Patent Office to demand adequate safety testing. That "public protection" arena fell on the Food and Drug Administration’s doorstep. What "corporate moles" do these corporate vultures have "in place" in that office?

What kind of corporate pressure do they impose upon the FDA director? See below. Did the profits from breast implants alone satisfy their monetary greed OR did they derive something (in their unlawful and secret research) of a greater magnitude? See below on substitution of silicone for polyurthene as the standard set by the American Standards and Material Association in the 1970’s. Why did the Justice Department, the FDA, the Cancer Research Institute, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), and all the other governmental consumer "protection agencies", and the Attorney General’s Office, etc., remain SILENT?

What "corporate moles" do they have entrenched in high positions in these agencies? Why were these agencies so GROSSLY NEGLIGENT to exercise "reasonable due care" to protect the public? Are they even now exercising reasonable care by not calling a moratoriam on saline implants also - they have never been approved and the shell envelope is still silicone. Wasn’t isn’t there a "special protection relationship" by these agencies to safeguard the health of the public at large? Was there a breach-of-duty? Was there malfeasance. ..i.e., a wrongful or illegal action or lack of action by governmental officials to safeguard the welfare of the general public? Was the FDA aware of the silicone-related breast implant deaths? Product deaths have to be reported to the FDA. The FDA has on file many microfiche covering product failure, lawsuits and deaths. Lawsuits were filed against the manufacturers as early as the mid-1960’s (Heyer-Schulte Hot Memos). 83 DEATHS. How is it possible that these Federal governmental agencies did not investigate and warn the public citizen in the 1960’s, 1970s, 1980s? It’s the 1990s.

Thirty years of greed and negligence and investment. Yes, investment into these companies by government officials, senators, congressmen, governors, and physicians. See below relating to this investment portfolio protection. Why it was possible for 30 years to endanger women’s lives, destroy families, inflict pain and death for the sake of corporate greed. Naziism is alive and well in the Corporate Executive Officers Boardroom. Why wasn’t, and why hasn’t there been CRIMINAL CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST the CEO’s of each of these manufacturers and the FDA? There have been 83 recorded DEATHS from their products sold intentionally to the public. This is the figure of only the known deaths recently reported. They knew of their poisonous capabilities to the human body. Was the "womanhood" of the world" and our families, in the world-at-large, that "INSIGNIFICANT" to "these corporate "UNTOUCHABLES," i.e., giant manufacturers and GOVERNMENT officials? We have taken a President of the United States out of the highest office in America for illegal wire-taping, etc., and put his co-conspirators in jail for illegal entry of a stone building, yet no public official of the Justice Department, etc., has even attempted to put these "CORPORATE UNTOUCHABLES" in jail for intentional and illegal entry of poisons into the bodies of the women of America for 30 years? These corporations have no geographical allegiance boundaries - they operate in a world-wide country known as corporate greed. They are "boundryless" except in their initial articles of incorporation. Their country is known as WCS - World Corporate Syndicate. They have adopted their own rules. We can oust a President of the United States from office and put his co-conspirators in jail, and yet corporations are UNTOUCHABLES?

There have been 97 known and thousands of untold deaths and suicides: What is the Eggshell Skull Rule," and how does it apply in these suicides and deaths and how does the "forseeability" factor apply? "Defendants will be liable for the foreseeable and the unforeseeable personal injuries that follow. The cut-off-test of proximate cause will not prevent liability for personal injuries that follow from ANY foreseeable impact on the plaintiff’s body. The plaintiff had an "eggshell skull," meaning a very high vulnerability to injury to any part of the body. The defendant "takes the plaintiff as he finds her." There is no cut-off of liability. If the defendant makes an impact on the plaintiff’s body through an intentional tort, the defendant will be liable for all resulting injuries, foreseeable or not.

The Eggshell-Skull Rule Exception means that the defendant will be deemed to be the proximate cause of all foreseeable and unforseeable personal injuries that result from any foreseeable impact due to unreasonable or intentional conduct by the defendant. Often, the plaintiff with the "eggshell skull" has a pre-existing condition, disease, or injury which has been aggravated by the defendant and the defendants will be held responsible for its aggravation. Assume the plaintiff goes insane or commits suicide because of despair over the original injuries caused by the defendant. Assume also that there was a foreseeable impact on the plaintiff’s person. Many courts will carry the "Eggshell-Skull Rule" to its logical extreme, and hold that the defendant is the "proximate cause" of the insanity or the death by suicide as long as there was a "foreseeable" impact on the body of the plaintiff which the defendant carelessly or intentionally created." (Chapter 6, Proximate Cause, Essentials of Torts by Statsky, West Publishing Company.)

Was there a "special relationship" between the implant plaintiffs and their families and the manufactures? Did they owe each of us a duty? Was there negligence? Was that negligence intentional? Judging from the Heyer-Schulte Hot Memos and the hidden Dow documents that were to have been submitted to the FDA, it was. Was there a breach of that duty? Could product warnings have been issued as far back as the 1960’s? Think of all the preventable suffering a "product recall" would have subsequently meant to the plaintiffs and their families! Was there "foreseeability" by the manufacturers of the disastrous harm the silicone implants would bring to the plaintiffs? "Foresee" means to see or know beforehand. To what extent was silicone known to be harmful to tissue? What was the manufacturers’ spectrum of foreseeability of harm? Was it foreseeable, and if so, how foreseeable...highly unusual or a freakish occurrence...unusual...slight possibility....a possibility ...slight probability....a fair probability...highly probable....predictable almost to a certainty...a certainty...i.e., a DELIBERATE INTENT? If the intent was deliberate, and we women were "secret corporate research guinea pigs," what new applications of silicone arose (in the other fields, i.e., drugs, orbital uses such as artificial eyes, contact lens, orthopedic medical devices and pesticides) from their research on us? Intent has two meanings: the desire to have something occur, or the knowledge with substantial certainty that it will happen from what one does or fails to do!

Reading in the Heyer-Schulte Hot Memos about their own lab reports, and also from what we have read in the newspaper accounts regarding Dow’s hidden research findings, there are mentions of "lowering the standards" so that everyone (manufacturers) could follow them. Lowering the Standards to benefit their ultimate monetary gains while deliberately jeopardizing our health? Was the extended testing of RATS going to be of such a "financial burden" on these Fortune 500 conglomerates as to affect their profit and loss margins? Was meeting the higher safety standards to be a "burden of inconvenience"? As expert manufacturers of human medical devices, shouldn’t they have accepted and adhered to a higher standard? A higher standard that would involve taking all the precautions necessary to avoid injury to others? Or, was the burden of inconvenience (dollar expense to them in higher Standard testing) of such magnitude that they elected to adopt the lower standard and RUSH FOR THE PATENT? (See Heyer-Schulte Hot Memos) What is the Code of the ASTM (American Standard Testing Material Association)? Does that code mean anything to them? They were arrogant and criminally malicious enough to fire the conscientious "whistle-blowers" who warned them. Heyer Schulte fired the President of Heyer/Schulte, Jim Rudy.

According to Marc Lappe in The Chemical Deception, published by the Sierra Club, when Dow Corning’s design engineer, Thomas Talcott, warned them about the structural design of the envelopes they reassigned him to another division in the company. Thomas Talcott told them that if the viscosity of the gel was thinned, it would transfer mechanical stresses to the rim of the prostheses, causing rupture. The envelopes were permeable, allowing free flow silicone, hydrocortisone- which was water water-soluble to pass through the membrane. Solu-medrol passed through the wall of the wall of the Heyer-Schulte inflatable prosthesis in a gradient of approximately 5 mgs. per month. This amounted to a total of 60 mgs of solu-medrol per prosthesis according to the HSHM, and also allowed saline to flow through the envelope. It further mentions that FDA found out that silicone breast implants were INTENTIONALLY adulterated with 30% silica, fillers added to change the properties of the silicone in the elastomer envelope. Corning Glass Works has the most expertise knowledge of silica in the world. Dr. Marc Lappe was the former Chief of the Office of Health, Law, and Value and the Hazard Evaluation System for the State of California. He taught health policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was a professor of Health Policy and Ethics at the University of Illinois, College of Medicine.

Thomas Talcott later resigned from Dow Corning and was hired by Heyer Schulte Corp, a manufacturer of breast implants whose silicone was supplied by General Electric. Did this engineer who worked for both companies at different times warn Dow Corning and they ignored him and reassigned him, and then warn Heyer Schulte? Heyer Schulte’s own president, Jim Rudy warned Heyer Schulte Corp. also and was fired for warning Heyer Schulte Corp.’s owner Jim Schulte. Did the manufacturers stop the manufacturing of implants - based on the findings from their research? The Japanese and many, many others had written and documented their research of silicone reaction since the 1960s. Many scientist documented and warned the manufacturers. See their own Patent Applications and the reference of articles used as a reference in Dr. Marc Lappe’s The Chemical Deception.

The prestigious journal SCIENCE published its concerns. As early as 1965, Israeli researchers had noted siliconoma. These lumps of tissue contained the tell-tale "giant cells" of a chronic inflammatory reaction. The possibility that these lesions were, in fact, granulomas (masses of

chronically inflamed tissue) was VEHEMENTLY denied by researchers who worked closely with Dow-Corning. According to Dr. Lappe, no technique exists to remove silicone in its entirety once it escapes—or, is intentionally placed—into the human body. All these implant manufacturers had many warnings and test results and lawsuits whose submitted evidence demanded honorable, conscientious, prudent, expert manufacturers issue "warnings" and stop production. Issue "product recalls" to prevent further harm to the public. See The Wall Street Journal’s Index reference on recalling percolators when defects became known.

Percolators were recalled by Corning Glass Works. As 50% owner with Dow Chemical in Dow Corning, they couldn’t/wouldn’t recall or stop making breast implants with 83 known deaths (the total lives lost over thirty years will never be known, as the issue was only uncovered publicly in 1992. There were lawsuits, but before a jury reached its verdict in finding the companies guilty, the manufacturers rushed in and placed gag orders on the plaintiff’ s, lawyers, judges, witnesses and sealed the documents. The Public Health was at jeopardy. Hundreds of thousands of women could have been warned.

