Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 137
Thanks Tree69Thanks

Thread: Women forced to have hysterectomies to remove Essure device

  1. #61
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    19,977
    Thanks
    10515

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelly View Post
    Why are none of you addressing the fact that Bayer cannot be sued?
    I don't think they should be sued unless they knowingly falsified data. I don't see evidence of that. I see a doctor who provided false information, and trying to claim it was because of fear of lawsuit. That claim is so unfounded, and no court would ever convict a doctor for reporting the facts.

    And I don't think drug companies should be sued for side effects that were not possible to be known during the study, and that which was not the result of masked or fraud on the part of the company to conceal it. Heres why, because that is the nature of medicine. nothing is free from the possibility of side effects, as I've discussed already.

    If companies could get sued for all side effects, then why would the bother developing drugs? They spend so much money, so much time and man power to develop a drug (costs estimated between $500M to $1B), with an incredible failure rate and gigantic risk that the product won't even get a big market share if there are competitor drugs, if they have no profit to motivate this risk? These things are unavoidable, it would be like peanut companies being sued because someone had an allergic reaction and died. It's impossible to know how everybody reacts.

    If you could sue for any type of non-negligent failure of any facet of medicine, doctors wouldn't treat patients, companies wouldn't put out products, people's lives wouldn't be saved, we would have no new medicine.

    And again, 750K people have had the procedure, I'm sure many that love the procedure, everything worked great. There is the possibility, as well, that the doctors or patients didn't follow proper instructions. FActually, the biggest incidences of adverse side effects on drugs or devices is improper usage by the people.

    As I mentioned with Vioxx, millions of people swore by the drug, there pain was alleviated, it was the best thing. The drug wa sa block buster. There was severe risk in 2% of the people, and it was pulled. But people acted like the drug was killing everybody that was taking it. What Vioxx showed was the nature of pharmaceuticals, and medicine in general.

    Today, they could probably find the genes that lead to Vioxx's icnreased risk in people and screen for that. This is definitely the future of medicine and can help prevent these side effects if you can identify those that are at risk

  2. #62
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    19,977
    Thanks
    10515

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelly View Post
    Did you read my earlier posts?
    yes, and?

    I'll address some of your points, but not sure what that has to do with anything i've said


    Quote Originally Posted by Shelly View Post
    Hmmm.... where.do.I.start?
    The clinical trials I suppose. A biased five year study, nothing long term. A few of the participants have had a hysterectomy and some are still trying. (I've addressed this in my post

    Many implanted women were seeking birth control not necessarily permanent but we're talked into these implants by their doctors who stood to gain financially. again, unfounded claims. What do doctors gain financially (they gain just by doing the trial, regardless of results)? Where are any facts or evidence to support this claim?


    1 out of 10 people are allergic to nickel yet the word "nickel" was never mentioned to many of us. Is this even true? A

    Thousands were never tested even before the warning was taken off the label. Nickel is not the only issue. The PET fibers in the coils are designed to cause inflammation which causes the buildup of scar tissue in the fallopian tube. This process uses the immune system and NEVER stops. This can cause numerous health problems over time. Many women do not develop symptoms right away and some do. Doctors are refusing to believe or even consider Essure as the cause and are REFUSING to give hysterectomies to the point of absurdity. This has nothing to do with the pharmaceutical companies, but those doctors. Your issues should be with the doctors, not the product based on what was described above


    Insurance companies will not pay for a hysterectomy for those who "want" one. A hysterectomy causes a woman to go into menopause even if the ovaries are left intact sometimes due to a lack of blood flow. Many of these women are in their twenties. 750,000 IS THE NUMBER OF KITS SOLD NOT THE NUMBER OF WOMEN IMPLANTED. We do not know how many have been implanted.

    Bayer's new warning covers chronic pain and migration. Chronic pain is one symptom. The list of symptoms is pages long. My symptoms started months later and progressively got worse with time. New symptoms each year. Yes, because as I've mentioned, anything reported by a patient must go on the list of side effects, regardless of whether its caused by the product. So, if you have foot pain from the procedure, its reported as a side effect. Hence why they are long, that doesn't mean patients will experience any, some or even all of them, there is just a chance.


