ATTN: LETTER TO THE EDITOR AT BLOOMBERG NEWS.
RE: "Surgery for Vaginal Bulge Fails in One in Four Women, Study Says" by Michelle Fay Cortez
I want to first say Bloomberg has done an excellent job in raising awareness of the inequities in the FDA's 510(k) law and the misuse of mesh under that law. I like and respect Bloomberg and its reporters who do a great job, including Michelle Fay Cortez.
I am, however, very concerned about this story. It is factually incorrect and it is gender biased, sexually discriminates and is condescending to women. It is a gloss over for the mesh manufacturers describing mesh kits as dangerous and other meshes, by inference, as safe. Ingrid Nygaard is biased in favor of J&J through financial support of clinical trials funded by Ethicon/J&J.
There is no basis in fact for the premise any mesh is safe. There are no human clinical trials demonstrating safety or efficacy. Surgeries using synthetic mesh are life threatening. Incontinence and pelvice organ prolapse symptoms are not.
Actually, if the procedure discussed uses weakened native tissue for repair that lasts for 7 years, it is a good outcome. Many women are happy with their incontinence procedure using fascia lata that lasted 10 years but who are subsequently permanently disabled by a follow up incontinence procedure using synthetic mesh.
This is the latest iteration in the campaign to continue to use synthetic surgical mesh in women. J&J simply re-wrote the “Instructions for Use” for their Gynemesh product. Doctors, mesh manufacturers and attorneys are working together to bring about a resurgence of the abdominal sacral colpopexy, one the most invasive, highest complication rate surgeries there is to repair pelvic organ prolapse…mesh is attached to the apex of the vagina and then to the woman’s spine.
I would appreciate the opportunity of doing an op-ed piece to show the other side of the story, along with the complete factual data which was not given to Bloomberg by Ingrid Nygaard.
I look forward to hearing from you and rectifying this major affront to women,
Yours truly,
Lana
Lana C. Keeton
Founder and President
Truth in Medicine Incorporated
1521 Alton Road, #198
Miami Beach, FL 33139
e-mail: lanakeeton@truthinmedicine.us.com
website: www.truthinmedicine.us.com
blog: www.theladyisachamp.blogspot.com
Become a Member!
http://www.truthinmedicine.us.com/becomeamember.html
Donate to Our Cause!
http://www.truthinmedicine.us.com/donatetoourcause.html
The information provided is for educational purposes only. It is not meant to diagnose or treat any health condition and is not a replacement for treatment by a healthcare provider.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
CELEBRATING THE BEAUTY OF MY WESTIE ANGEL, ALEXANDRA DAISY ALLIE MAE IN LIFE AND IN DEATH....
 |
| IN HONOR OF MY WONDERFUL ALEXANDRA DAISY ALLIE MAE MAY 12, 1990 - DECEMBER 27, 2005 DRIA, B.B. AND I PLACED FLOWERS ON HER GRAVE IN HONOR OF HER 23rd BIRTHDAY, MOTHER'S DAY 2013. I STILL LOVE AND MISS MY ALLIE SO MUCH. SHE BRINGS BLESSINGS TO ME EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE BECAUSE I STILL HAVE HER DAUGHTER, DRIA AND HER GRANDSON, B.B. I AM ETERNALLY THANKFUL FOR ALL THE JOY IN MY LIFE SINCE MY ALLIE WAS BORN 23 YEARS AGO! |
 |
| WHAT A BUNDLE OF JOY...ALL MY ANGELS! LANA, B.B. , DRIA, AND ALLIE (lt to rt) 2003 |
 |
| DRIA AND B.B. WISH ALLIE HAPPY BIRTHDAY AND HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY WITH FLOWERS! :) |
 |
| ALEXANDRA DAISY ALLIE MAE'S MEMORIAL HEADSTONE |
 |
| LANA HONORING THE MEMORY OF HER ANGEL, ALLIE WITH HER DAUGHTER, DRIA AND HER GRANDSON, B.B.! |
Monday, May 6, 2013
DOCTOR *I*D*I*O*T*S AT WORK: MESH IMPLANTATION DONE BY DOCTORS WITH AN AGENDA...AND IT IS N*O*T WOMEN'S HEALTH!
BEWARE ATTACK OF THE KILLER "HEALTH" SYSTEM!
“ 18th century, most people assumed that midwives had no formal training, even though some did, and common existing beliefs held that women were emotionally and intellectually incapable of learning and applying the new obstetric methods.
Well-to-do families soon came to believe that physicians could provide better care than female midwives could and thus offered the best hope for a successful birth. Mary Wollstonecraft met her end at the hands of a medical mystery that killed scores of 18th century mothers. Why?
Wollstonecraft's death, following the birth of her daughter, the future Mary Shelley, was typical of the times in which she lived: "A part of her placenta needed to be pulled out by a doctor's hand. She developed puerperal sepsis, an infection of the genital tract, which very painfully, and over the period of about a week, killed her." These were the days of rampant puerperal, or childbed, fever, spread by doctors and midwives and a mystery to everyone.
"In the first half of the nineteenth century about five European women in a thousand died from childbirth.
Death rates in maternity hospitals were often ten times that; the hospitals stayed open because doctors had an incurable faith in good intentions, and patients a poor grasp of mortality statistics.
The physician and poet Oliver Wendell Holmes led the American campaign to stop the spread of the disease by getting doctors to wash their hands.
Obstetricians felt slighted. [!#%!&*%$#@#(%*&#! REALLY? WOMEN WERE DEAD BUT OBSTETRICIANS FELT SLIGHTED? SHADES OF TONY VISCO, WINNER OF THE SCARLET FINGER AWARD! FUNNY HOW DOCTORS CONTINUE TO KILL OR HARM WOMEN WITH THEIR FINGERS IN THE NAME OF HEALTH AND SCIENCE.]
'Doctors are gentlemen,' said Charles Meigs of the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, arguing that no such care was needed, 'and gentlemen's hands are clean.'
CHILDBED FEVER
Ignaz Semmelweiss. As a 28-year-old assistant physician in the maternity unit of the Vienna General Hospital during the 1840s, Semmelweiss was given the responsibility of obstetrically examining ward patients, supervising difficult deliveries, and organizing teaching rounds both in the morgue and in the first section of the clinical ward, the section in which most deliveries were done by medical students. Semmelweiss immediately realized that the rate of puerperal (childbed) fever was much higher in his first section than in the second section of the maternity ward, where most of the deliveries were done by nurse-midwives. He also observed that the clinical symptoms of puerperal fever were identical to those of a hospital pathologist who died after pricking his finger with a dirty autopsy instrument.
Semmelweiss thus concluded that the disease was caused by "cadaverous particles" and other decaying organic matter transmitted to the patients in the first section by medical students who arrived on the maternity wards fresh from their dissection work in the morgue.
He initiated the procedure of washing with a solution containing chlorine between all clinical activities, and the rate of puerperal fever appeared to decrease dramatically.
Unfortunately, Semmelweiss's call for medical practice reforms became ensnared in the political upheavals that wracked Vienna and the hospital faculty in the late 1840s, and his work was rejected by many senior clinicians.
Semmelweiss became increasingly more isolated in medical circles and answered his critics with a series of strident denunciations of the European medical establishment.
With the permission of his family, he was involuntarily committed to an insane asylum and died (probably of untended wounds inflicted during a struggle) on 13 August 1865.”
http://www.articlesbase.com/pregnancy-articles/a-discusting-look-at-having-a-baby-in-1800039s-1875847.html
KEEP READING TO THE END....THERE'S MORE!!!
“Why was it more prevalent that women died during childbirth in the 18th Century?”
This desire for control led men to seek greater status as obstetricians in the nineteenth century. The professionalization of obstetrics is one of the leading factors in the demise of midwifery. Doctors sought to improve their status by proving midwives uneducated and unprepared for medical emergency. This control over the birthing process came about with the increasing use of forceps in doctor attended births. Forceps allowed the male doctor to deliver live babies where previously the child or the mother would have died. Forceps were also used to shorten lengthy labor. Because midwives were not allowed by custom to use medical instruments in their practice, forceps became the exclusive domain of physicians. Childbirth started to become the expertise of men, instead of women.
Forceps improved the status of physicians by easing birth and increasing the chances of a live birth. A physician who used forceps in the majority of cases, necessary or not, would increase his chances of a successful and less painful birth. Until the use of forceps, the only way to remove a fetus that couldn't pass through the birth canal was to perform a craniotomy. Forceps represented the introduction of science to birth, the professionalization of physicians, the downfall of midwifery, and the loss of birth from women to men. Catherine M. Scholten writes...
"[T]he time seemed ripe to apply science to a field hitherto built on ignorance and supported by prejudice. Smellie [Dr. William Smellie, discovered the mechanics of parturition, perfected the design and use of forceps, and taught their use] commented on the novelty of scientific interest in midwifery. `We ought to be ashamed of ourselves ... for the little improvement we have made in so many centuries.'"[8]
Thomas Jones of the College of Medicine of Maryland wrote in 1812, "With the cultivation of this branch of science women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the perilous conditions of childbirth."[9]
What Jones failed to write about were the failures of the forceps to completely revolutionize childbirth. Forceps sometimes saving the life of an infant who would have been killed, or sped up labor; however, they also caused as much injury as they prevented. Forceps were responsible for rips in the perineum, head injuries to the fetus, and other obstetric complications. The overuse of forceps was an acknowledged problem in the nineteenth century. Accusations of "meddlesome midwifery" and cautions against forceps misuse suggest a serious problem existed. William Potts Dewees, professor and the University of Pennsylvania, wrote, "The frequency with which [forceps] have been employed in some instances is really alarming, and I had like to have said, must have been to often unnecessary." Another physician writing in the 1880s wrote "grave perineal lesions were more common now than formerly, and this increase has been coincident with the increased use of forceps and of anesthetics in labor."[10]
The increase of dangers to women was due to other interventions by physicians as well. Since most labor proceeded normally, any intervention introduced dangers that weren't already present.
Germ theory was not yet in place, and doctors did not take action to sterilize themselves or the area they were in.
Unwashed hands posed major threats to women's health, often carrying disease from other patients the doctor had examined. Some physicians also routinely used opium and other narcotics, and ruptured the water with their fingernails.
These actions also placed unknown and previously nonexistent dangers to women.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080513095807AAeFRrm
AS A WOMAN BUTCHERED BY A MESH IMPLANTING DOCTOR ALMOST 12 YEARS AGO, I AM ENRAGED AT THE *I*D*I*O*T* DOCTORS WHO CONTINUE TO MUTILATE AND KILL WOMEN BY IMPLANTING POLYPROPYLENE [THE SAME THING THEY MAKE YOUR LIVING ROOM CARPET OUT OF] IN WOMEN'S VAGINAS AND UNDER THEIR BLADDER. THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE YOUR GYNECOLOGIST OR YOUR UROLOGIST OR YOUR UROGYNECOLOGIST OR FEMALE DOCTOR, ASK THEM IF THEY INTEND TO IMPLANT A LIVING ROOM CARPET IN YOUR VAGINA OR UNDER YOUR BLADDER? THEY WILL PROBABLY SAY YOU ARE "EMOTIONALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY INCAPABLE" OF KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. OR SEND YOU TO A PHYSICAL THERAPIST OR A PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR OR A PSYCHIATRIST OR GIVE YOU A PRESCRIPTION FOR AN ANTI-DEPRESSANT. BECAUSE THEY ARE THE *I*D*I*O*T*S!!!
HEALTHY WAS WHEN A WOMAN GOT OFF HER HORSE ON THE PRAIRIE, HAD A BABY, THEN GOT BACK ON THE HORSE WITH HER BABY...WITHOUT A DOCTOR!!!
In the early 1900's when men doctors started delivering babies in the hospital, instead of midwives in the house, MORE women started dying in childbirth.
Why were they dying? Because DOCTORS were not washing their hands when they delivered the babies.
WOMEN WERE DEAD BECAUSE DOCTORS WERE NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS. JUST THINK OF THE BABIES WITHOUT MOTHERS AND THE FATHERS WITHOUT WIVES BECAUSE OF THE IDIOCY..AND ARROGANCE...OF DOCTORS WHO WOULD NOT WASH THEIR HANDS.
WHY DID SO MANY WOMEN DIE IN CHILDBIRTH IN ENGLAND IN THE 18TH CENTURY? *I*D*I*O*T*, ARROGANT DOCTORS WHO WANTED TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN STATUS AND CONTROL WOMEN !!!!!!!!!
SO I ASK YOU, MESH INJURED WOMEN...WHAT HAS CHANGED? READ THE FOLLOWING AND YOU WILL SEE DOCTORS WHO IMPLANT MESH ARE STILL DRAGGING WOMEN AROUND BY THE HAIR OF THEIR HEADS WITH A CLUB SWUNG OVER THEIR SHOULDER. HOW MANY YEARS BEFORE THE LONE DOCTOR WHO SPEAKS THE TRUTH TURNS THE TIDE IN FAVOR OF WOMEN.
WOMEN...YOU BETTER STAND UP FOR YOUR SELVES OR CONTINUE TO BE BUTCHERED BY MESH IMPLANTING DOCTORS!!!!!!!!!!
“ 18th century, most people assumed that midwives had no formal training, even though some did, and common existing beliefs held that women were emotionally and intellectually incapable of learning and applying the new obstetric methods.
Well-to-do families soon came to believe that physicians could provide better care than female midwives could and thus offered the best hope for a successful birth. Mary Wollstonecraft met her end at the hands of a medical mystery that killed scores of 18th century mothers. Why?
Wollstonecraft's death, following the birth of her daughter, the future Mary Shelley, was typical of the times in which she lived: "A part of her placenta needed to be pulled out by a doctor's hand. She developed puerperal sepsis, an infection of the genital tract, which very painfully, and over the period of about a week, killed her." These were the days of rampant puerperal, or childbed, fever, spread by doctors and midwives and a mystery to everyone.
"In the first half of the nineteenth century about five European women in a thousand died from childbirth.
Death rates in maternity hospitals were often ten times that; the hospitals stayed open because doctors had an incurable faith in good intentions, and patients a poor grasp of mortality statistics.
The physician and poet Oliver Wendell Holmes led the American campaign to stop the spread of the disease by getting doctors to wash their hands.
Obstetricians felt slighted. [!#%!&*%$#@#(%*&#! REALLY? WOMEN WERE DEAD BUT OBSTETRICIANS FELT SLIGHTED? SHADES OF TONY VISCO, WINNER OF THE SCARLET FINGER AWARD! FUNNY HOW DOCTORS CONTINUE TO KILL OR HARM WOMEN WITH THEIR FINGERS IN THE NAME OF HEALTH AND SCIENCE.]
'Doctors are gentlemen,' said Charles Meigs of the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, arguing that no such care was needed, 'and gentlemen's hands are clean.'
CHILDBED FEVER
Ignaz Semmelweiss. As a 28-year-old assistant physician in the maternity unit of the Vienna General Hospital during the 1840s, Semmelweiss was given the responsibility of obstetrically examining ward patients, supervising difficult deliveries, and organizing teaching rounds both in the morgue and in the first section of the clinical ward, the section in which most deliveries were done by medical students. Semmelweiss immediately realized that the rate of puerperal (childbed) fever was much higher in his first section than in the second section of the maternity ward, where most of the deliveries were done by nurse-midwives. He also observed that the clinical symptoms of puerperal fever were identical to those of a hospital pathologist who died after pricking his finger with a dirty autopsy instrument.
Semmelweiss thus concluded that the disease was caused by "cadaverous particles" and other decaying organic matter transmitted to the patients in the first section by medical students who arrived on the maternity wards fresh from their dissection work in the morgue.
He initiated the procedure of washing with a solution containing chlorine between all clinical activities, and the rate of puerperal fever appeared to decrease dramatically.
Unfortunately, Semmelweiss's call for medical practice reforms became ensnared in the political upheavals that wracked Vienna and the hospital faculty in the late 1840s, and his work was rejected by many senior clinicians.
Semmelweiss became increasingly more isolated in medical circles and answered his critics with a series of strident denunciations of the European medical establishment.
With the permission of his family, he was involuntarily committed to an insane asylum and died (probably of untended wounds inflicted during a struggle) on 13 August 1865.”
http://www.articlesbase.com/pregnancy-articles/a-discusting-look-at-having-a-baby-in-1800039s-1875847.html
KEEP READING TO THE END....THERE'S MORE!!!
“Why was it more prevalent that women died during childbirth in the 18th Century?”
This desire for control led men to seek greater status as obstetricians in the nineteenth century. The professionalization of obstetrics is one of the leading factors in the demise of midwifery. Doctors sought to improve their status by proving midwives uneducated and unprepared for medical emergency. This control over the birthing process came about with the increasing use of forceps in doctor attended births. Forceps allowed the male doctor to deliver live babies where previously the child or the mother would have died. Forceps were also used to shorten lengthy labor. Because midwives were not allowed by custom to use medical instruments in their practice, forceps became the exclusive domain of physicians. Childbirth started to become the expertise of men, instead of women.
Forceps improved the status of physicians by easing birth and increasing the chances of a live birth. A physician who used forceps in the majority of cases, necessary or not, would increase his chances of a successful and less painful birth. Until the use of forceps, the only way to remove a fetus that couldn't pass through the birth canal was to perform a craniotomy. Forceps represented the introduction of science to birth, the professionalization of physicians, the downfall of midwifery, and the loss of birth from women to men. Catherine M. Scholten writes...
"[T]he time seemed ripe to apply science to a field hitherto built on ignorance and supported by prejudice. Smellie [Dr. William Smellie, discovered the mechanics of parturition, perfected the design and use of forceps, and taught their use] commented on the novelty of scientific interest in midwifery. `We ought to be ashamed of ourselves ... for the little improvement we have made in so many centuries.'"[8]
Thomas Jones of the College of Medicine of Maryland wrote in 1812, "With the cultivation of this branch of science women could now reasonably look to men for safety in the perilous conditions of childbirth."[9]
What Jones failed to write about were the failures of the forceps to completely revolutionize childbirth. Forceps sometimes saving the life of an infant who would have been killed, or sped up labor; however, they also caused as much injury as they prevented. Forceps were responsible for rips in the perineum, head injuries to the fetus, and other obstetric complications. The overuse of forceps was an acknowledged problem in the nineteenth century. Accusations of "meddlesome midwifery" and cautions against forceps misuse suggest a serious problem existed. William Potts Dewees, professor and the University of Pennsylvania, wrote, "The frequency with which [forceps] have been employed in some instances is really alarming, and I had like to have said, must have been to often unnecessary." Another physician writing in the 1880s wrote "grave perineal lesions were more common now than formerly, and this increase has been coincident with the increased use of forceps and of anesthetics in labor."[10]
The increase of dangers to women was due to other interventions by physicians as well. Since most labor proceeded normally, any intervention introduced dangers that weren't already present.
Germ theory was not yet in place, and doctors did not take action to sterilize themselves or the area they were in.
Unwashed hands posed major threats to women's health, often carrying disease from other patients the doctor had examined. Some physicians also routinely used opium and other narcotics, and ruptured the water with their fingernails.
These actions also placed unknown and previously nonexistent dangers to women.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080513095807AAeFRrm
AS A WOMAN BUTCHERED BY A MESH IMPLANTING DOCTOR ALMOST 12 YEARS AGO, I AM ENRAGED AT THE *I*D*I*O*T* DOCTORS WHO CONTINUE TO MUTILATE AND KILL WOMEN BY IMPLANTING POLYPROPYLENE [THE SAME THING THEY MAKE YOUR LIVING ROOM CARPET OUT OF] IN WOMEN'S VAGINAS AND UNDER THEIR BLADDER. THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE YOUR GYNECOLOGIST OR YOUR UROLOGIST OR YOUR UROGYNECOLOGIST OR FEMALE DOCTOR, ASK THEM IF THEY INTEND TO IMPLANT A LIVING ROOM CARPET IN YOUR VAGINA OR UNDER YOUR BLADDER? THEY WILL PROBABLY SAY YOU ARE "EMOTIONALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY INCAPABLE" OF KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. OR SEND YOU TO A PHYSICAL THERAPIST OR A PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR OR A PSYCHIATRIST OR GIVE YOU A PRESCRIPTION FOR AN ANTI-DEPRESSANT. BECAUSE THEY ARE THE *I*D*I*O*T*S!!!
Saturday, April 13, 2013
FIRST "SCARLET FINGER AWARD" GOES TO DR. TONY VISCO, PRESIDENT, AUGS: LEADER OF DIGITAL DARK AGE DOCTORS AT WORK!
Surgeons who implant mesh for pelvic organ prolapse diagnose prolapse with their finger, implant a 50 year old mesh product with no protocol to remove it and no imaging device to see it once inside the body.
This is science and innovation? Tony Visco proclaims as President of the American Urogynecologic Society this is science and innovation?
"Let's do some more studies, let's do some more training, let's do better informed consent." Almost a decade of ongoing harm to thousands and thousands of women and you doctors want a DO OVER?
For this incredible lapse of judgment,
Dr. Tony Visco is recipient of the first "Scarlet Finger Award" for his denunciation of the July 13, 2011 warnings of serious complications of transvaginal placement of synthetic surgical mesh by the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) for pelvic organ prolapse repair.
Announcing through his position as President of the AUGS, that doctors should not be encumbered or restricted in their decisions to place synthetic surgical mesh at their discretion is repugnant.
There is other national recognition of the harm caused by pelvic placement of synthetic surgical mesh in women. Thousands of lawsuits are in the court system across the United States, and in many other countries around the world.
The AUGS and its members have full intention to cause physical harm to women and their actions should be criminalized.
This is not healthcare, this is "harmcare"!
These DIGITAL DARK AGE DOCTORS should not be allowed to practice medicine. They are a danger to society.
Let me hear from you mesh injured patients...If you would like to nominate a digital dark age doctor you know for the "SCARLET FINGER AWARD", please make the nomination through the comment section below or send me an e-mail at lanamiami@bellsouth.net.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
AUGS PROTECTS POCKETBOOKS OF MEMBERS, NOT PATIENTS. CAVEMAN MENTALITY RULES!
Dear Tony Visco, AUGS President....
Someone has to interfere with your cavemen mentality toward women's health. Your most important relationship is between you and your pocketbook or you and your ego. “Pathetic beings” masquerading as doctor humans”, paid lackeys for the drug and device companies, have taken control of medical professional societies. How much are they being paid to push the use of mesh that mutilates women?
Your priority is to protect your right to PROFIT FROM THE INVASION OF WOMENS BODIES BY YOUR SCALPELS AT YOUR DISCRETION. You have CAVEMEN mentalities.
You “DOCTORS” need to have synthetic surgical mesh implanted in your penis, your pelvis or your vagina before you ever implant it into another human.
You are just unhappy someone had the guts to speak out against your despicable protection of mesh over the safety of your patients. Is mesh the best you got? Polypropylene? A mistake when Giulio Natta was trying to invent synthetic rubber for tires?
Please share my sentiments with your membership. Stop the harm! Stop the mutilation! Find another way to make a living if polypropylene, polyethylene and other petroleum waste byproducts are the best you've got.
AUGS BLOG POST OCTOBER 23, 2012: http://www.augs.org/p/bl/et/blogid=6&blogaid=113
Health care decisions should be made between a patient and her physician.
By: Anthony G Visco, M.D. , President of AUGS
Two significant events occurred recently that I would like to share with you. Both involve the ongoing protection of the unique and professional relationship that exists between a patient and her physician [THINK SILENCE OF THE LAMBS].
First, as many of you may know, a resolution was recently proposed before the California Medical Association (CMA) by a physician to strongly discourage the use of transvaginal mesh for both vaginal prolapse and stress incontinence surgeries.
AUGS became aware of this prior to our recent annual meeting. The AUGS Board of Directors strongly opposed this resolution and worked closely with SUFU, AUA and ACOG to determine the best course of action. All four societies wrote statements opposing the measure.
[YOU ARE SO SCARED OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION THAT 4 SOCIETIES WROTE A STATEMENT? YOU GUYS ARE SHAKING IN YOUR BOOTS OVER YOUR LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THE INTENTIONAL HARM YOU CAUSE WOMEN WHEN YOU IMPLANT SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH FOR PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE AND STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE. YOU PROTECT MESH AND THE MESH COMPANIES, NOT YOUR WOMEN PATIENTS].
Stacey Wallach, M.D., California resident and Chair of the AUGS Public Relations Committee represented AUGS and spoke publically in opposition to this measure at the Reference Committee A meeting on October 13, 2012. The statement that she presented, and co-authored by Charlie Nager, M.D., AUGS President-elect, is included below.
The measure was voted down. [ARE YOU REALLY MAKING THIS MUCH FUSS OVER A MEASURE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. YOU GUYS ARE REALLY INSECURE. OR CRIMINALS COVERING YOUR TRACKS.] However, this and other examples of legislative interference in the practice of medicine are of great concern. [EXACTLY WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER EXAMPLES OF LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE? DON’T SEE THEM MENTIONED IN THIS STORY.]
I would also like to share with you that the more broad protection of the patient-doctor relationship has recently gained national attention from an editorial co-authored by ACOG, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Surgeons published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Legislative Interference with the Patient-Physician Relationship.” I would highly recommend you read this article, available by clicking here.
AUGS will continue to work with other societies and organizations to insure that the patient-physician relationship is maintained. [SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE YOUR CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE OF THE HARM YOU PERPETRATE ON YOUR PATIENTS!]
Sincerely,
Tony Visco
“We have submitted a combined letter from AUGS and SUFU (Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction) to Reference Committee “A” expressing our concern. Clinical decision making should be left to informed consent between surgeon and patient. [WHAT INFORMED CONSENT? SHOW ME ONE.] We feel strongly that CMA should oppose any resolution legislating medical care. AUGS has been working closely [TO DO WHAT? MORE HARM TO WOMEN?] with the FDA along with other stakeholders regarding the use of transvaginal mesh.
Mesh is used transvaginally to treat pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) in the form of mid-urethral slings for urinary incontinence and “mesh kit” grafts for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). There are three types of mesh slings: retropubic, transobturator, and single incision sling. Mid-urethral mesh slings placed via retropubic or transobturator approach are standard of care and there is Level 1 [PLEASE DEFINE LEVEL 1. YOU SAID SO, SO IT IS SO?] evidence showing they are safe and effective. The FDA update from 1/4/2012 supports the use of retropubic and transobturator slings. The update called for post-market studies only for single incision slings.
Mesh used to treat pelvic organ prolapse may be appropriate for select patients [THE ONES YOU SELECT TO MUTILATE?]. The December 2011 combined committee opinion from AUGS and ACOG recognizes selective use [DEAR WOMEN, WE SELECT YOU ALL!] of transvaginal mesh for prolapse. This opinion put forward seven recommendations for the safe and effective use of vaginal mesh for POP.
The 1/4/2012 FDA update recommended that transvaginal mesh be reclassified as Class III requiring 522 post-market surveillance studies. The FDA is collaborating “with professional societies and other stakeholders to fully understand the post-market performance of urogynecologic surgical mesh devices, as well as the occurrence of and signs and symptoms associated with specific adverse events.” [10,000 LAWSUITS AND COUNTING IS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND MESH MUTILATES!]
AUGS has been working closely with other organizations along these efforts. AUGS published “Guidelines for Providing Privileges and Credentials to Physicians for Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse” in the July 2012 issue of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.
AUGS has created the Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry (PFDR) – a national registry for providers who care for patients with PFDs [SO WHERE DO YOU BURY THE RESULTS OF THIS REGISTRY?]. The registry aims to provide evidence for best medical practices for treatment of these disorders with the initial roll out of the registry collecting data on prolapse surgery repairs both with native tissue and grafts. [MORE WOMEN GUINEA PIGS? HOW MANY DO YOU INTEND TO HARM BEFORE YOU STOP THE SLAUGHTER?]
AUGS feels strongly that resolution 105-12 should be opposed. This resolution would have CMA legislating medical care when this complex and controversial issue is already being addressed by a collaborative body of leaders in the field of medicine.”
[YOU KNOW YOU ARE LEGALLY LIABLE FOR IMPLANTING MESH AND ARE PROTECTING YOUR OWN COLLECTIVE AS...ES. YOU DO NOT CARE HOW MANY WOMEN YOU BUTCHER. GOD HELP YOU!]
Sincerely,
Charles Nager, MD, AUGS President-elect
Stacey Wallach, MD, AUGS Public Relations Committee Chair
Someone has to interfere with your cavemen mentality toward women's health. Your most important relationship is between you and your pocketbook or you and your ego. “Pathetic beings” masquerading as doctor humans”, paid lackeys for the drug and device companies, have taken control of medical professional societies. How much are they being paid to push the use of mesh that mutilates women?
Your priority is to protect your right to PROFIT FROM THE INVASION OF WOMENS BODIES BY YOUR SCALPELS AT YOUR DISCRETION. You have CAVEMEN mentalities.
You “DOCTORS” need to have synthetic surgical mesh implanted in your penis, your pelvis or your vagina before you ever implant it into another human.
You are just unhappy someone had the guts to speak out against your despicable protection of mesh over the safety of your patients. Is mesh the best you got? Polypropylene? A mistake when Giulio Natta was trying to invent synthetic rubber for tires?
Please share my sentiments with your membership. Stop the harm! Stop the mutilation! Find another way to make a living if polypropylene, polyethylene and other petroleum waste byproducts are the best you've got.
AUGS BLOG POST OCTOBER 23, 2012: http://www.augs.org/p/bl/et/blogid=6&blogaid=113
Health care decisions should be made between a patient and her physician.
By: Anthony G Visco, M.D. , President of AUGS
Two significant events occurred recently that I would like to share with you. Both involve the ongoing protection of the unique and professional relationship that exists between a patient and her physician [THINK SILENCE OF THE LAMBS].
First, as many of you may know, a resolution was recently proposed before the California Medical Association (CMA) by a physician to strongly discourage the use of transvaginal mesh for both vaginal prolapse and stress incontinence surgeries.
AUGS became aware of this prior to our recent annual meeting. The AUGS Board of Directors strongly opposed this resolution and worked closely with SUFU, AUA and ACOG to determine the best course of action. All four societies wrote statements opposing the measure.
[YOU ARE SO SCARED OF A PROPOSED RESOLUTION THAT 4 SOCIETIES WROTE A STATEMENT? YOU GUYS ARE SHAKING IN YOUR BOOTS OVER YOUR LEGAL LIABILITY FOR THE INTENTIONAL HARM YOU CAUSE WOMEN WHEN YOU IMPLANT SYNTHETIC SURGICAL MESH FOR PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE AND STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE. YOU PROTECT MESH AND THE MESH COMPANIES, NOT YOUR WOMEN PATIENTS].
Stacey Wallach, M.D., California resident and Chair of the AUGS Public Relations Committee represented AUGS and spoke publically in opposition to this measure at the Reference Committee A meeting on October 13, 2012. The statement that she presented, and co-authored by Charlie Nager, M.D., AUGS President-elect, is included below.
The measure was voted down. [ARE YOU REALLY MAKING THIS MUCH FUSS OVER A MEASURE THAT WAS VOTED DOWN. YOU GUYS ARE REALLY INSECURE. OR CRIMINALS COVERING YOUR TRACKS.] However, this and other examples of legislative interference in the practice of medicine are of great concern. [EXACTLY WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER EXAMPLES OF LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE? DON’T SEE THEM MENTIONED IN THIS STORY.]
I would also like to share with you that the more broad protection of the patient-doctor relationship has recently gained national attention from an editorial co-authored by ACOG, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Surgeons published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Legislative Interference with the Patient-Physician Relationship.” I would highly recommend you read this article, available by clicking here.
AUGS will continue to work with other societies and organizations to insure that the patient-physician relationship is maintained. [SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CONTINUE YOUR CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE OF THE HARM YOU PERPETRATE ON YOUR PATIENTS!]
Sincerely,
Tony Visco
“We have submitted a combined letter from AUGS and SUFU (Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction) to Reference Committee “A” expressing our concern. Clinical decision making should be left to informed consent between surgeon and patient. [WHAT INFORMED CONSENT? SHOW ME ONE.] We feel strongly that CMA should oppose any resolution legislating medical care. AUGS has been working closely [TO DO WHAT? MORE HARM TO WOMEN?] with the FDA along with other stakeholders regarding the use of transvaginal mesh.
Mesh is used transvaginally to treat pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) in the form of mid-urethral slings for urinary incontinence and “mesh kit” grafts for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). There are three types of mesh slings: retropubic, transobturator, and single incision sling. Mid-urethral mesh slings placed via retropubic or transobturator approach are standard of care and there is Level 1 [PLEASE DEFINE LEVEL 1. YOU SAID SO, SO IT IS SO?] evidence showing they are safe and effective. The FDA update from 1/4/2012 supports the use of retropubic and transobturator slings. The update called for post-market studies only for single incision slings.
Mesh used to treat pelvic organ prolapse may be appropriate for select patients [THE ONES YOU SELECT TO MUTILATE?]. The December 2011 combined committee opinion from AUGS and ACOG recognizes selective use [DEAR WOMEN, WE SELECT YOU ALL!] of transvaginal mesh for prolapse. This opinion put forward seven recommendations for the safe and effective use of vaginal mesh for POP.
The 1/4/2012 FDA update recommended that transvaginal mesh be reclassified as Class III requiring 522 post-market surveillance studies. The FDA is collaborating “with professional societies and other stakeholders to fully understand the post-market performance of urogynecologic surgical mesh devices, as well as the occurrence of and signs and symptoms associated with specific adverse events.” [10,000 LAWSUITS AND COUNTING IS NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND MESH MUTILATES!]
AUGS has been working closely with other organizations along these efforts. AUGS published “Guidelines for Providing Privileges and Credentials to Physicians for Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse” in the July 2012 issue of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery.
AUGS has created the Pelvic Floor Disorders Registry (PFDR) – a national registry for providers who care for patients with PFDs [SO WHERE DO YOU BURY THE RESULTS OF THIS REGISTRY?]. The registry aims to provide evidence for best medical practices for treatment of these disorders with the initial roll out of the registry collecting data on prolapse surgery repairs both with native tissue and grafts. [MORE WOMEN GUINEA PIGS? HOW MANY DO YOU INTEND TO HARM BEFORE YOU STOP THE SLAUGHTER?]
AUGS feels strongly that resolution 105-12 should be opposed. This resolution would have CMA legislating medical care when this complex and controversial issue is already being addressed by a collaborative body of leaders in the field of medicine.”
[YOU KNOW YOU ARE LEGALLY LIABLE FOR IMPLANTING MESH AND ARE PROTECTING YOUR OWN COLLECTIVE AS...ES. YOU DO NOT CARE HOW MANY WOMEN YOU BUTCHER. GOD HELP YOU!]
Sincerely,
Charles Nager, MD, AUGS President-elect
Stacey Wallach, MD, AUGS Public Relations Committee Chair
Saturday, March 23, 2013
PROMINENT CLASS ACTION ATTORNEY STANLEY CHESLEY PERMANENTLY DISBARRED FOR FEE SCHEME IN $200 MILLION DOLLAR FEN-PHEN SETTLEMENT
FOUR HUNDRED (400) PLAINTIFFS GOT $46 MILLION DOLLARS.
ONE (1) ATTORNEY, STANLEY CHESLEY GOT PAID $20 MILLION DOLLARS FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONLY...HE DID NOT EVEN APPEAR AT TRIAL. HE LOST HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW BUT DID NOT HAVE TO REPAY THE MONEY.
THE PATIENTS WERE PAWNS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WHERE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE PAID IN CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND EVEN THE JUDGE COLLUDED WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
HOW DO PATIENTS KNOW THEY ARE RECEIVING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF SETTLEMENTS IN CLASS ACTIONS AND MASS TORTS? ANSWER: THEY DON'T.
JUST LIKE HEALTHCARE, PATIENTS WHO BECOME PLAINTIFFS ARE IN THE DARK WITH LITTLE OR NO INFLUENCE OVER A MAJOR LIFE ALTERING EVENT.
WE CAN ONLY HOPE THERE ARE NOT ANY "STANLEY CHESLEYS" IN THE ONGOING MESH LAWSUITS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-22/stanley-chesley-titan-of-the-plaintiffs-bar-crashes-and-burns
Bloomberg Business Week 03/22/2013 by Paul Barrett, assistant managing editor and senior writer.
"STANLEY CHESLEY, TITAN OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BAR, CRASHES AND BURNS"
The big-time plaintiffs’ bar justifies its multimillion-dollar fees by claiming to vindicate the “little guy.” Justice ain’t free, according to free-wheeling trial lawyers, and taking on (alleged) corporate villains requires heavy pecuniary incentives.
Sadly, the titans of this elite segment of the bar have a tendency to flame out in spectacular bursts of greed and deceit, undercutting their claims of righteous dedication. The latest example is famed class-action attorney Stanley Chesley of Cincinnati, for decades one of the leading scourges of industries that range from pharmaceuticals, to chemicals, to firearms.
The Kentucky Supreme Court on March 21 upheld Chesley’s disbarment in that state for “unreasonable” fees received in the settlement of a class action originally filed in 1999 against Wyeth, now part of Pfizer. The allegation stemmed from $20 million in fees Chesley received for his involvement in an action concerning the diet drug known as fen-phen (fenfluramine/phentermine), which was shown to cause harmful side effects. The case was settled in 2001 for $200 million.
Under Ohio’s Rules of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, the disbarment in Kentucky may provide grounds for Chesley to get drummed out of the legal trade in his home state, as well.
Here’s a helpful description of Chesley’s troubles from Bloomberg News:
“In 2009, two Kentucky lawyers involved in the case were sentenced to 20 years and 25 years in prison for stealing from the [diet drug] settlement fund. The lawyers had contracts entitling them to fees of as much as one-third of the $200 million awarded to a statewide group of Kentucky citizens who said they were harmed by diet drug. The lawyers tried to keep more than twice that amount, prosecutors said.
In its 38-page decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that Chesley didn’t meet directly with any of the clients to effectuate the settlement, and it wasn’t shown that he had specific knowledge of the deception practiced on each client to secure the signed release.
The court did find that his “$20,497,121.87 share of the fee was unreasonable, especially in light of his professed ignorance and lack of responsibility for any aspect of the litigation except showing up at the mediation and going through the motions of announcing the agreement.”
BE SURE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY AT BLOOMBERG...IT'S WAY TOO JUICY TO MISS!
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PATIENT, A PATIENT ADVOCATE AND A LEGAL CONSULTANT, THIS IS A MESS CREATED BY BAD LAWS, BAD DRUGS AND DEVICES AND GREED. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE CREATED BY THE AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT PROTECT PATIENTS.
MY ADVICE: STAY WELL, STAY OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AND DON'T TAKE DRUGS UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. YOU MAY BE UNKNOWINGLY HARMING YOURSELF!
BEST, BLESSINGS, LANA
ONE (1) ATTORNEY, STANLEY CHESLEY GOT PAID $20 MILLION DOLLARS FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONLY...HE DID NOT EVEN APPEAR AT TRIAL. HE LOST HIS LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW BUT DID NOT HAVE TO REPAY THE MONEY.
THE PATIENTS WERE PAWNS IN THIS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT WHERE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE PAID IN CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENTS AND EVEN THE JUDGE COLLUDED WITH THE ATTORNEYS.
HOW DO PATIENTS KNOW THEY ARE RECEIVING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF SETTLEMENTS IN CLASS ACTIONS AND MASS TORTS? ANSWER: THEY DON'T.
JUST LIKE HEALTHCARE, PATIENTS WHO BECOME PLAINTIFFS ARE IN THE DARK WITH LITTLE OR NO INFLUENCE OVER A MAJOR LIFE ALTERING EVENT.
WE CAN ONLY HOPE THERE ARE NOT ANY "STANLEY CHESLEYS" IN THE ONGOING MESH LAWSUITS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-22/stanley-chesley-titan-of-the-plaintiffs-bar-crashes-and-burns
Bloomberg Business Week 03/22/2013 by Paul Barrett, assistant managing editor and senior writer.
"STANLEY CHESLEY, TITAN OF THE PLAINTIFF'S BAR, CRASHES AND BURNS"
The big-time plaintiffs’ bar justifies its multimillion-dollar fees by claiming to vindicate the “little guy.” Justice ain’t free, according to free-wheeling trial lawyers, and taking on (alleged) corporate villains requires heavy pecuniary incentives.
Sadly, the titans of this elite segment of the bar have a tendency to flame out in spectacular bursts of greed and deceit, undercutting their claims of righteous dedication. The latest example is famed class-action attorney Stanley Chesley of Cincinnati, for decades one of the leading scourges of industries that range from pharmaceuticals, to chemicals, to firearms.
The Kentucky Supreme Court on March 21 upheld Chesley’s disbarment in that state for “unreasonable” fees received in the settlement of a class action originally filed in 1999 against Wyeth, now part of Pfizer. The allegation stemmed from $20 million in fees Chesley received for his involvement in an action concerning the diet drug known as fen-phen (fenfluramine/phentermine), which was shown to cause harmful side effects. The case was settled in 2001 for $200 million.
Under Ohio’s Rules of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, the disbarment in Kentucky may provide grounds for Chesley to get drummed out of the legal trade in his home state, as well.
Here’s a helpful description of Chesley’s troubles from Bloomberg News:
“In 2009, two Kentucky lawyers involved in the case were sentenced to 20 years and 25 years in prison for stealing from the [diet drug] settlement fund. The lawyers had contracts entitling them to fees of as much as one-third of the $200 million awarded to a statewide group of Kentucky citizens who said they were harmed by diet drug. The lawyers tried to keep more than twice that amount, prosecutors said.
In its 38-page decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that Chesley didn’t meet directly with any of the clients to effectuate the settlement, and it wasn’t shown that he had specific knowledge of the deception practiced on each client to secure the signed release.
The court did find that his “$20,497,121.87 share of the fee was unreasonable, especially in light of his professed ignorance and lack of responsibility for any aspect of the litigation except showing up at the mediation and going through the motions of announcing the agreement.”
BE SURE TO READ THE WHOLE STORY AT BLOOMBERG...IT'S WAY TOO JUICY TO MISS!
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS A PATIENT, A PATIENT ADVOCATE AND A LEGAL CONSULTANT, THIS IS A MESS CREATED BY BAD LAWS, BAD DRUGS AND DEVICES AND GREED. IT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE CREATED BY THE AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT PROTECT PATIENTS.
MY ADVICE: STAY WELL, STAY OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AND DON'T TAKE DRUGS UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. YOU MAY BE UNKNOWINGLY HARMING YOURSELF!
BEST, BLESSINGS, LANA
Sunday, March 10, 2013
STOP THE MADNESS! PROLIFT GYNEMESH PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE MESH KITS AND DEPUYASR METAL-ON-METAL HIP IMPLANTS DESTROY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHILE J&J DENIES LIABILITY!
Press Releases for verdicts in trials are written in the most sterile language. None of them are written as though there are humans injured in the process. The companies...in particular, Johnson & Johnson....have never done anything wrong. There are 96,000 people worldwide implanted, and suffering with, these ASR metal-on-metal hip implants, they have recalled them and THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG?
This makes me think of Al Pacino in the movie "The Devils Advocate" with Keanu Reeves. The devil has sold everyone out AND THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG?
What planet do these people live on? Are they humans who live on this Earth? All this "SPEAK" is for Wall Street so their stock does not lose value.
But really, how does this happen day after day after day? These people have definitely sold their souls to the devil.
Let's put Christy Jones at the top of the list. She stands there day after day presenting a case against Linda Gross.
Does Christy Jones go home and take off her skin like David Bowie in "The Man Who Fell to Earth" a 1976 sci-fi flick ? (Guess that dates me for sure. How many reading this ever heard of, much less saw, that movie? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Fell_to_Earth_(film) for the plot.)
INSANITY! What else could it be? Cause this is NOT NORMAL!!!
THESE ARE SICK "HUMAN" BEINGS WHO PREY ON OTHER HUMANS IN THE NAME OF "HEALTHCARE".
OH PLEASE, SOMEONE STOP THE MADNESS!
MASS DEVICE REPORTS > > > >
FLASH: Jury deems J&J's DePuy ASR XL hip implant defective in design, orders $8.3M in damages
Johnson & Johnson defends its DePuy subsidiary's ASR XL hip devices after a California jury finds that the metal-on-metal implants were defectively designed, awarding plaintiff Loren Kransky $8.3 million in compensatory damages.
A California jury ruled against Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and its DePuy subsidiary in finding that the company's ASR XL metal-on-metal hip implant was defectively designed.
The decision marks the highly anticipated close of the 1st of more than 10,750 such lawsuits against J&J. The jury dismissed claims that J&J failed to properly warn physicians about the risks of its metal hip implants, but ruled that the company was negligent and ordered J&J to pay $8.3 million in damages to patient Loren Kransky.
J&J issued a statement today defending its hip implant design and noting that it plans to appeal the ruling, adding that the jury rejected the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages on top of compensatory damages.
"We believe ASR XL was properly designed, and that DePuy's actions concerning the product were appropriate and responsible," DePuy spokeswoman Lorie Gawreluk said in prepared remarks. "We plan to appeal the jury's decision on design defect pending the outcome of post-trial motions. We believe we have a number of valid grounds for appeal, notably that the court didn't let the company tell the jury about the Food & Drug Administration's review and clearance of the device."
Johnson & Johnson pulled the DePuy ASR device in 2010 on reports of an abnormally high number of revision surgeries, later revealing that the recall cost it $271 million during the 1st quarter last year. An internal company study found that 1 in 3 metal hips could fail in less than 5 years, according to testimony in the Kransky case unveiled in January.
And regulators in the U.S. have launched a probe into possible marketing violations for the ASR hip
LINK TO POST ABOVE: http://www.massdevice.com/news/flash-jury-deems-jjs-depuy-asr-xl-hip-implant-defective-design-orders-83m-damages?page=show
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
