Has anybody thought about the formaldehyde in these bras causing breast cancer? My wife who has no history of cancer in her family, recently had a mastectomy of one breast. She has been wearing these Victorias Secret bras for a while now. A malignant tumor was taken from the breast that was removed and examined by a pathology lab. Cancer cells were found in both the lymph ducts and vascular system of her breast. Obviously a bra's surface is not only next to the breasts themselves but the straps are also next to the skin under the arms where the lymph nodes are. Now I am going to quote a Fact sheet from the National Cancer Institute called Formaldehyde and Cancer: Questions and Answers:
Paragraph 5. 4th Sub-paragraph ......Formaldehyde (a known carcinogen)....."may affect the lymphatic and blood (vascular) systems"..... Even though "more research is needed before definite conclusions are drawn" wouldn't it be interesting if epidemiologists did a survey of hospital patients that have had breast cancer and determine what percent of them had worn these bras. Just a thought!

William:

Thank you for your comment. The harm that may have been caused due to exposure from the formaldehyde in the Victoria's Secret's bras is still being investigated. If you believe your wife's cancer may be linked to the formaldehyde exposure, you may want to contact her physician. A medical professional would be better able to advise you regarding this.

The discovery of the formaldehyde in these bras is very new and the litigation is in the very early stages. As we learn more about the affects of the formaldehyde, we will continue to blog about the injuries and harm it may cause a person that wore or is currently wearing these bras.

Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions. I am happy to discuss any potential claim your wife may have against Victoria's Secret.

Jamie Goldstein

Jamie--

First of all it is side effects, not "affects."

Not sure how the presence of contact dermatitis proves that the cause is formaldehyde, especially when her symptoms could be caused by thousands of other chemicals.

Besides, Victoria's Secret has testing data to prove that there is no formaldehyde in the bras--and the plaintiff has refused to release their data, and Ms. Ritter refuses to submit to a patch test.

Formaldehyde is simply the baddie du jour, and the plaintiffs and their incompetent counsel are jumping on the bandwagon.

Time to call BS on this whole thing, folks.

Michael:

Plaintiffs and defendants are protected by the rules of the court and are not obligated to disclose information and subject themselves to testing unless and until the discovery process is initiated in the lawsuit. I do find it interesting that you seem to be so intimately involved in Ms. Ritter's claim, or possibly you are merely reading what you find online and in newspapers and do not have all the information. Either way, Ms. Ritter and all the other women suffering from blistering, bruising, rashes, intense itching and other symptoms, all have a legal right to pursue their claims against the corporation that has caused their injuries.

Many people may feel these claims are frivolous and not worthwhile, but the reality here is that we believe Victoria's Secret broke the rules and they deserve to be held responsible for that, just as everyone else in society is when they break the rules.

Corporations that distribute products to the public are required to follow rules and guidelines for safety. Why as a society are we so interested in punishing the consumers when they did nothing wrong? They bought a product they believed to be safe. They trusted what the corporation sold them, and they were harmed. We have a legal system in this country to protect people that are harmed, and we need to stop harassing people who seek legal action when they are harmed.

As a final note, I am confident that the women I have spoken with recently would not be very happy to hear that they are just "jumping on a bandwagon." I'm sure that would be quite a slap in the face after these women suffered severe reactions; breasts swollen way beyond their normal size causing excruciating pain, visits to emergency rooms, mammograms, visits to obgyns, visits to breast surgeons. I'm certain the young girls, yes girls, would like to know their claims are ridiculous despite the fact they are terrified because they have developed blisters all over their breasts for months on end because no one can tell them what is causing the reaction. The blisters are discharging fluid and cause severe burning and itching. Many women are experiencing sleepless nights, due to pain, itching and fear.

I suppose though it's just some women's breasts and they should get over it. Stop complaining and overreacting, despite the fact that many of these signs are also signs of breast cancer. I guess the fear of not knowing for months on end what is causing these symptoms should not be a concern to them.

If the roles were reversed that this type of reaction was occurring to some men out there, I suspect your response would change. Just suppose for a moment that men were calling lawyers and filing lawsuits because they found out the brand of underwear they wear contains formaldehyde and for the past several months they have been suffering from blistering that has severe discharge, burning, itching and no doctor can diagnosis them. They have been on antibiotics, which seem to clear the infection until they stop using them and then it quickly returns. I bet you would stop for a minute and think that is awful.

These women deserve to have their claims investigated. They do not deserve to hear that their fear and pain is not important enough for our legal system.

Jamie--

Can I suggest working on your reading comprehension skills? The "bandwagon" is the formaldehyde bandwagon--not the injury bandwagon in this case.

I have no doubt that some women are experiencing certain symptoms. Saying that, I have grave doubts that it is caused by formaldehyde--mostly because formaldehyde is never used in garments that are all synthetic.

Furthermore, you are conflating contact dermatitis with an infection, and Ms. Ritter seems to have also done this, talking about skin hot to the touch.

As stated, formaldehyde these days is an easy target, and the plaintiff has jumped on that bandwagon to gain extra PR for their claim.

Of course, there are rules of evidence, but one wonders what the point is of waiting for discovery, other than to drag this thing out, and possibly get more time to add to the class--or hope for a settlement.

Somewhere along the line, the plaintiffs are going to have to show their hand. I trust that they really do have data, but keeping it secret can only damage their credibility.

Might I also suggest that you tone down the emotional bloviating, and confine yourself to the science--or lack of it.

Breaking News Breaking News

Government saves billions by eliminating the FDA. Government studies have shown that rather than funding the FDA to cautiously oversee the testing of consumer products, billions can be saved by utilizing the “Mike Shaw Grave Doubts Methodology”.

Disclaimer: This study funded by Johnson & Johnson (makes of Ortho Evra), Wyeth (makers of Fenphen) and GSK (makers of Paxil)

Noble--

Am I missing something here, regarding the "Mike Shaw Grave Doubts Methodology"?? I absolutely agree that the bras should be tested and the results publicized. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs prefer to withhold this information.

The grave doubts are simply based on the rather easily checked fact that formaldehyde is not used in all-synthetic garments.

Are there any PI attorneys out there who follow this blog who actually have critical thinking skills--or who can even read?

Your short post is actually worse than Jamie's, who seems to think that "the reality here is..." what she believes.

Maybe I should start a class of people who have been damaged by incompetent PI attorneys. What do you think?

Mike,

I'm going to send you half of the $20 bucks you just made me. I told my law partner you would respond with the typical unintelligent rhetoric your blog is famous for while completely ignoring the comments about Ortho Evra, Fenphen and Paxil. He bet me that you would attempt to address them - he was wrong. Thanks for the help!

Noble

The important thing here is that women are having severe reactions to these bras, and the situation is being investigated. Ms. Goldstein seems to be reporting this news and even notes that Vicki's is denying the clothing contains formaldehyde. If there is no formaldehyde in the bra, Vicki's has nothing to worry about as far as that accusation goes. However, something is causing these reactions.

While this is a good topic for back and forth intelligent banter, it has instead brought out the grammar (or was it a typo?) police who can't comment on the situation without lobbing a personal insult or two as well. It makes one suspect an attempt to start conflict in an effort to direct traffic to his personal blog.

Let's just figure out what is causing these reactions and get the problem solved. I assume we can all agree on that.

Noble--

Since your original posting brought in issues (the FDA) completely irrelevant to the notion that it is far from proven that formaldehyde is the culprit in this case--and that is all that I have been contending--I am marveling at your lack of focus.

Of course, if that has won you a bet, bully for you.


Vicki-

As to:

"Let's just figure out what is causing these reactions and get the problem solved. I assume we can all agree on that."

No problem there. Except that the posters here would prefer to sue first and ask questions later.

As to the accusations that I am trying to build up traffic on my blog by this banter, that was certainly not the intent, although many readers here *have* visited my blog.

Don't worry though, I will not be posting here anymore, given the amazing lack of focus, foolish emotionalism, and lack of reading comprehension skills.

Regarding "grammar police" (actually it would be the proper usage police)--Shouldn't potential clients expect that their attorney know the difference between "affect" and effect"?

BTW--I would characterize your posting as also lobbing a personal insult or two. (Not that I mind.)

This is worth looking into. My doctor noticed a skin condition exactly & only where my bras contact my skin everyday. There is new concern with doctors that now know about a breast cancer that is seen on the skin looking like a breakout. Perhaps this is from topical irritants being absorbed through the skin everyday... like fron the chemicals used in these bras??? It's like the plastics... the FDA says there's no "known" threat & later relaeses the testing results that we should avoid certain plastics & or how to use them safely. This is simple folks. Things need to be tested to find out the truth. The mass amount of products we use in this country come from factories now more than ever where little is done to insure the saftey of these products. Businesses have lobbied & won for cheap labor & low costs at the expense of their own consumers. The bottom line is they may pay in the long run for not regulating the safety of these products in legal fees, lawsuit payout canibalizing their own clients & gaining awful reputations. Short sighted bad buisness choices... stupid greed.

Here's a link that shows exactly what is happening. The doctors are thye ones noticing. This woman's OBGYN noticed the irritated skin under her bra just as my physician had...
More ...

Saying "Formaldehyde is simply the baddie du jour" is a mute point. It has been removed from numerous products including women's nail polishes ("Pay attention boys" OPI is an incredibly popular & sucessful brand women pay out for regularly. They are very loyal because, it is a steller & safe product), paints, etc. When it is in products it can come labled with warnings. Who does not know this by now? It's always best to be an educated consumer. What some businesses have seem to have forgotten is that offering great quality products creates loyalty to brand $$$.

Even worse... what's in the panties???

Thank you for the recent comments Smith.

It is true that this is a serious issue for many women. Over the past three weeks I have spoken with and have had inquiries from approximately 100 women who wear Victoria's Secret's bras and have suffered rashes, blistering and other symptoms. Many of them have had these symptoms for months because they had no idea they were being caused by the bras they were wearing.

It is time that big business starts putting forth safer products for the consumers. It is not worth the extra money they make to put women or any consumer through such an awful experience.

Smith is right. This problem goes way beyond Victoria's Secret's bras. There have been numerous reports about lead in toys and harmful chemicals in the food we eat. It's time the proper protection is afforded to consumers instead of allowing big companies to hide behind government agencies such as the FDA.

Smith also brings up another good point, what are the long term effects of formaldehyde? Is there an increased risk for breast cancer? We do not have all the answers to these questions just yet as the investigation is still in its early stages, but rest assured we will do our best to protect the women that have been injured.