    Doctor after doctor and test after test with no answers. The pain is EXCRUCIATING similar to labor pains only it's constant, relentless, day after day. If the pain does not debilitated me the weakness, fatigue and constant nausea will. I have been told time after time that this is all in my head. I am stressed, depressed, or hormonal. I can feel myself dying. I thank God for Erin Brockovich and her determination to raise awareness. Now I know. I have an appointment in a few weeks with an OB GYN. sorry you have experience this, but this seems to be an issue with your doctor, not the company


    I am PRAYING she will listen to me. I have spent countless hours researching and joined the Essure Problems Facebook group with almost 4000 members. I plan to be armed with as many facts as possible. Your forum came up in a Google search. I came here seeking knowledge, or at least some insight. Instead I found a group of pathologically narcissistic asshats discussing a subject they know nothing about. your experience is unique, but that does not mean you know anything about the FDA and approval process, the product, how it works, the medicine behind it, etc. you just know about your personal experiences. And, I have scientific training, I have read countless books, went to workshops, seminars, etc from industry discussing this entire process, so I'm do know about the subject.

  3. #63
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    36,816
    Thanks
    21865

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Shelly View Post
    Human beings have an instinctive need to feel safe in order to live their lives and sleep at night. People will live in a state of denial to avoid living in fear. There are close to 4000 members in my group but there are several other groups. Doesn't it concern you that the FDA is claiming to have 900 adverse event reports? Big companies like Bayer and the FDA count on our need to feel safe. It's birth control this time but what will it be next?
    Gardasil vaccination, I would bet on it.

    Wisconsin Sisters Claim Gardasil Cause Premature Menopause and Possible Infertility
    GARDASIL MEDICAL ALERT - PLEASE READ
    Last edited by bajisima; 15th November 2013 at 12:24 PM.

  4. #64
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    19,977
    Thanks
    10515

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelly View Post
    Human beings have an instinctive need to feel safe in order to live their lives and sleep at night. People will live in a state of denial to avoid living in fear. There are close to 4000 members in my group but there are several other groups. Doesn't it concern you that the FDA is claiming to have 900 adverse event reports? Big companies like Bayer and the FDA count on our need to feel safe. It's birth control this time but what will it be next?

    From what I'm reading, the FDA is investigating these reports. That's what they do. They assess the reports, then make a determination on the next step. Do they need to put additional warning on the product? Pull it completely? That's what they will determine. And even if the number is higher, lets say 10,000 people have this effect, that's 1.3% of the 750K people that have had the product. Yes, its unfortunate for the people afflicted, but its about the range of what is expected for side effects. The FDA will review this and make a determination.

    And the claim that the FDA is only aware of 900 cases, is it maybe because the rest have not been reported? That seems to be on the doctors again, that should have reported it. And, its possible that the doctor didn't install properly. Not saying that is the case, but its a possibility.


    This is just a fact of medicine. Some people go in for routine surgery and have adverse reaction to the anesthesia and die, probably the biggest risk from surgery after infection. That doesn't mean surgeries shouldn't be performed, with medicine, there are no guarantees

  5. #65
    Polemicist Supremum Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,365
    Thanks
    316

    From
    Yesod

    Will Screw Wing

    " Wing Screw Will "

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Is this the dangerous contraceptives Obama wants to pay for that puts womens lives at risk. Where is the FDA on this problem
    Women forced to have hysterectomies to remove Essure device | News - Home
    The notion of temporary , reversible , although assured sterilization , through a simple medical procedure , without further concern for pregnancy , remains an aspiration to endow for hue mammon animals .

    Anyone who has read up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essure , knows that it results in fibrosis that is difficult or seldom reversible .

    Here are an others option :

    Sterilization by Laparoscopy: What You Need to Know

    Laparoscopy enables the physician to complete tubal ligation by making a small incision near the navel. This smaller incision reduces recovery time after surgery and the risk of complications. In most cases, the woman can leave the surgery facility within 4 hours after laparoscopy.

    A woman should carefully weigh her decision to undergo sterilization by laparoscopy. Though this procedure has been successfully reversed in some women, in almost all cases it causes a permanent loss of fertility.

    Women who are unsure if they still want children should choose a less permanent form of contraception, such as birth control pills, an intrauterine device (IUD), or a barrier method (such as a diaphragm). Discuss these alternatives with your physician.

