Opinion stated by: Robert Olexa  

Reference: Smoke and Fire Document # 543 

Struggling with how to label, or whether to even mention in it's labeling, the hazardous effects to the liver as a result of D4 exposure, Dow 's Product Safety & Regulatory Compliance Staff, were issued with there marching orders. In this 1992 memo, from John Rothhaar, which is summarized first, and the following direct quotes are listed in order from conclusion to introduction, for an interesting perspective.  

"This new text can be used even if we decide that D4 should be considered a hazardous substance; the liver statement would not be required because of recent legal decisions which held that the exact target organ effect need not be included on the label."  

"In either case (whether D4 is listed as a hazardous ingredient or not), the label for the product will not include any health hazard warning related to D4. There will be no potential liver effect statement on the label."  

"This moratorium on changes affects health hazards only. Any physical hazard (i.e., flammability) related to D4 should be handled as it normally would be."  

"We do not want to give the customers incorrect or inappropriate information. We may have done that already, but there is no reason to compound that problem, when we will have a more complete assessment soon. It is possible that we will be changing the warning statements based on the outside review, and it makes more sense to make a single change once the final decision is made."  

"There is no indication or belief that this action will cause any risk to anyone's health. Our experts tell us that they believe that a person exposed to D4 in the quantities that the animals were exposed to (a highly unlikely event in itself) would not suffer any permanent harmful effect."  

"To make a fully informed decision, Dow Corning has decided to seek expert advice from independent consultants. Three separate outside expert, in addition to John Clary our former manager of Toxicology are being ask to review D4 data and summarize its significance."  

"As a matter of prudence, we believe it is inappropriate to retain the current 10 ppm industrial hygiene exposure guideline (IHG)."  

"The increased liver seen in some test animals exposed to D4 is believed to be an adaptive response rather than a true "toxic" effect."  

"This means that the health hazard warnings (specifically, the liver effect statements) will remain on the MSDS and label for those products already having the warning, but the warning will not be added now for any products that do not currently carry the warning."  

End of memo.  

As incredible as it is, all of these quotes were in one memo. Thank you, John.  

To prioritize legal consideration, as their main objective, and disregarding the harmful health consequences that their product caused, the "liver effect statement" was its core objective, and omission its final decision, in handling this issue.  

Although it is comforting to know, that breast implants are not "labeled" as flammable, it is disturbing to know, that an object, which is related in composition, and could be classified as such, is still allowed to be placed in the human body.  

"There is no indication or belief", and "Our experts tell us that they believe" are too unbelievable, when speaking of animals exposed to D4, from 4 to 8 week test periods, how can that in anyway compare to 30 year exposure time spans, which so many of our women have been subjected to, and "would not suffer any permanent harmful effect."

Fatal decisions were made, prior to the facts.  

In 1992, these question were purportedly unknown, and unanswered. In 2001, they are known, and have been answered. After reviewing the evidence contained in this memo, my only questions to the "pro implant crowd" can be, where are your eyes, your ears, and any remotelymeasurable matter in between? Where is the truth, and honesty? Where is the check, and balance? Where is our judicial system, or our government?