The Coverup "Machine" was put in place. They had silicone to sell. They had the American Standards for Materials to vote on silicone to replace Polyurethane for medical devices. They were raising prices on silicone. Could they jeopardize corporate greed for somebody’s mother, somebody’s sister, somebody’s wife? So, somebody’s mother, somebody’s sister, somebody’ s wife was criminally implanted under false assurances. Fraud was perpetuated for a period of thirty years. They got richer (Dow Corning accelerated to become worth more than a Fortune 500 company. Over 2 Billion dollars in 1970’s alone. It is now 1990s’. This company was a viable company. Dow Chemical and Corning Glass were busy secreting Dow Corning’s funds back to the parents Holding Companies. When that was accomplished, they declared bankruptcy under false pretenses.

These manufacturing companies retained the "creme-de-creme insurance/litigation" attorneys. The manufacturers’ CEO’s and the corporate attorneys knew what would happen if they were found out. These defendants own large world-wide health insurance companies, reinsurance companies, genetic companies, pharmaceutical companies; telephone companies, gas companies, electric companies, hospitals, national testing labs, media, and motion picture-related corporations. Their good "100-year-old friends," General Electric and Westinghouse Electric own NBC and CBS. Disney Productions just purchased ABC. (See below each of their ties to motion picture-related companies.)

Therefore, the slanted media "spins" which favor these corporate defendants. These are television media companies which are subsidiaries of General Electric and Westinghouse Electric. These two "friendly" corporations own Kidder Peabody, etc., and they own VISA and MASTERCARD , YESS and other finance cards. Each of them owns financial credit services, such as General Electric Credit Corp. (now called General Electric Finance Corp.), Dow Financial Corp., etc. What is the foreseeability formula? Let’s consider the eight foreseeability factors: area, activity, people, preparation, human nature, history, sensory data, and common sense.

How does each apply to the manufacturers’ "Breast Implant Fiasco"? How would the manufacturers’ CEOs and scientists in research labs have "foreseeability" as to the certain damage to body tissues from silicone migration, silicone gel "bleed", silica expanders, cortisone, fungus, streptococcus bacteria, and mechanical failures of the product due to crepe wrinkling, folding, gel hardening, ruptures, leakages, valve leakage and valve malfunctions, etc.? They KNEW: H/S Hot Memos: they had settled lawsuits and concealed knowledge with gag orders. What specific activities were going on during this 30-year time period ...their own scientific lab research; warnings issued to them from around the world, to each other, and also from their own research scientists and employees (Jim Rudy, Tom Talcott, etc.); and deaths and lawsuits, etc.? What did human experience tell them about what might be anticipated from all of these factors? What kind of people were involved in this activity? Were world-renowned scientists and preeminently educated lawyers involved? They were educated and trained at Harvard, Carnegie, Yale, Penn State, Stanford, The Mellon Institute, etc.

What is normally expected from such people? What precautions did they take or fail to take? Should we have had certain expectations from certain classes/kinds of people? What do people usually do before they engage in producing products for the general public? Data received from scientific research would be very relevant to foreseeability of potential harm. Was there scientific research? Did they research their own manufacturing / industrial journals, for example: THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE AND TOXICOLOGY? Their names are there as submitting articles and citing references to it. (See attached). If so, what did their lab research on rats reveal? No preparation? Was there short-term preparation or long-term preparation? Did they heed the results of the scientific research and warn the general public? Did they heed the warnings of their own President, CEO’s and scientists and stop production in the 1960’s? What kind of behavior is usually expected of anyone engaged in the kind of activity in question, i.e. manufacturing? They are considered "experts."

The more something has occurred in the past, the more foreseeable is its possible reoccurrence...product lawsuits. LET’S TURN THE CLOCK BACK: Was there other consumer lawsuits occurring during this time? Dalkon Shield/DES/Agent Orange, etc., lawsuits? Were any of these manufacturers or suppliers involved in any way with these type of lawsuits during the 1960s/1970s? Were there implant deaths and lawsuits arising from breast implants and injectable silicone as far back as the 1960s? They knew about the deaths from injectable silicone (same as gel bleed and migration). The State of Nevada issued statutes: Crimes Against The Public Health and Safety Statutes in 1975 regarding injectable silicone. It subsequently became a criminal offense to inject anyone with silicone.

They wrote each other letters outlining this fear that both were the same and in time it would be found out. They warned each other. But they didn’t warn the public and they fired those personnel who did point out the fact that they owed US a Duty. A Duty to the PLAINTIFFS IN THE IMMEDIATE ZONE OF DANGER. Being fired was the reward of those who WARNED THEM ABOUT THE DANGERS OF SILICONE IMPLANTS. The president of Heyer Schulte and Tom Talcott were "whistle-blowers?" Men who couldn’t live with this deception any longer. H/S and the FDA received warnings from Dr. Jenny. Dr. Jenny warned the plastic surgeons in his 1970’s "Dear Doctor" letter. According to the Heyer Schulte Hot Memos (HSHM,) Dr. Jenny made a statement to the FDA Classification Panel about the dangers in 1978, The American Plastic and Reconstructive Society knew.

There is shown in the HSHM a letter from Dr.’s William G. Hamm, Dr. William E. Schatten, Dr. John H. Hartley, and Dr. John M. Griffin, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons of Atlanta, Georgia, written to Mr. Tom Talcott of Heyer-Schulte Corporation in Goleta, California, the following:

"Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to bring me up to date on what’s happening in the silicone industry. I am sorry that we can’t make the results of your findings immediately known for I believe, and have believed for about two years, that this study was necessary. I can understand Tom Hynes’ anxiety over the situation. We all have fear and trepidation over what silicones may and may not do, but at some point in time, since this information is known, we must, I believe, ethically release it to the utilizers of silicone. Again, the best way to do this may be to go through a group of clinical investigators, as we discussed, using the double lumen prosthesis some with and some without steroid. I think we can probably get a clinical investigators to get together over the next two or three years, release this information to them initially, work out a program and go from there. This would seem ethically right to me all the way around, etc."

The plastic surgeons knew, and in wanton disregard to our sufferings they and...hell they flew.... To the banks. Where was the catch-all common sense factor of accountability to the implant plaintiffs, and their families, of the World? There was total "covert collusion" of all the breast implant manufacturers on a grand scale! Did they owe all of us future consumers a conscionable DUTY? A duty is an obligation or a requirement to conform to a standard of conduct prescribed by law. Let’s ask ourselves if the manufacturers and their corporate retained lawyers’ acts and omissions created a foreseeable risk of injury or damage to someone else’s person? The more foreseeable the injury, the greater the need for precautions to have been taken. Was it unconscionably deliberate? When it is foreseeable to the extent of a "certainty" (research data on their rats/ warnings by scientists and employees, etc.,) then one would have to draw the conclusion that it was INTENTIONAL criminal negligence. Why hasn’t mass criminal lawsuits been filed in ANY state of the United States thus far?

Was there a breach of duty on the part of the manufacturers, their risk-manager-attorneys and insurers and re-insurers? The insurance companies and re-insurance companies must have paid out to suing women in the 60’ s/70s/80s. Surely these insurance companies warned the manufacturers to stop manufacturing implants at that time, or they wouldn’t insure them or, did they just raise their premiums? If they did, it would seem these insurance companies which some manufacturers are suing for billions are also a part of the "covert cover-up?" If ordinary citizens have three insurance claims, a warning is issued by the insurance companies that the insurance coverage will be put into a "high-risk bracket," wherein higher premiums would have to be paid. Then, if more claims are filed, our policy is cancelled.

Each of these insuring companies knew of the manufacturers’ previous lawsuit claims, and should have warned the manufactures 30 years ago to stop the manufacturing of implants, or their policies would be canceled. They didn’t cancel their policies as long as the manufactures were found out by only a few plaintiffs. They didn’t expect these manufacturers to ever be found out on a massive scale, so they kept receiving payment on their premiums. They had astute risk managers constantly reviewing their insurance portfolios, their coverage limits, and the exclusions, and laws. Is this another "covert collusion" among all of them to delay and funnel money back to the parents, declare bankruptcy, void the original grid scale (which they had NO intention of honoring)and throw together a lesser Settlement (with the deadline April 1st. Are we their fools)? They all benefit and we become the major losers in this Game of High Stakes Chess. When they saw they were going to lose a case, they settled out of court and put "gag orders" on earlier suing women and attorneys filing lawsuits, and also put gag orders on witnesses to keep the evidence (truth) from reaching the general public.

This benefited the manufacturers and the insurance companies. How can courts put gag orders on witnesses?

Let’s consider the duty of the manufactures to the breast implant plaintiff’ s who were in the Immediate Danger Zone (implantation) , and also the duty the manufacturers and suppliers owed to the unforeseeable plaintiffs (future unborn babies) in the World-at-Large. What World-at-Large Duty was owed by the manufacturers to the unborn plaintiffs? What duty was required of the manufacturers to these plaintiffs? What harm have they incurred by silicone? According to the American Medical Association, researchers in pediatric gastroenterology at the Schneider Children’s Hospital and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New Hyde Park, N.Y., found (among others conditions) lesions and decreased functioning in the esophagi (muscular tube that moves food from the throat to the stomach) of six of eight children nursed by mothers with implants. Was it foreseeable to the manufacturers and if so, to what EXTENT (See Court Memos and Patents Link) did they know it would happen, (based on their scientific tests results on rats and also based on their knowledge of genetics and women’s bodies (See Oncolink - on how well Bristol Meyers knows women’s bodies). Remember some of these manufacturers own genetic businesses, they split atoms and work with DNA.

What resultant harm occurred to the breast implant plaintiffs in the Immediate Danger Zone (Cardozo Test), and also the harm inflicted upon future unforeseen babies who were future plaintiffs in the (World-at-Large Danger Zone), (Andrews Test?.) Deliberate harm inflicted upon them by their wanton deliberate acts and omissions i.e., failure to warn. Case Law Book:

Two opinions were written by Justice Cardozo and Justice Andrews concerning negligence based on unreasonable conduct. Palsgraf vs. Long Island R.R., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99, 59 ALR 1253 (1928)

1. Immediate Zone-of-Danger Test (Cardozo Ruling): A duty is owed a specific person (plaintiff) in the "zone of danger," as determined by the test of "forseeability."

2. World-at-Large Test (Andrews Ruling): A duty is owed to anyone in the " world-at-large" (any plaintiff) to keep them from harm.

What duty did the manufacturers owe the World-at-Large? Let’s consider our families. What duty did the manufacturers owe our immediate families for poisoning the: "Symbol of the Family," womanhood." What emotional distress was perpetrated upon the Family? What duty of reasonable care did the FDA officials (research their names) owe to all the implant plaintiffs in the Immediate Zone of Danger and also to the unborn plaintiffs in the World-at-Large Were they, in fact, doing numerous chemical research and pharmaceutical research, and using us as "free human guinea pigs?" Why all the secret testing codification? Let’s consider the cost factor of each set of implants: $500 x 500,000 women max or even $500 x 2 million sets. This amount of money divided among them from breast implants does NOT EQUATE their risking criminal sentences - if they were caught.

So, what was their "real monetary goal? The magnitude of potential profits was to come from their "riding the gravy train" in lucrative patents in medical products using silicone. Weren’t patents being applied for and pending by Corning Glass Works, Dow Corning, Works, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Dow Chemical, Union Carbide, 3-M, etc., in the medical field (tubing, artificial veins, artificial joints, artificial hearts, heart valves, contact lenses, pharmaceuticals and pesticides? Medical appliances/ pharmaceuticals/pesticides which were to be used in/near human environments, whose product components were silicone-based? These drugs, artificial appliances, and pesticides were to be used around humans and inside of humans. What better way to get the "safety" standards passed by the FDA, (with their FDA hand-picked "moles" in place, etc.,) than for the manufacturers to point to the women implanted with silicone envelopes and be able to say: "Look at our breast implant women chemical "test"group."

They knew that our doctors wouldn’t be seeing any two implant patients with the same illnesses at any one time but (over a chemically latent period of 30 years) and accurately diagnose (tie) the implant poisoning to the physical disease condition it was "mimicking." The doctors were looking for diseases and all the time it was chemical poisoning. As we grew older, our ailments were sloughed off by our physicians as "old age creeping up" or we were "chronic complainers." We had migrating symptoms: bone aches, extreme fatigue, eye problems, bladder problems, rashes, diarrhea, burning hands and feet, headaches, etc. Life didn’t provide us with access to communicating with each other or allow our primary physicians to draw any parallel connection to the implants. Or did they: but couldn’t jeopardize their own profession’s incompetence in diagnosing - or, an even more frightening scenario - did plastic surgeons and regular physicians have stock in these silicone companies?

Silicone is used in numerous medical devices and around the hospital environment. It is sprayed on needles for easy insertion into the skin, for example. Dr. Michael DeBakey of Houston, Texas, a world-renowned cardiovascular in the Texas Medical Center, worked closely with Dow Corning in developing the artificial heart. (See attached.) The American Medical Association’s professional credibility is at stake, and they will mount tremendous PR (Mayo Clinic Report and The New England Journal of Medicine,) to negate the allegations about silicone poisoning, even siding with the manufacturers and media. Isn’t this a fateful irony - through the medium of TV talk show hosts, a nationwide "connection" was made which allowed us to compare and FINALLY see that we weren’t "imagining" these migrating illnesses. The rest is history.

Let’s ask if any of these manufacturers have/had any Defense Contracts with the government? Of course they do. Bristol Meyers has an EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR CANCER RESEARCH. Was Corning Glass Works, Dow Chemical (50-percent owner with Corning Glass Works in Dow Corning,) Bristol Meyers Squibb , 3M, Union Carbide, etc., favored with government defense contracts during this 30-year period? Of course they were. Did they have Government contracts/or patents pending with regard to the use of the chemical components (materials) used in breast implants? They worked with the Veterans Administration.

Did any of them or their suppliers (General Electric) have Government contracts or patents pending in which a negative press release concerning silicone could have altered the outcome at the Patent Office or the FDA, i.e., disapproval of their patent applications? Of course they did. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is the U.S. Government responsible for the negligence of their employees, when the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. Let’s find out if we plaintiffs have the right to use recourse to us under the Freedom of Information Act, to SEE the documents sent to the FDA by these companies and also the documentation recorded by FDA officials themselves who attended these prostheses meetings. Let’s ask what is "spoilage of evidence?" Surely it was done on a massive scale by all defendant parties? Can we sue the FDA officials? Read: Suing The Government: by Peter Schuck, Professor at Yale University’s Law School and published by Harvard University Press.

What are the Heyer-Schulte "Hot Memos?" They are corporate internal letters and memos between Heyer-Schulte and plastic surgeons, science researchers, and their own scientific research on mice pertaining to silicone reactions. and their own corporate worries about being "found out." A sample of the interoffice HS Hot Memos: Warning letters about the documentation which had been sent to the FDA’s Dr. Parrish:

"...I recalled for you the association between Dr. Smahel of Zurich and Dr. Jenny and the fact that both of these gentlemen are busily documenting the occurrence of silicone-containing capsular vacuoles and paracapsular fibrosis surrounding silicone-like material in paracapsular tissue. It’s not apparent to me that there is anything newsy in Dr. Smahel’s data except for the fact that Jenny is busily transmitting this data that he receives from Smahel to the FDA. As you will note in his November 30 letter, (1978) he indicates that he has sent more information to Dr. Parrish, who is: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REPRESENTING THE FDA ON THE PLASTIC SURGERY DEVICES CLASSIFICATION PANEL, BUT HE HAS RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM HIM."

Sounds like the FDA was warned, and ignored the warnings. Who controls Congress? Who controls the assignments for office positions at the FDA? What is the FDA? Is it a truly governmental agency or a contracted agency? Who tends to benefit the most from these "carefully selected officials" at FDA? It’s certainly not the ordinary citizens whose health they are supposed to protect. There are many indications that the FDA knew but deliberately chose to look the other way or postpone decisions, as they are still doing on saline implants. Saline implants. They still have a silicone envelope. It wasn’t until 1993 (when implant plaintiffs demanded that they put a moratorium on silicone implants) that they did so. Who "really" put these people in the upper echelons of the FDA and the Patent Office -Fortune 500 companies influence? Research that would be used to effectively test silicone to be used in patents for heart valves, medical tubing, dental implants, Foleys, etc.?

How did Dow Chemical, Corning Glass Works, Dow Corning and Bristol Meyers Squibb, 3-M, General Electric and Union Carbide, etc., benefit from these possibly controlled FDA/Patent Office "political placements?" How might they have benefited from a speedy passage of their medical, pharmaceutical, and pesticide patents? These are unconscionable corporate violation repeaters. In earlier years GE had some of their CEO’s go to jail for "price fixing." What about jail terms for intentional POISONING.

Are the huge corporations using their smaller "dummy joint-venture corporations" for research, thus trying to surreptitiously avoid their own corporate product liability? Of course they are. Heyer Schulte was a subsidiary of American Hospital, which is now a subsidiary of Baxter International. Baxter International was formerly Baxter Travel Labs, and did breast implant testing for Heyer-Schulte. They purchased American Hospital Supply Corp. from Dow Chemical. So, did Dow Chemical own American Hospital Supply Corporation who in turn owned Heyer-Schulte which made silicone and saline implants and sell it to Baxter Travenol Labs when lawsuits started pouring in. Did they do human testing and prove human safety tests." Or, did they use the showgirls in Nevada as their "expendable testing grounds?" Many thousands were injected with silicone "drug" before it was approved by the FDA and they (Dow Corning) were held with many CRIMINAL counts and selling it interstate. What a "free method of human testing! What better way than to keep mute any negative public news releases on the adverse affects of silicone materials used in implants as far back as the 1960s!

What is the toxicity of the 37 chemicals actually in the gels other than silicone – was various testing of pharmaceuticals and other materials also included? (See Chemical list below. This list was gathered from court documents as done by world-renowned chemical experts in their analyzing explanted breast implants sent to them.) The mammeries were a "drug releasing" mechanism. It is interesting to note that Dr. Earl Warrick mentions that it was the size of silica that made the difference in silicone rubber - they found out it was the small size of silica which strengthened the rubber. In The Journal Of Industrial Hygiene And Toxicology, the researchers also found out that it was actually an INVERSION PROCESS which caused the most insidious adverse reactions in tissue. The SMALLER the silica PARTICLE became, it was able to invade deep into the tissue and react more drastically and was more insidious - was more damaging to the tissue.

The SMALLER PARTICLE of silica was able to bury deeper into the planes of tissues. (See Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology attached, relative to this "phenomenon.") This study of the insidious dangers of the INVERSION PROCESS with regard to the dangers of silica was done in 1948 by HARVARD UNIVERSITY. The "in situ" Grignard reactor "process"and crystalline silica would THEREFORE take the silica to its smallest possible molecular size, becoming a hundred-fold more dangerous, as it could penetrate deeper. The result was found with special staining and instrument testing. Each chemical evidently can be identified by a different staining procedure. (See attached documents from the AMA’s Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology.) See the list of 37 chemicals and impurities found by world-renowned chemical scientists in explanted breast implants.

According to Dr. Earl Warrick, Carbon 14 radioactive compounds are used for "tracing" particles in toxicological testing. Our doctors didn’t/don’t have this sophisticated equipment. To really get to the truth of this, our exams should have been done by board certified toxicologists and epedimiologists in specialty labs armed with all the advance equipment which these corporations have in their research labs. Did they steer us away from these specialists and towards rheumotogolists, thus towards disease conditions and away from POISONING? Let’s call it what it really is! Lead or arsenic poisoning is not referred to as a "lead or arsenic disease or rheumatic condition," but rather, its referred to as: "Lead Poisoning," or "Arsenic Poisoning." We have silica, , zinc, methyl, iodine, quartz , formaldehyde, freon, vinyl chloride, aluminum, platinum, etc., and etc., and etc.,

Linde Air Products (Union Carbide) was one of the companies which provided the silica. Corning Glass Works was the world’s foremost expert when it came to silica and knowledge of its dangers. A patent was issued on the various techniques of silica fillers. E.L. Warrick, U.S. Patent #2,541,137: 1951. According to Marc Lappe in The Chemical Deception, a summary of findings in the literature (Washington, D.C., FDA Medical Device Division, undated, and kept secret,) , these facts were revealed in the patents for the implants by the manufacturers as a part of the proprietary information about the composition of the gels and envelopes. See: Van Aken Redinger et al., "Silicone gel filled prosthesis, U.S. Patent #4,455,691, June 26, 1984. Also see R. S. Ward, et al., Procurement of Primary Reference Materials. National Technical Information Service Report No. NO1-HV-9-2933-5 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1984). According to Dr. Marc, they were never designed to hold and retain silicone. Dow Corning was found guilty of fraud but before final ruling they settled and the court slapped protective gag orders to prevent leakage of evidence to the public. The original hydocephalic shunt was not successful (became clogged), and those using silicone rubber tubing for blood and dialysis equipment and solid rubber silicone prostheses for joints, etc; developed unusual and mysterious systemic complications. The breast implants came on line at about this time as did the testing for silicone eye contacts. What better way to reinforce the medical community than to point to the "women with silicone mammaries - that is, their "test group?"

These manufacturers attended each others’ manufacturing plants, swapped implants for viscosity testing, had meetings with FDA officials, APRS and ASTM. H/S Hot Memos expose the fact that indeed each of the manufacturers "creme de creme" CEO’s, their attorneys, many plastic surgeons , CEO’s of the FDA, officials with the Veterans Administration, etc., personally knew each other quite well. Unconscionable negligence? CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE? Let’s inquire into the FDA"s bureaucratic officials’ – during that time period of 30 years - personal bank accounts here in the States and possibly elsewhere to see if there were large payoffs/cover-ups -i.e., bank accounts which do not reflect actual salary earnings?

Possible cover-ups by CEOs of the FDA which allowed the manufacturers to continue selling these implants to the public to protect their medical FDA applications, pharmaceutical FDA applications, pesticide FDA applications (to be used inside/near the homes) and other manufacturing FDA applications - despite the fact that there were deaths and lawsuits judgments. Even now, a year after the FDA Saline Safety Hearing called by the FDA’s Director, Dr. Kessler, in June, 1994, and fully armed with all the scientific research information on silicone gel "bleed" from the implant envelope; saline shell crepe wrinkling, shell folding, shell disintegration, valve malfunction, saline temperature guidelines, fungus and bacteria in saline implants, infiltrates in the lungs, saline implant deaths, illnesses, etc., the people in power at the FDA still haven’t made public their findings nor called a HALT to the manufacturer of saline (silicone envelope) implants.

According to Marc Lappe in The Chemical Deception, the FDA was aware of the dangers of silicone in 1983, but court gag orders were placed on individual lawsuits (on litigants, attorneys, expert witnesses,) and it took the FDA seven years to stop the manufacture of implants. Seven years. How many women could have been spared? Are they that stupid? Are they that crooked? Whose interest are they really protecting, EVEN NOW?

The corporate moguls of America want to Congress to "farm" out/privatize applications for FDA approvals to "expedite" more speedy passage of approval applications. GUESS WHO WOULD BE THE FIRST TO GET CONTROL OF THESE PRIVATIZED COMPANIES? You guessed it! Let these Fortune 500 corporations pass along this desire of theirs for privatization to speed up the FDA approval process to the "corporate thalidomide-damaged human beings that have to go through life with "flippers" for arms! They are "the walking examples" of corporate greed for "speedy FDA approval." Let’s look at Dr. Parrish, as Executive Secretary on the Classification Panel. Lets look at all the Commissioners of the FDA (for 30 years) and ask some Investigative Office (The Justice Department, FBI, Attorney General) to look into their "associations" with the Fortune 500 members. Some of the Commissioners were honest and due to the continual threat of lawsuits from these corporations, elected to quit. Some were forced to quit. FDA Commissioners: 1954: George P. Larrick; 1966: James L. Goddard; 1968: Herbert L. Ley, Jr., 1969: Charles C. Edwards; 1973: Alexander M. Schmidt; 1977: Donald Kennedy; 1979: Jere E. Goyan; 1981: Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr.; 1984, Frank E. Young; 1990: David A. Kessler.

Bank accounts of Imelda Marcos, drug cartel moguls, Mafia, Watergate conspirators, etc., have been investigated and uncovered. Why can’t they investigate the FDA’s officials pertaining to their "free hand" in doling out approval applications to these companies? Were there possible "payoffs and kickbacks" for allowing certain corporations’ approval applications with the FDA to proceed. Approval applications that possibly would not have been approved if word got out about the adverse reaction of these chemicals in medical devices? Devices which had been allowed to "slip through the crack?" How can officials have attended these implant meetings and say that they weren’t informed? The FDA representatives attended the manufacturers meetings! There is even mention in the Hot Memos about how lax the FDA officials were in the meetings as far as demanding that standards be met. These had to be deliberate actions of negligence for someone’s financial betterment. Who was Attorney Joe Radzius mentioned in the Heyer Schulte Hot Memos: He was Dow Corning’s Legal Liaison to the Food and Drug Administration.

Doctor Jenny made a statement to the FDA Classification Panel in 1977/78. Wasn’t Dr. Parrish an employee operating in an official governmental capacity for the FDA and accountable to someone at the FDA? It’s recorded in the H/S Hot Memos that the FDA representatives were present at the ASTM (manufacturers) meetings. Of what real value is the Freedom of Information Act if the FDA is allowed by governmental "covert collusion" to keep the public from these documents which, according to the Freedom of Information Act, should be open to the public? Malfeasance, a breach of duty of a public official. Isn’t the FDA answerable for the "breach of duty" owed to the public by their employees performing within the scope of their employment, especially their top-level administrators?

These FDA employees weren’t/aren’t "ordinary citizens." Their primary function was/is to protect "J.Q. Public" from injury caused by unscrupulous people attempting to circumvent Federal laws and guidelines. They are to set the guidelines for public safety. How could these CEO’s in top FDA positions of authority and power have knowingly continued this unholy and unconscionable alliance with the manufacturers of silicone breast implants for a period of thirty years! Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990, manufacturers must report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) if they lose or settle three (3) product liability lawsuits that allege the same product caused death or grievous bodily injury within a 2-year period. Section 37 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act established that the first two-year period began January 1, 1991, and that subsequent periods will begin on the first day of every odd-numbered year. Manufacturers are subject to a $1.25 million fine for failing to report product liability settlements or court awards. Were breast implant lawsuits filed and won/settled during this time period and did any manufacturer adhere to this law? If not, have they paid the fines?

These corporations are "BOUNDRYLESS." The world is their playground. Look at some of these corporations and their New York, Chicago, Houston, Pennsylvania, Hollywood, and media connections and see that the women are fighting their combined financial strategic alliances. See Joint Venture Section. Notice in Herbert Dow their 90-year friendships. They own many, many testing labs.

Just to name a few: Dow Chemical: (March, 1995) Marion Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals - Dow Chemical Corporate Family) was just sold for $7 BILLION. (One company of Dow Chemical’s world-wide joint venture conglomerates, with Dow Chemical owning 72% of the shares in the company); Dow Chemical International, Ltd.; Dow Brands Salon Division (home permanents, conditionings, coloring); Dow Chemical USA Div., (commercial physical research); Dow Engineering; Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources, Inc., Dow Pipeline Co., Inc.; DORINCO REINSURANCE; Admiral Equipment Co.; Boride Products, Inc.; Cayuse Pipeline, Inc.; Dofinco, Inc. (Dow Finance Company); Domoclean International Inc.; Dow Chemical Delaware Corp.; Dow Chemical Inter-American Ltd.; Dow Chemical International Energy Co.; Dow Chemical International Inc.; Dow Chemical Interantional Ltd.; Dow Consumer Products Inc.; Dow Corning Corp.);Houston - Dowell Schlumberger, Inc.; Dow Engineering Co.; Dow Financial Services Corp.; Dow Interstate Gas Co.; Dow Pipeline Co.; Great Western Pipeline Co., Inc.; Louisiana Gasification Technology Inc.; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Metal Mark Inc. (50%); Midland Pipeline Corp.; The Cynasa Co (90%). The company also lists subsidiaries in the following countries: Argentina, Australia; Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Finland, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Venezeula.

Baxter International, Inc.: Owned by the Ralph Falk Family of New York Formerly known as Baxter Travenol Laboraties. Baxter International purchased American Hospital Supply (One breast manufacturers, Heyer-Schulte, was a corporate subsidiary under American Hospital Suppply. Baxter International also acquired Dow Chemical’s Bioscience Laboratories. Don McGhan, an employee of Dow Corning, left Dow Corning and started Heyer-Schulte. Don McGhan then spun off from Heyer Schulte to form McGhan Corp., which manufactured implants which Baxter International purchased.

When Baxter Travelol Laboratories purchased American Hospital Supply and Heyer Schulte Corp, it changed its name to Baxter International. GENERAL ELECTRIC supplied silicone to both Heyer-Schulte, McGhan Corp., and others.

Baxter International’s Principal subsidiaries: Just to name a few: Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc Baxter International, Inc.(Deerfield); Baxter International, Inc. (New York); Baxter International Men’s Wear; Baxter International Representations, Inc.; Baxter Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Baxter Pharmaseal, Inc.;Bartels Division; Baxter Healthcare Corp., Baxter Diagnostics, Inc.,., Baxter Scientific Products; Baxter International Men’s Wear; Baxter Hyland Div.; Baxter Healthcare; Baxter Physical Therapy Divsion; Baxter Bartels Div.; Baxter Hadassah Research Center; Baxter Canlab; Baxter Age Wave (nursing homes – Baxter owns 15 percent but will increase its ownership); Baxter MosMed - a ruble-based joint venture near Moscow; Baxter has a million dollars’ supply agreement with Duke University Medical Center; Baxter on October 3, 1994 sold its diagnostic products manufacturing business to Bain Capital, Inc., for 448 million in cash.

Baxter International has formed a partnership with DNX Corp, a Princeton NJ biotechnology concern to research the production of genetically altered pig organs that could be transplanted into people with impaired heart, long and kidney functions; Baxter’s Canlab Division sold to VWR Corp., a distributor of laboratory supplies, chemicals and equipment; Baxter International, Inc., agreed to form a 50-50 hospital-supply joint venture with Eczacibasi Group, one of Turkey’s biggest pharmaceutical concerns as of June 30, 1994; Baxter Healthcare Corp entered into a shared-savings agreement with Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation that is expected to generate up to $300 million in five years as of June 20, 1994; Baxter Diagnostics bought 74,000 DIADF (Spectral Diagnostics) common shares for $1,2000,000 equaling 136,000 shares. Baxter warrants to purchase 913,416 (DIAGF) shares valued at $14 million.

Baxter International has a "K" application with the FDA to service North/South American markets; Baxter paid SANG $1,250,000 to market PAA-Sat pre-transplant; Baxter’s CVG, merged with Intramed Labs, Inc., of San Diego, (ITMI), November 10, 1994; Baxter International sold to HBO & Co., its IBAX Healthcare Systems, a partnership of IBM and Baxter International, Inc., for $40-45 million; Disposable Hospital Products; Dayton Flexible Products Company; Cyclo Chemical Corporation;Medcom Inc.; in 1983 formed a partnership with Genentech, Inc.(Corning Glass Works and Dow Corning); American Hospital Supply Company; AHS Realoo, Inc.; MedTrain, Inc.; AKL Corp; Baxter Travenol Finance World Trade Corp.; and Baxter Travenol World Trade Corp.; and Entertainment Partners, Inc.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. - 3M: Too many to list. A few of their Principal subsidiaries Just to name a few: Synacolor Corp.; Media Networks, Inc.; National Advertising Co.; Riker Laboratories, Inc.; Sanns, Inc. The company also has subsidiaries in the following countries: Argentina, Australia, Austria; Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Puerto Rico, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Venzuela and West Germany.

Union Carbide: Principal Subsidiaries (Just to name a few): Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation; Bakelike Corporation (plastics); Acheson Graphite Corporation; Viking Company;Union Carbide Pan America; Inc.; Union Carbide Europe., Inc.; Union Carbide Eastern, Inc.; Union Carbide Africa and Middle East; Films Packaging Division; Pesticide and Fertilizer producing plants in Bhopal, India (3,500 deaths - many other thousands permanently disabled. Worlds worst industrial accident; Amerchol Corporation; Amko Service Company; Bayox, Inc. Beaucar Minerals, Inc; BEK III, Inc. Be-Kan, Inc.; Bentley Sales Co. Inc.; Blue Creek Coal Company, Inc.; Catalyst Technology, Inc; Cellulosic Products, Inc.; Chemicals Marine Fleet, Inc.; Dexter Realty Corporation; Gas Technics Gases and Equipment Centers of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc.; Gas Technics Gases and Equipment Centers of New Jersey, Inc., Gas Technics and Equipment Centers of Ohio, Inc.; Global Industrial Corporation; Hampton Roads Welders Supply Inc.; Harvey Company; Innovative Membrane Systems, Inc.; Intrnational Cryogenic Equipment Corporatio; Iweco, Inc.; Karba Minerals, Inc.; KSC Liquidation, Inc.; KTI Chemicals, Inc.; Linde Homecare Medical Systems, Inc.; Linox Welding Supply Co.; London Chemical Company, Inc.; Media Buyers, Inc.;Merritt -Holland Company; Mon-Arc Welding Supply, Inc.; Nova Tran Corporation; Paulsboro Packaging, Inc.; Phoenix Research Corporation; Polysak, Inc; Prentiss Glycol Company; Presto Hartford, Inc. Presto Welding Supplies, Inc; Seadrift Pipeline Corporation; Soilsery, Inc.; South Charleston Sewage Treatment Company; UCAR Capital Corporation;UCAR Energy Services;UCAR Ineram, Inc.; UCAR Louisiana Pipeline Company; UCAR Pipeline Incorporated; UCORE, Ltd.; Umetoc Minerals Exploration; Umetoc Minerals Sales Corporation; Unigas, Inc.; Union Carbide Africa and Middle East, Inc., Union Carbide Canada Ltd (74%); Union Carbide Caribe, Inc.; Union Carbide Communications Company, Inc.; Union Carbide Engineering and Hydrocarbons Service Company, Inc. Union Carbide Engineering and Technology Services; Union Carbide Ethylene Oxide/Glycol Company; Union Carbide Europe, Inc.; Union Carbide Films-Packaging, Inc., Union Carbide Grafito, Inc; Union Carbide Imaging Systems, Inc.; Union Carbide Industrial Services Co.,; Union Carbide Inter-America, Inc.; Union Carbide International Capital Corporation; Union Carbide International Sales Corporation; Union Carbide Polyolefins Development Company, Inc. UNISON Transformer Services, Inc. Vametco Minerals Corporation; V.B. Anderson Co. (85%) Welders Service Center of Nebraska, Inc.; Wolfe Welding Supply Company, Inc. The company lists subsidiaries in the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypet, France, Ghana, Greece, Gutemala, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Malawi, Mexico, Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom,U. S. Virgin Island, Venezuela, West Germany and Zimbabwe.

Corning Glass Works and Bristol-Meyers: (The list is too huge. No need to go further, one can see the "poverty" idea from the companies above.) Let’s form large state groups and write letters flood each state’s Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Agency Office with phone calls about possible criminal action Let’s not tolerate any more "carrot" modus operandi. Bait and Switch! Let’s write letters to the city’s District Attorney’s Office and the state Attorney General and ask if we can form State Class Actions under the States’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Can large groups of women file criminal actions against the manufacturers with fraudulent advertising and selling a known poisonous product in the state. They knew about the Nevada Statute. They knew they were poisonous.

Let’s ask about the "Laundry List" of The Deceptive Trade Practice Act. In particular: Number 23: Failure to Warn: "The failure to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction (by Class Counsel attorneys) if such failure to clearly disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would NOT have entered had the information been disclosed.

The breast implant manufacturers used the post office; interstate/intrastate highway transport; international airplanes, etc., to ship implants world-wide! Let’s ask if there were any possible Federal Trade Commission violations regarding intentionally transporting poisonous, defective and harmful products across state and international boundaries, and fraudulant advertising statements about their product?.

Ask your attorney or read Vernons Annotated about the law concerning: "Wrongful death," and what happens when there is an interceding and superceding cause of death. This could affect ones family legal status should one die. This is not generally known.

Some of the proposed Tort Reforms: The creation of federal standards governing the litigation of disputes arising out of injuries caused by defective products. These standards would preempt state law.

The creation of an expedited settlement system to be available at the outset of every case. The imposition of a cap on noneconomic damages that can be awarded. The creation of standards for when punitive damages can be obtained from a defendant. A uniform statute of limitations for bringing a case. (This would negate "latent injuries" which don’t become immediately known.)Eliminating contingency basis for attorneys taking cases. Would establish laws wherein if one loses the case, one would have to pay the court fees. (This is aimed at instilling fear in the "common citizen for fear if he sued the powerful , he would be liable for the court charges.)

Vernon’s Annotated: The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division will prosecute only cases involving large numbers of plaintiffs. Vernon’s Annotated: The Deceptive Trade Practices Act is enforced primarily by consumers acting in our own self interest and filing lawsuits as "private attorneys general."

The following are abstracts taken from many sources and data banks: The insurance information is for general information pertaining to Tort insurance and reinsurance and the way they operate and perceive lawsuits and plaintiffs:

ABI Inform: IMPORTANT: The Product Liability Alliance (TPLA) is a coalition of more than 300 trade associations and corporations seeking enactment of federal product-liability tort-reform legislation. TPLA supports bills introduced in the 103rd Congress that are designed to eliminate joint and several liability for non-economic damages and to establish a uniform national standard for punitive damage awards. (They probably voted for NAFTA to export their products to countries without any laws to protect the citizens. There also would not be any Environmental Protection Agency around so, they could wantonly damage the countries and poison its citizens, i.e., get cheap labor and then turn around and sell it back to the United States as products from Mexico. (Outlawed DDT is being shipped to third-world nations.)

ABI Inform: While Goodyear Tire and Rubber,. and The Bud Co. were not involved in manufacturing the tire rim that exploded and killed a truck driver, the 3rd Judicial Department of New York’s Appellate Court Division recently refused to dismiss Goodyear and Bud from the product liability lawsuit.

NOTE: The court ruled that the manufacturer knew the purpose for which the chattel might be used, and was aware of the dangers surrounding its use under at least one of the invited conditions. They can be held liable under the "concerted action theory of recovery" if evidence reveals that they conspired with other manufactures to hide the products dangers. It was alleged that Good year was aware of the inherent dangers of multipiece rims because it made a tire exclusively for installation on multipiece rims.

Loss ratio data by state and insurer group for the period 1977-1986 are used to investigate the way in which liability doctrines affect both relative prices and underwriting risk faced by commercial liability insurers. Four different performances measures are used for each state: total risk, relative risk, systematic risk and the mean loss ratio for the state over the time period. It is found that higher average state loss ratios and higher levels of systematic risk are associated with absolute liability tort standards.

ABI Inform: The Japanese insurance and reinsurance market is the 2nd-largest in the world, annually generating more than $70 Billion in premiums.

ABI Inform: During a session at the RMF in September 1993, Richard Porter of Alexander & Alexander Ltd. and David Harari of Sedgwick SA expressed confidence that Europe’s social security systems would prevent excessive Tort litigation.

