• AgoraVox sur Twitter
  • RSS
  • Agoravox TV
  • Agoravox Mobile


En réponse à :

amipb amipb 26 juin 2012 22:28

Si la société PIP fait partie du NHS (ce qui reste à prouver), elle se serait certainement passé de certaines conclusions, lisibles sur le lien donné par l’auteur :

  • PIP implants do have a higher rupture rate – around 2 times higher. The rate of rupture appears to be around 6 to 12% after 5 years, rising to 15 to 30% after 10 years (this compares to 10 to 14% after 10 years for other brands of implants).
  • PIP implants have a higher concentration of certain compounds called siloxanes – chemically similar to silicone but of a lower molecular weight and found in many consumer products, including hair and skin care products, antiperspirants and deodorants – but this does not present a health risk.
  • Although the contents are not harmful and the gel has not been shown to contain any toxic substances, the inferior mechanical strength of the implants led the group to consider this a substandard product.
  • If the implant does rupture, it has been found to cause local reactions around the implant area in a small proportion of women, which can result in symptoms such as tenderness or swollen lymph glands. There is no evidence that this causes any more significant general health concern however.
Répondre Signaler un abus Lien permanent

Ajouter une réaction

Pour réagir, identifiez-vous avec votre login / mot de passe, en haut à droite de cette page

Si vous n'avez pas de login / mot de passe, vous devez vous inscrire ici.


FAIRE UN DON


Palmarès