The Media-Trial Lawyer Axis
Media Monitor | By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | July 8, 1999
Philip Terzian expressed the hope that the sensational claims of trial lawyers who stand to profit from those claims will be questioned in the future by the media.
On the CNN web site the other day, there was a story about hearings opening on the Dow Corning implant settlement. The story began, “The final legal step in a settlement between the Dow Corning Co. and thousands of women with silicone breast implants began Monday with a judge opening weeks of hearings on whether to approve a $4.5 billion bankruptcy plan.” These women, who, together with their lawyers, will get $3.2 billion of the settlement, are claiming the implants caused a variety of illnesses. But at the end of the article, in a listing of related stories, was one headlined, “Advisory panel says breast implants don’t cause serious illness.” That’s right: at the very moment Dow Corning is being shaken down by trial lawyers to the tune of $3.2 billion, a federal advisory panel is reporting that the links between the serious illnesses and the implants being claimed by those lawyers are non-existent. Columnist Charles Krauthammer said the settlement is an example of bogus science being used by trial lawyers to extort billions of dollars from a major company. Writer Philip Terzian put it this way: “People who are alarmed about the effect of prosecutors like Kenneth Starr on the lives of people like Monica Lewinsky seem remarkably unconcerned about the fact that tort lawyers have, in essence, extorted billions of dollars from law-abiding corporations (and enriched themselves in the process) on the basis of thin air.” So how did they do it? Terzian places the blame squarely on the media, who accepted the claims without seriously questioning them. He explains, “There is no doubt that, in the course of three decades, many women who had breast implants developed various illnesses, including cancer, neurological problems and autoimmune diseases. But beginning in the early 1960s, hundreds of thousands of American women had breast implants. It is inevitable that, over time, some of them would fall ill. Yet instead of pondering the statistical probability of disease in such a large group of women, the media preferred to traffic in sensation, offer anecdotal evidence, and lend public credence to junk science.” This is the fifth time that an alleged link between implants and illnesses has been debunked. An Australian committee concluded in 1997 that there was no strong evidence linking breast implants with alleged diseases. A United Kingdom Independent Review Group found in July of 1998 that there was no conclusive evidence of a link between silicone breast implants and serious illnesses and the European Committee on Quality Assurance and Medical Devices in Surgery issued in July of 1998 a Consensus Declaration on Breast Implants stating that “studies continue to show that silicone gel-filled breast implants do not cause cancer.” Finally, the 706 National Science Panel, appointed by U.S. Judge Sam C. Pointer, overseeing Multi-District Litigation concerning breast implants, found no proven links between silicone breast implants and diseases. Philip Terzian expressed the hope that the sensational claims of trial lawyers who stand to profit from those claims will be questioned in the future by the media. But that means they will have to put the truth over what sounds like a good and gripping story.
Reed Irvine is the former Chairman of Accuracy In Media and Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report.
0 Comments | Post a Comment