ABI Inform: Financial reinsurance products generally utilize one of two funding approaches. Loss portfolio transactions that allow the reinsured to transfer some or all of its past claims liabilities to the reinsurer and one that allows the reinsured to cover itself for losses that cannot be insured through the traditional market. Among the factors helping to create an attractive climate for financial reinsurance are the increase in risks that are difficult to insure and the enormous costs associated with produce liability.

ABI Inform: John Churchfield, chief financial officer of Dow Corning said insurance would pay about 1.2 Billion of Dow Corning’s contribution. John McGoldrick chief negotiator for Bristol Meyers-Squibb said insurance would pay all or nearly all of the company’s contribution.

ABI Inform: Baxter International Inc., is suing more than 100 major liability insurers, seeking coverage for millions of dollars of claims by hemophiliacs who claim they were infected by the AIDS virus after being treated with Baxter blood products.

ABI Inform: When a manufacturer purchases products liability insurance, it does so with the intention of transferring the uncertainty of a possible future loss to its insurance company in exchange for a stated, fixed sum, or annual premium. The amount of coverage for multiple claims depends upon the trigger of coverage; number of occurrences and interpretation of policy exclusions. Every manufacturer has risk manager lawyers who constantly review the company’s portfolio. Every liability policy should be closely examined for exclusions that may limit the policy holder’s coverage.

ABI Inform: Settlements that are negotiated after judgments frequently include either a protective order restricting access to the case’s facts and evidence supporting its adjudication, or a vacating decision which expunges the decision from public record. These provisions primarily benefit manufacturers and their insurers embroiled in product liability and policy coverage disputes that use them to guard trade secrets and prevent unfavorable judgments from establishing precedents that future plaintiffs can cite.

ABI Inform: The incentives a company faces to recall a product that is discovered to be defective after it has been sold allows an interpretation of recalls as the firm withdrawing a product from the market before its current inventory is exhausted. The 2nd phase allows an interpretation of recalls as either the return of the product to the firm or the destruction by consumers of existing stocks.

The analysis highlights the role of a firm’s reputation in enforcing implicit contracts with former customers and the importance of the assumption of heterogeneous consumers in the analysis of policy. A major implication of the analysis is that, when a firm cares about its reputation, making it liable for full damages in cases where it fails to adequately warn consumers of the true quality of previously purchased products may not lead to efficient behavior on the part of the firm.

ABI Inform: On January 27, 1992, Arnold Weigel, stated that Dow Corning has set up a $25 million reserve to deal with the silicone breast implant issue. Part of the reserve is intended to cover claims activity, while the rest is intended to pay for attorneys and other expenditures tied to defending the safety of silicone gel breast implants. Although he would not release the firm’s total amount of product liability insurance, Weigel conceded that the company has more than $200 million "per occurrence" in coverage. Weigel admitted that, although the company has known for a long time that the implant could leak and rupture, no risk management steps were taken because all studies by Dow Corning indicate that there is no risk for cancer and the immunological problems that are being addressed.

July 12, 1993 Dow Corning Corp is suing 73 of its liability insurers whose policies date back to 1962, the first year Dow Corning manufactured and sold the devices. The combined limits of coverage at issue total $3.48 BILLION. This is just Dow Cornings lawsuit. The others are suing their insurers and you can bet they will get their money after they have given the women pennies. We won’t hear of their lawsuits. What state of litigation are these insurance performance of contract lawsuits in?

March 2, 1992 Dow Corning Corp outlined its $250 million insurance program to cover risks associated with its breast implants. The company’s primary insurer is Zurich (American) Insurance Company. Dow/Corning Glass Works have an umbrella in excess coverage (catastrophic) on Dow Corning. Long-based Anglo American Insurance Co., Ltd., London-based Zurich Re, X.L. Insurnace Co, A.C. E. Insurance Co., Ltd., Hartford, etc. (Query: Could they have purposefully allowed this to happen to collect on insurance and use corporate write offs? See Agent Orange re corporate write offs.)

ABI Inform: The Administrative Conference of the United States, "an independent Federal agency", is currently supporting a radical new proposal to remove all asbestos personal injury claims from the court system and pay claimants through an administrative agency. The proposal is authored by Lester Brickman of Cardozo Law School at Yeshiva University. The proposal calls for the creation of a "trust fund" financed by the manufacturers of asbestos-containing products and their insurers, that would pay asbestos bodily injury claimants "wages" awarded under the proposed system. In addition, attorneys’ contingency fees would be eliminated. (The manufacturers don’t want to be held liable for anything they do, and if they are made to be accountable, then they want to maneuver to the lowest point of compensation to the adversely affected consumer plaintiff in their "Administrative Trust Fund.").

ABI Inform: January 1992. In the case of Lewy vs. Remington Arms Co., Inc., the US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, attempted to establish the principle that certain types of product liability lawsuits may be "foreseeable." The court also addressed significant records related to these types of lawsuits and established three major criteria for assessing a records retention program that results in destruction of records covered by a subpoena in a subsequent lawsuit. (1) Determine if the records retention policy is reasonable for the particular case, (2) Determine if lawsuits concerning the records have been previously filed and the frequency and magnitude of the complaints. (3) Determine if the retention policy was instituted in bad faith. An organization should first determine whether its records could be involved in litigation that is foreseeable based on the guidelines provided in the Remington Arms case. If litigation is deemed foreseeable, the organization should keep the records for a reasonable period of time.

ABI Inform: " Second-generation" implant cases open another front in breast implant cases. According to attorney Aaron Levine, silicone gel-filled implants can harm children in three ways: (1) the silicone can leak into a mother’s milk ducts, (2) it can pass through the umbilical cord or placenta during pregnancy and (3) it can cause an autoimmune disease in the mother that in turn may cause problems with subsequent pregnancies.

ABI Inform: June 28, 1993. Due to the controversy over silicone gel breast implants, chemical companies are halting sales of silicone and other materials used in medical device implants because of fear of future lawsuits. Dow Corning Corp, stopped selling solid silicones for implantable devices on March 31, 1993, even though they differ significantly from silicone gel.

ABI Inform: In Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule that expert testimony could be admitted at a trial only if it is generally accepted by experts in a particular field. Instead, the Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence, which were modified in 1975, give trial judges more discretion over what evidence can be admitted. Under the 1975 rule, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help courts or juries to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify.

ABI (April, 1993): To be successful in litigation defense, a company needs to make effective use of outside counsel, says Richard H. Rubenstein of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker at the meeting of the American Bar Association’s National Institute in March of 1992. An ineffective relationship with the company may result in outside counsel being blindsided by plaintiff’s counsel. According to Rubenstein, this includes selection of the highest quality local counsel consistent with the company’s fiscal restraints, prompt and thorough investigation of claims. To properly use outside counsel in product liability cases the company must first decide which litigation philosophy it will follow.

ABI Inform: Multinational insurance managers say they allay concerns about maintaining adequate insurance at all international locations by obtaining global overseas policies that "fill in the gaps" that go uncovered by primary policies issued by local insurers. One must constantly review changes in case law and regulations in the countries where ones company operates in order to keep up. Western Europeans are starting to make their liability laws similar to those in the US, but that the speed at which Western Europe is revamping its liability laws is still slow and in terms of dollars, the product liability system in Europe is not at all close to that of the US says Douglas S. Williams of Boehringer Ingelheim Corp. Along these lines the ABLJ advised that it is an opportune time for manufacturers, who have not already done so, to consider exporting their goods to Europe. The experience accumulated over the last three decades that strict liability has been the law in the US enables business to view the European Community as a "great marketing opportunity." The same holds true for Japan and South America and also Canada because of socialized medicine, one does not have access to punitive damages.

ABI Inform: July 23, 1994, Science News magazine states that a new study of silicone breast implants indicates that the silicone get used in the implants causes a rare cancer in genetically susceptible strains of mice.

ABI Inform:July 20, 1994 Journal for the National Cancer Institute states that there is experimental evidence that peritoneal plasmacytomas (tumors) are formed in genetically susceptible mice by the injection of silicone gels from mammary implants. (See enclosed Mice Study).

ABI Inform: May 28, 1994 How the dangers of silicone breast implants were kept "secret" during the 1970s/1980s when manufacturers slapped "protective court gag orders" prohibiting women and witnessess, who had won settlements against the manufacturers, from publicly revealing evidence used in court. Congress is considering changing the laws on "gag orders" where public health would be jeopardized by secrecy.

ABI Inform: The case of Diamond Mortgage Corp. of Illinois decided by a Federal bankruptcy court is among the first to interpret Federal Trade Commission regulations which increase the scope of potential liability for all parties involved in the making or broadcasting of a misleading advertisement. The court held that each such party has a duty to conduct an independent inquiry to determine the truthfulness of the claims in order to avoid liability for harm caused by the false product commercial ads.

December, 1991 - Management Review: As Executive Director of the Product Liability Coordinating Committee (PLCC), Bill Fay has been working to get a unified Federal Tort Statute passed that clearly defines when, and how, consumers will be compensated for injuries caused by faulty products or services; this Bill would replace the current system of individual state laws. Boasting 700,00 member corporations, the Product Liability Coordinating Committee (PLCC) appears to have all the political clout it needs to achieve its goal, but to do so, it must first take on and defeat the most effective single interest group in Washington - the Trial Lawyers lobby.

ABI Inform: Business hopes to make the point that today’s legal system blunts the U.S. competitive edge by keeping innovative new products off the market. A recent study published by the Brookings Institution found that litigation does not seem to be the overwhelming driving force behind most product safety improvements; rather, government regulatory requirements and corporate concerns about bad public relations are more significant factors.

**Loss ratio data by state and insurer group for the period 1977-1986 are used to investigate the way in which liability doctrines affect both relative prices and underwriting risk faced by commercial liability insurers. Four different performances measures are used for each state: total risk, relative risk, systematic risk and the mean loss ratio for the state over the time period. It is found that higher average state loss ratios and higher levels of systematic risk are associated with absolute liability tort standards.