    Your partner may also consider having a vasectomy, a method of male sterilization that involves severing and tying the vas deferens, a tube that transports sperm.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    53,619
    Thanks
    3527

    Quote Originally Posted by TennesseeRain View Post
    I admit it when Obama does stuff wrong. This isn't one of those times.
    Sure you do

  7. #67
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    53,619
    Thanks
    3527

    Quote Originally Posted by TennesseeRain View Post
    You are prone to false impressions, so I'm not surprised.
    No I am not you just don't want to admit what impression was left

  8. #68
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    53,619
    Thanks
    3527

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    As usual, this discussion turns to conspiracies based on ignorance of the process.

    OK, people who claim its bad, explain the alternative? Do you realize how much a clinical trial costs? The doctors don't work for the companies, they don't use their big pockets to bribe the FDA, because if the drug is not safe, they pay big time when sued. Doctors don't get paid for their results. Also, most studies are double blinded, how can a doctor, who has no idea which patient got placebo, which got the real drug, influence a clinical trial?

    and as I mentioned, the FDA has big role in aiding in the design of the studies. They direct what type of data they require for approval. What would be the alternative? You don't think if there was independent organizations that did the studies, that there would not be the chance for corruptiona nd mistakes? For a company that has no stake in the game could make a huge mistake in the design of the trial that can kill the drug.

    I really think people need to research this thing more, not finding FDA bashing, biased, one sided internet articles, but from sources that actually hhave done the trial.

    And the rate of approval would be far greater by the FDA, and you would not have companies complaining about the high standards set by the FDA, if corruption was involved. There would be far more drugs, because an unapproved drug costs a company millions and millions.

    And a drug which is unsafe put on the marking knowingly by the company would cost them billions.
    It needs to be taken off the market
    Thanks from Shelly

  9. #69
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    53,619
    Thanks
    3527

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Let me guess, the only birth control you approve of is abstinence.
    So you don't care if this is a device that does physical harm?
    Thanks from Kontrary

  10. #70
    Veteran Member Kontrary's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13,860
    Thanks
    12431

    From
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    I don't think they should be sued unless they knowingly falsified data. I don't see evidence of that. I see a doctor who provided false information, and trying to claim it was because of fear of lawsuit. That claim is so unfounded, and no court would ever convict a doctor for reporting the facts.

    And I don't think drug companies should be sued for side effects that were not possible to be known during the study, and that which was not the result of masked or fraud on the part of the company to conceal it. Heres why, because that is the nature of medicine. nothing is free from the possibility of side effects, as I've discussed already.

    If companies could get sued for all side effects, then why would the bother developing drugs? They spend so much money, so much time and man power to develop a drug (costs estimated between $500M to $1B), with an incredible failure rate and gigantic risk that the product won't even get a big market share if there are competitor drugs, if they have no profit to motivate this risk? These things are unavoidable, it would be like peanut companies being sued because someone had an allergic reaction and died. It's impossible to know how everybody reacts.

    If you could sue for any type of non-negligent failure of any facet of medicine, doctors wouldn't treat patients, companies wouldn't put out products, people's lives wouldn't be saved, we would have no new medicine.

    And again, 750K people have had the procedure, I'm sure many that love the procedure, everything worked great. There is the possibility, as well, that the doctors or patients didn't follow proper instructions. FActually, the biggest incidences of adverse side effects on drugs or devices is improper usage by the people.

    As I mentioned with Vioxx, millions of people swore by the drug, there pain was alleviated, it was the best thing. The drug wa sa block buster. There was severe risk in 2% of the people, and it was pulled. But people acted like the drug was killing everybody that was taking it. What Vioxx showed was the nature of pharmaceuticals, and medicine in general.

    Today, they could probably find the genes that lead to Vioxx's icnreased risk in people and screen for that. This is definitely the future of medicine and can help prevent these side effects if you can identify those that are at risk
    Its not true that a doctor who reports the "facts" wont be sued...you saw how Fox was threatened for their story on Monsanto and the growth hormones they gave to cows so they would produce more milk. They also threatened to remove all advertising etc. So just because a doctor or news program has the FACTS on their side doesnt mean they wont be harmed, sued and harrassed...and all that can cost money they cant afford to lose, it could also end the doctors career.

    The notion that they should be FREE from being sued was done under the idea that these devices would get EXTRA scrutiny and care, but they dont get that extra scrutiny so why should they get the protection from being sued.
    Thanks from Shelly

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed