It’s a disgrace to verified science papers and it affect people’s lives –
I’m calling out the publishers of this paper. This paper which has been cited by Johnson & Johnson to defend themselves against the onslaught of maimed patients who are taking them to court.
To say I’m fed up of this shit is an understatement.
It was probably Johnson’s and Johnson’s fault that I got the endometriosis (using talcum powder down below) which led me to the hysterectomy. This surgery was the opportunity to fit the polypropylene mesh deep into my pelvic cavity, wrapping it around my bladder, vagina and bowel.
Please note…the Hysterectomy did not help. It did however ensure I’d be a cash cow for NHS doctors and their private chums to ‘investigate’ the terrible sharp pains I was in from then on and for the next fifteen years. Telling me things such as, ‘it all looks pretty down there!’ when I tried to complain.
Referred for thirteen procedures – Two at private hospitals referred by the NHS, all under general anaesthetic. My GP told me he knew the doctors and that they were good.
After one of the procedures at King’s College Hospital I almost died. I am still awaiting investigations into what happened on the 12th December 2012. (12.12.12).
Accidentally, I found out about plastic polypropylene mesh from a Facebook post. The symptoms were mine, I got hold of some of my letters and there it was in my surgery notes. I’d been fitted. I couldn’t believe it.
If I was reading this now I’m not sure I would believe it’s possible in England.
Having been lied to, tricked, deceived and denied due process of complaint in the NHS system I’ve become ANGRY. Even more so as it is happening to others. I’ve even been denied mental health help with the anger (ha bloody ha).
So, I’ve some questions regarding these particular doctors moral code.
Rather than doing what you can get away with, why don’t you do what is right?
Altman, Daniel MD, PhD; Rogers, Rebecca G. MD; Yin, Li PhD; Tamussino, Karl MD, PhD; Ye, Weimin MD, PhD; Iglesia, Cheryl B. MD
These doctors wrote the paper after Dr Weimin Ye looked at Swedish patients records (not speaking to any actual patients during this process). They also just ignored nearly a thousand patients who had left Sweden. As over 20,000 were ‘exposed’ to the mesh this missing 1000 is a fair variable. Perhaps they knew if they spoke to women they’d get a different result…?
They looked at records for twelve years…for instances of cancer in women installed with polypropylene mesh. They then concluded that this is comparable to a whole life time observational period and concluded no increased risk of cancer from having any polypropylene mesh implant.
A closer look at the paper shows it’s based on some bizarre accounting. So, I have a few questions, and suggest that this is reliance on cohort studies is wrong.
Could you please explain how twelve years is a life time in human study?
How can you justify exponentially raising the data up to an observational period of 44,012,936 years from 12 years knowing how humans age?
Why ignore the patients which had left?
Why did you adjust the figures for education?
Why did you just cover twelve years (1997-2009), why not longer?
It is seriously messed up. You doctors looked at records for a twelve year period. You then removed sufferers diagnosed with cancer in the first year…saying they could have had it before the implant…
This is what you wrote under your results:-
“Table 1 shows rates and overall risks of any primary cancer among exposed and unexposed women as well as their patient characteristics. There was a higher rate of primary cancer among exposed as compared with unexposed women (rate 790/100,000 person-years, 95% CI 745–838 vs 541/100,000 person-years, 95% CI 538–543). However, after adjustment for age, calendar time, parity, and educational level in the Cox regression analysis, the overall cancer risk was significantly lower among exposed as compared with unexposed women (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8–0.9).”
So…basically there was an increased risk shown and then it was adjusted away.
In fact, you fiddled with the data so much that it spuriously says being exposed to cancer causing polypropylene is less likely to get you cancer in the first four years.
When the data in table 2 shows very clearly that exposed patients (those with polypropylene implants) have increased incidences of cancer in all but one of cancer incidence groups.
You couldn’t make it up. Oh yes, they just did.
They are heading for prostate problems next. Watch out! They have to pay for that damn robot somehow!
We need to come up with a term for these doctors who are desperately trying to cover their arses rather than sort out the problem they’ve helped to create.
Perhaps Desperate Docs?
Thanks for reading.
The papers in question : –
The Doctors who sold out.
Altman, Daniel MD, PhD;Dr. Daniel Altman MD is the holder of an investigator-initiated study grant from Boston Scientific and has received speaker fees from Astellas Pharma who are bed buddies with Janssen (Johnson & Johnson).
Rogers, Rebecca G. MD; Rebecca G Rogers MD, is an Ascension Doctor also in the states. Dr. Rebecca G Rogers, MD is a doctor primarily located in Austin, TX, with other offices in Albuquerque, NM and Albuquerque, NM. She has 27 years of experience. Her specialities include Obstetrics & Gynaecology.
Yin, Li PhD; Dr. Yin Li is a post-doctoral associate at the University of Florida, College of Nursing. Dr. Li received her Bachelor of Medicine from Tianjin Medical University in China, and her PhD in nursing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests are focused on nursing workforce and economics.
Tamussino, Karl MD, PhD; – Prof. Karl Tamussino MD, PhD, Head of the Gynecology Department, Women and Obstetrics University Clinic; Medical University of Graz, Austria with a keen interest in robotic surgery.
Ye, Weimin MD, PhD; – Weimin Ye MD specializes in analysing data for different companys https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-016-0117-y (either a gastro doc or a nemalotogist)
Iglesia, Cheryl B. MD – Cheryl Iglesia MD, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery and advancing surgical techniques, clinical research and medical education. Keen advocate of Davinci robot surgery.
which states this…
In this cohort of 17,030 patients treated with primary midurethral slings, the overall reoperation rate was 2.1% (95% CI 1.9–2.4%) at 1 year, 4.5% (95% CI 4.1–4.8%) at 5 years, and 6.0% (95% CI 5.5–6.5%) at 9 years. Risk of reoperation was affected by race (P=.04), with Asian or Pacific Islander patients having a lower reoperation rate when compared with white patients.
Don’t get me on the ethnicity thing again….this is saying Asian or Pacific Islander people tolerate the mesh – which could lead in a surge of doctors plying this mesh towards them.