January 14, 1991 - Business Insurance: Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990, signed by President Bush on November 16, 1990, manufacturers must report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) if they lose or settle 3 product liability lawsuits that allege the same product caused death or grievous bodily injury within a 2-year period. Section 37 of the Act establishes that the first 2-year period began January 1, 1991, and that subsequent periods will begin on the first day of every odd-numbered year. Manufacturers are subject to a $1.25 million fine for failing to report product liability settlements or court awards. Some corporations fear that the information reported to the CPSC will be made public, which could lead to additional product liability litigation.

October, 1994 - Quality: The design review of a new product is a critical first step for a manufacturing company to take to protect itself from potential problems with product liability. The design review involves bringing together manufacturing, quality assurance and reliability engineering, process engineering to analyze the proposed product and specifications. The objective is to determine if a new product will be reliable for its intended application, whether the tolerances is available, and to isolate potential problem areas. the only consistent way to control product quality is to have an established total quality system. (Yet Tom Talcott was reassigned when he told the manufacturer that making the silicone fluid thinner would put stress on the walls of the envelope and the fluid needed to remain thick in order to keep it from gliding through the tissue planes of the body.)

July 5, 1993 - Business Insurance: In Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a rule that expert testimony could be admitted at a trial only if it is generally accepted by experts in a particular field. Instead, the Court held that the Federal Rules of Evidence, which were modified in 1975, give trial judges more discretion over what evidence can be admitted. Under the 1975 rule, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help courts or juries to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experiences, training or education may testify.

January 14, 1991 - Business Insurance: A product liability lawsuit filed by the granddaughter of a woman who took the antimiscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) could set a precedent that would greatly expand liability for all types of manufacturers if the case is allowed to proceed to trial. Allowing a granddaughter to sue for injuries that allegedly resulted because of her grandmother taking DES 30 years ago could spawn a plethora of suits against all types of manufacturers. Karen Enright, 7, alleges that her cerebral palsy and daily seizures resulted from a chain of events that began when her grandmother ingested the antimiscarriage drug DES before the girl’s mother was born in 1960. The girl’s suit is unique because she does not claim that she suffered genetic defects - passed down the maternal line - as a result of her grandmother’s ingestion of DES. Rather, she blames her medical problems on the injuries that her mother’s reproductive organs suffered as a result of her exposure to DES while in the womb.

May 28, 1994 - New Scientist: The inside story of how the dangers of silicone breast implants were kept secret for years is enraging lawmakers. Women who won settlements against the implant manufacturers in the 1980s (and earlier) were slapped with protective court orders prohibiting them from publicly revealing evidence used in court. Congress is considering a change in the laws on gag orders that would forbid them where public health would be jeopardized by secrecy.

November, 1993 - Lifestyles - Family Values - Jeff Bailey - ProQuest: Baxter International is a Billion-dollar business success story. However, financial fortune led to a history of personal misfortunes for the Falks, one of the company’s founding families - to parental cruelty, sibling rivalry and bitter recriminations. The sins of the mother, Marian Falk, were visited upon the daughter, Carol Falk, and the sizable fortune of the father, Ralph Falk, Sr., went to the son, Ralph Falk, Jr. (See attached article. And they want us to believe that they will be "fair" and just with us? He was willing to sell his mother.

August 3, 1994 - The Wall Street Journal: Baxter International, Inc., and Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., have tentatively negotiated a joint settlement of as much as $160 million to compensate the 6,000 or more people with hemophilia who contracted AIDS from the two companies’ blood-clotting medications during the early 1980s’.

January 21, 1994 - Business Insurance: Baxter International Inc. is suing more than 100 liability insurers, seeking coverage for millions of dollars for claims by hemophiliacs who claim they were infected by the AIDS virus after being treated with Baxter blood products. Between 45% and 50% of all 160,000 U.S. hemophiliacs are HIV-positive. The hemophiliacs charge that Baxter and other suppliers were negligent in providing contaminated blood products and seek damages for bodily injury, wrongful death, loss of consortium, and other torts. (Their "rush for the patent" with Rhone Polenc. They had patent infringement lawsuits against each other before their product went on the market. The result of their rush: 160, 000 families now have Aids victims wherein the whole family will have to suffer. They blocked them from forming a Class Action. The taxpayer will be paying for them to be treated in these corporations hospitals, buying these corporations medicines, placed in these corporations nursing homes to die! They have gotten rich from the patent house to the death house!

Hospital supplies outfit Baxter International had a rough year in 1993, which included being "suspended from doing new business with the Department of Veterans Affairs." Why weren’t they excluded years ago during the beginning of the 1970/1980 lawsuits? It takes a long time for the government to do what is right. Heyer-Schulte contracted the Veterans Administration to run implant tests. Why did the Veterans Department keep the information secret? Are they culpable also along with the FDA? Whose in charge of the Veterans?

November 7, 1994 - The Wall Street Journal: Baxter International Inc. And Age Wave Inc will for a new business, Age Wave Health Services, Inc. to help U. S. health-care providers serve the country’s aging population. This is where the "smart money" is investing. (They will service nursing homes. There are over 10,000 nursing homes in America. With the baby boomers reaching retirement age, the population of elderly is expected to mushroom to 92 million by the year of 2000. They are buying up nursing homes. Do we want them servicing us? Nursing homes motto to their staff: "You see nothing, you hear nothing, you tell nothing."

Baxter International Inc. plans to form a partnership with DNX Corp, (Dynex ?) a Princeton J. J. biotechnology concern, to research the production of genetically altered pig organs that could be transplanted into people with impaired heart, lung and kidney functions. (Doesn’t seem like they are worried about silicone breast implant poisoning or the poor hemophiliacs does it?) It has been revealed that they are putting human genes into animals and animal genes into humans. Next class action: The Oink Settlement.

September, 1994 - Best’s Review: Settlements that are negotiated after judgments frequently include either a protective order restricting access to the case’s facts and evidence supporting its adjudication, or a vacating decision which expunges the decision from public record. These provisions primarily benefit manufacturers and their insurers embroiled in product liability and policy coverage disputes that use them to guard trade secrets and prevent unfavorable judgments from establishing precedents that future plaintiffs can cite. Underwriters can expect a growing number of states to restrict the practice of vacating judgments and approving settlements on the condition that evidence be kept confidential. Judiciaries across the country are getting increasingly uncomfortable with these practices and justices of influential courts are becoming advocates of reform.

May 25, 1994 - Chemical Week: A California jury has ruled that 10 out of 20 chemical companies named in a toxic exposure suit, including DuPont, Ashland Chemical and Henkel, failed to provide adequate warnings on the health risks of their products.

June, 1994 - Risk Management: Products Liability - "When the Unthinkable Happens - When Products go Boom!" - : "The first step," declared Richard C. Reynell, Senior Vice President of Becher & Carson Risk Management, in devising a strategy to effectively respond should a product loss occur is to realize that despite high visibility incidents such as mass illness arising from tainted food, etc., most product failures occur gradually, so the level of damage is initially not severe.

Risk managers therefore need to recognize when this type of loss is forming so they can put all their carriers on notice. When sorting out a large products liability claim, Reynell recommended brokering the claim and presenting it to the claims handlers in an accurate, organized presentation. throughout this process, the risk manager needs to gather as much information on the product as possible and to establish a list of all the organizations that had anything to do with that product.

1992 - Management Decision: Declining product quality and manufacturers’ social responsibility is of increasing concern to consumers and to manufacturers, who must bear the cost of such faulty practice. Five traditionally accepted theories in the field of ethics are discussed: (1) utilitarianism-teleological theory (2) universalism-deontological theory (3) rights (4) justice and (5) Natural Law - The Golden Rule. Documented cases of poor-quality products are examined.

In the Ford Pinto case, for example, some observers argue that the company applied the utilitarian theory of ethics by performing a social cost-benefit analysis in which the importance of costs outweighed benefits but that the calculations were done in error. Universalism dictates that C. R. Bard would not have wanted its competitors to circumvent the Food and Drug Administration regulations simply to gain competitive advantage. By applying an ethical theory of Natural Law, diethylstilbestrol (DES) manufacturers would have felt the need to provide the best quality product possible in a reciprocal exchange of rights and duties. (So why is that so difficult for them to practice?)

March 2, 1992 - National Underwriter: The Dow Corning Corp. has for the first time outlined its $250 million insurance program to cover risks associated with its controversial silicone breast implants. With respect to claims made within the U. S., the company’s primary insurer is Zurich (American) Insurance Company, according to a breakdown realeased by Dow, which has been insured by Zurich American on a claims-made basis since 1989. Dow also has umbrella and excess coverage. For 1992, the company has some $250 million of coverage for general liability and product liability claims layered as follows: (1) Zurich American covers $5 million, with $3 million reinsurance retention by Dow Corning. (2) London-based Anglo American Insurance co., Ltd. and London-based Zurich Re covers the next $20 million. (3) X.L. Insurance Co. covers the next $75 million. (4) A.C.E. Insurance Co., Ltd. covers for the final $150 million. (Look up in International Companies who owns these manufactuerers insurance companies.) Is Dow Chemical’s DORINCO (Dow Reinsurance Company) one of those appealing the catostrophic insurance payments?

April 13, 1992 - Business Insurance - At a national conference of RIMS, Robert Lehmann of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., advised that when settling catastrophe insurance claims, risk managers should have "local attorneys who have a good relationship with Catastrophe insurance companies". Catastrophic insurance has one overriding function: ensuring corporate survival. In a session at the 30th annual Risk and Insurance Management Society Conference, panelists advised companies to take great care in evaluation their exposure and structuring their catastrophe programs.

Robert Lehmann of Coco-Cola Enterprises, Inc., suggested that risk managers buy catastrophe insurance for automobile, general liability, product liability, directors and officers liability, and any other liability exposures that could lead to a huge loss. When deciding on limits, risk managers should consider when calculating forseeable losses is the size of court awards handed down in various jurisdictions. To cover unforeseeable losses, risk managers should consider how much the company can afford to lose. Lehmann advised that when settling catastrophe claims, risk managers should have local attorneys who have a "good relationship with plaintiffs’ lawyers" conduct the negotiations.

ABI Inform: Pro-Tort Reform Forces were not helped by the unbelievable callous comment from GENERAL MOTORS CORP. lobbyist, Alfred W. Cortese, Jr., who stated: "Here’s a quarter for your sideshow," to the presence of Marlo M. Mahne, a disfigured Ford Mustang crash victim, who had fought against passage of the bill." (This is the kind of corporate "ethic mind-set" we citizens are up against!)

According to Barry R. Glaser of Ceridian Corp. and Michael T. D. Budge of L. Insurance, Ltd., risk managers need to thoroughly investigate any product liability claim if they want assurance that their liability insurer will provide coverage. risk managers should contact all their insurers, regardless of whether they are primary or excess, when any claim alleging damage caused by a product is received. It is very important to give insurers the ability to prepare for action, Glaser said during a session of a recent Risk & Insurance Management Society, Inc. Conference. As part of the damage control process, Risk Managers need to think with a national strategy and not just react to events individually, said Budge.

July 12, 1993 - Business Insurance: Defending thousands of silicone breast implant lawsuits alleging continuous injury, Dow Corning Corp. is suing 73 of its liability insurers whose policies date back to 1962, the first year Dow Corning manufactured and sold the devices.

The combined limits of coverage at issue total $3.48 Billion. Dow Corning contends the insurers have stopped paying for defense and settlement of breast implant claims. Until 1991, Dow Corning’s primary and first excess liability insurers had been paying implant claims based on the date the implant ruptured. However, the nature of the claims changed when plaintiffs began alleging a continuous, insidious disease, according to attorney John P. Olson of Hufstedler, Kaus and Ettinger

October 25, 1993: During a session at the Risk Management Forum in September, 1993, Richard Porter of Alexander & Alexander Ltd., and David Harari of Sedgwick, SA, expressed confidence that Europe’s social security systems would prevent excessive litigation. Porter also warned Risk Managers about tough new product liability laws in the UK and other European countries. The EC Product Liability Directive of 1985, which has been adopted by the UK but not by France, introduced the principle of strict liability for the producer of "any product" that causes any property damage or bodily injury.

April, 1991 - Occupational Hazards: A solid legal defense against a "Failure-To-Warn" product liability lawsuit represents a" substantial investment" and capital and manpower and other resources by a company. Companies can take steps to lay the groundwork for a strong defense, including: (1) Evaluate the company’s products to determine their potential health hazards; (2) Develop clear, complete, and appropriate warnings against possible hazards. Success of that defense depends on the well-organized and effective effort of the company to: (a) design and implement an appropriate product hazard "warning program."

September 5, 1994 - Business Insurance (Subject: Reinsurance): A hypothetical case is presented which served as the backdrop for a lively, if inconclusive, debate that touched on arbitration, follow-the-fortune clauses, the US judicial system, and insurers’ responsibilities to re-insurers at the Association International de Droit des Assurances’ World Congress in Sydney, Australia. In the hypothetical case: U.S. paint manufacturer Safer Products has been a subsidiary of Even Safer Products PLC of Britain, which has worldwide umbrella liability coverage with Pay Claims Insurance Co., Ltd. of London. Pay Claims settled the suits for $20 million and has begun negotiations with 3 re-insurers it believes were on the risk during the relevant periods. (This is how they always come out ahead. Insurance companies "Reinsuring" themselves with world-wide conglomerate Re-Insurance companies. So why is Dow Corning, Bristol Meyers, Baxter International, etc., regular insurers balking, if they themselves will be reimbursed by huge world wide reinsurers conglomerates?

July 22, 1194 - The Wall Street Journal: The CDC (Center for Disease Control) said that Gammagard intravenoous product, a Baxter International Inc., immunoglobulin product now removed from the market, probably caused 111 cases of acute hepatitis C in the U. S. and Puerto Rico. Baxter said it has been named in one lawsuit related to the immunoglobulin hepatitis cases.

May 23, 1994 - Business Week: Corporate Chieftains’ use and abuse of company jets are discussed. Baxter International’s Chairman Vernon Loucks cited "security" reasons for using the corporate jet frequently for personal time concerns.

Two types of breast implants, Meme and Replicon, have been withdrawn from the market because of fears that they could cause cancer. The compound 2,4 toluene diamine, released by the implants and believed to cause cancer, is discussed. (Dear God, they used toulene! (See attached with regard to beryllium compound also. It is used in fluorescent lighting and according to case studies done in 1945-47 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene caused deadly symptomoligies of cancer, weight loss, lung penumonitis, kidney problems, unbalance, etc. Did they use this chemical?) Dr. Shailer Bass (Dow Corning) and the Dow Chemical Company researchers (wrote articles for the Journal of Industrial Hygiene (see attached) as did the researchers for The Mellon Institute and knew of these articles and harm in the 1940s! They researched this Journal when they were developing silicone! This is criminal action!

January 19, 1994 - Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: Breast-fed children whose mothers have silicone gel breast implants could be at risk for abnormalities of the esophagus, a study published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association said. Drs. Jeremiah J. Levine and Norman T. Ilowite found lesions and decreased functioning the the esophagi of six of eight children nursed by mothers with implants. The esophagus is the muscular tube that moves food from the throat to the stomach.

Leaven and Ilowite, pediatric gastroenterologists at Schneider Children’s Hospital and Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New Hyde Park, N. Y., compared two groups of children who came under their care because of abdominal pain. The first group of 17 children were not exposed to silicone implants. The second group were 11 children whose mothers had silicone breast implants. Eight were breast-fed as babies and three were bottle-fed. Six of the eight children breast-fed by mothers with implants had impaired function in the lower two-thirds of the esophagus. The abnormalities were not seen in the bottle-fed children or in the control group.

ABI Inform: Genentech plus Corning Glass Works equals Genencor: Genencor, Inc. is a thriving example of the kind of joint ventures that are expected to proliferate in U.S. industry during the 1990s. The 7-year-old venture between Genentech, Inc., and Corning Glass Works has matured into the world’ s 4th-largest "genetic engineering" firms, with $30 million in annual revenues. To ensure Genencor’s entrepreneurial independence, the parent companies have functioned primarily as investors, collecting shares of Genencor’s profits but have no access to its research for their own applications. When Genencor faced financial disaster early on, it raised the money to survive by selling a one-third interest to STALEY CONTINENTAL in 1985 and a 25% interest to EASTMAN KODAK CO. in 1987. Genentech, now exists as a 25-25-25-25 joint venture of Corning, Genentech, Kodak, and Staley. (Note: Baxter International owns Genentech. It is a subsidiary of the ROCHE HOLDING COMPANY. ) Are we beginning to see the breast implant corporate "marriage" intrigue. All the same players as in 1898/1940s/1990s. Collusion in the implants manufacturing also? Were we used as "guinea pigs" for other pharmaceuticals, etc.to be used in other patent research?

ABI Inform: Genentech, Inc. is under investigation by the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, which is attempting to discover whether the new gene-spliced drug for heart attack victims, TPA (tissue plasminogen activator), was PUSHED FOR COMMERCIAL USE BEFORE ENOUGH WAS KNOW OF ITS USE AND RISKS. (Sound familiar - rush for the patent?) Genentech recruited a cadre of cardiovascular specialists to support TPA and overwhelmed Wall Street with promotions of the drug, but the Food & Drug Administration withheld approval until November 1987.

Once TPA came to the market, there was concern that the very expensive drug was no more effective that the much cheaper Streptokinase. The company halted TPA roduction in October, 1988, with total 1988 sales falling short of the projected $400 Million. Subcommittee hearings are investigating whether "conflicts of interest and company influence" may have prompted National Institutes of Health (who were their moles) researchers to overlook TPA’s risks. The controversy continues.

Genentech also has exclusive ownership of natural TPA and all synthetic variations on it, thwarting any efforts by competitors to devise drugs that might be far better for heart attack patients than the version invented by nature (God) and now sold by Genentech.

What the world needs is a variant of TPA that works better than the real thing, but no such product has yet come out of Genentech’s laboratories. However well it works for protecting cotton gins and windshield wipers, the U. S. patent system has some real deficiencies in determining the rights to biological inventions - of God. (These damn corporate greed mongrals patented God’s invention of the blood!)

Genentech has irritated Smith Kline Beecham Corp, the maker of an imminent competitor medication to Genentech’s clot-breaking heart drug, TPA. In an apparent attempt to slow the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of SmithKline’s drug Eminase, Genentech asked California’s two (2) Senators (moles) to write to the FDA in midsummer 1989 to ask that Eminase be reviewed by a "special advisory" committee. Within weeks, the Food and Drug Administration (moles) told Smith Kline Beecham to appear before such a Committee on October 31, 1989. Genentech is involved in litigation with some of the biggest firms in the world.

In November, 1987, the Food & Drug Administration, "under public pressure," (a media spin) approved Genentech’s highly controversial product, tissue plasminogen activator (TPA), a genetically engineered substance that breaks up blood clots in minutes. Sold under the brand name Activase. When extremely dangerous side effects were made known, Genentech used its public relations (PR) clout to silence probings into test results. MOREOVER, this same PR influence has "recruited many doctors" to invest heavily in Genentech." TPA has scored a remarkable illegal promotional triumph. (This is what it is ALL about. There is NO government when it can be bought at such a cheap price by these immoral human beings who consider themselves "UNTOUCHABLES."

ABI Inform: Current Senate actions indicate yet another trade negotiation approach with Japan. Complaints about the patent system which include among others that: (1) it takes 5-7 years compared to 2-3 years in the U.S. for the Patent Office to rule on allowability. Tensions between the U.S. and Japan are growing over Japanese patent system. Some U.S. companies are complaining that obtaining a patent in Japan takes too long. Corning Glass Works was one of the companies that brought complaints before the Senate Subcommittee on foreign trade in June, 1988. (Again, a rush for the patent.)