Dangers in breast reduction surgery

Furthermore, many of the problems created by breast reduction surgery are related to the obscuring the knowledge of the fat/breast size relation. For example, a woman who is fat all over, is, in the breast reduction promotional efforts, made to feel that it is specifically her breasts that are over large. If her ass is fat, her face is fat, her arms are fat, her back is fat, her upper abdomen is fat, it is certainly not surprising that her breasts will be fat.

 

But in the shills that started in 1992 (magazine articles, celebrities like Roseanne) the word was sent out that anything bigger than a D (such as DD and beyond) was the symptom of abnormality, and no mention at all was made of body fat content. Hence, the shills took advantage of body image issues related to fat and breast size to promote their surgery, using overweight women as the primary demographic.

 

Obviously, if they were to build an industry of breast reduction that matched the profits of breast implants, they needed a similar sized pool of potential clients to perform this on. If you are dealing with a population of women of healthy body fat, the small breasted women (potential clients for breast augmentation) will be many, many times the number of really big breasted ones, so there is no way on earth that the business profits of reductions will match those of augmentations.

 

In order to make the reduction profits match or exceed the augmentation profits (as has been the case in USA since the early shills of 1992), it was necessary to exploit the overweight women fully, and this was done by declaring *all big breasts as bad, regardless of body fat content*.

Exploitation through breast reduction

This was added to by the mythology that “breast reductions are beneficial to the goal of weight loss”, along with a wholesale repression of the world of major deformities and problems that result from breast reduction with regards to the specific matter of body fat related issues.

 

For example, while the PS industry promoted the advantages of breast augmentation in increasing the level of female attractiveness, no details were provided on the effect on female attractiveness of the exact opposite,breast reduction, on the same kind of female attractiveness, in particular its effect on the overweight women that it exploits. I have never had a doctor or anyone else try to influence me into getting a breast reduction. Spectrum must do a search every day in deja for the words breast reduction and then post to those groups. If you look at his posting history you will see he has a quite a fetish about them. Who knows, maybe he plays with himself while he hears the replies! LOL Stacy is right, he claims that there are shills here trying to get people to do breast reductions. However, he is too stupid to realize it is rarely discussed here and when it is, it is mostly people responding to his MCP views.

 

He also claims that his messages are cancelled even though they are archived for all to see! LOL It is quite interesting that it is OK for a woman to get implants and increase her boob size, but it is a sacrilege against the holy grail for a woman to wish to reduce overly large, painful breasts. You can bet that if men were capable of having balls so large that it through out their lower back. And so large that they couldn’t wear underwear with out feeling seriously crammed in and painful.

 

So immense that they would have bruises on their thighs form their balls slapping against them as they ran, walked, exercised etc. If sitting was uncomfortable and an erection was murder, testicle reduction would be a very hot surgery! The bottom line is that no one else has the right to tell you what to do with your body. It is YOUR body and YOU are the one who knows what it is,.like walking in your shoes, or bra for that matter.

You can visit knolhub to know more about the Dyson DC08 Vacuum cleaner.

Breast augmentation=breast enlargement

Breast enhancement=an operation done to build the shape and support of the breasts, which can be any type of boob job. breast lift=a breast enhancement that does everything a breast reduction does, but only on the outside of the breast so that size is preserved. breast lifts are often done at the same time as the insertion of implants.

 

They are not very popular because they leave lots of scars. breast implants=manufactured artifacts that are inserted for the purpose of adding inner volume to the breasts. Breast implants are used primarily for augmentation and reconstructive surgery on the breast, but they are being increasingly used for various forms of breast enhancement *cosmetic* breast reduction = breast reduction done for the sake of improving the looks. Patient must pay for this in full. *reconstructive* breast reduction = breast reduction done on the advise of at least one Md. Patient does not have to pay for this, and will usually get it covered by a public agency (eg, insurance) as long as she claims back pain, whether or not this is actually the case.

 

breast reconstruction=usually used to refer to rebuilding the breasts after treatment for breast cancer, unless the context is breast reduction, in which case it refers to that. nipple relocation=when the surgeon removes the nipples and then reattaches them somewhere where, biologically speaking, they don’t belong. Done with breast reduction *or* breast lifts. Breast reductions and breast lifts do the same things on the visible (outer) part of the breast pedicle=surgeoneze for a strip of flesh. In small breast reductions, the nipples stay attached through a pedicle.

 

In big breast reductions, the nipples are completely amputated and then reattached, although the surgeon cannot reattach the nerves and glands to it. shapers=breast implants when they are used for breast enhancement. ptosis=”sagging breasts”, and the “shape deformities” it can cause, defined as a “medical term”, in hopes that insurance companies and doctors will fully support breast enhancement. mammary hypertropy= “breasts too large” a “medical term” meaning that the breasts are too large for the standards of the PS industry, which is composed of “doctors.”

Fading of breast reduction scars after surgery

The line about scars fading is the same as the lies spread by the most obvious breast reduction shill on Usenet, who called himself pug-mom. This guy would promote fallacious notions like there is an advance in the surgery that preserves nipple sensation. Actually, the surgery severs and destroys nerves and glands. Total sensation potential of the nipples will be reduced according to the amount of nerve damage that occurs.

 

However, shills can, and do, say precisely the opposite of the truth, all to promote the easy profits of breast reduction surgery.. Most breast reductions are done on overweight women. The idea here is to play on the reality that breast size in a standard population is correlated with body fat content, so that therefore, the place to go to get the most breast reduction profits is the group of overweight women.

 

Then, these women are encouraged to be completely ignorant of the relation between breast size and body fat. They are told that one breast size, independent of the actual size of the body, is good for all. This opens up a very large profit demographid for breast reduction, with virtually all, by a factor of ten or twenty, being done on overweight women. Analysis of breast shill posts on usenet shows that none of the advocates of breast reduction mention the correlation between body fat and large breasts, as a general rule, they quote that someone has or had large breasts with absolutely no mention of the overal body size.

Promotion of breast augmentation in medical industry

Actually, getting a second and third opinion would lead to the same advice, because the promotion of breast reduction, and the importance of getting women to contribute to their profits as early as possible, is pretty much, since early in the nineties, an established tradition. Heck, if some doctor recommended posture correction, such as providing posture that is appropriate for large breasted women (posture is dependent on body structure, and many large breasted women are mislead about this because they are told to carry themselves in a way that is appropriate for a flat-chested women and not for a larger breasted one) he might be at risk from his fellows, who feel that he might cause trouble for the medical system and the PS’s.

 

By now, there is a very tight avoidance of providing information to patients that might discourage them from getting breast reduction. Proper posture that is appropriate for their body types would be highly likely to resolve the problem without surgery, and that would make no money, and would be seen as a threat to the current entrenched profits.

 

In order to read about the role of the medical industry in the promotion of breast reduction for the PS industry, which greatly exploits young girls and overweight white women as a major demographic for this product, go to the link to deja at the end of this post. Find the link to the deja power search, which will allow you to search the usenet for articles using key words. Enter into the search the words: breast reduction shills . This will lead to all articles that contain all three of those words. Good luck.

Insurance coverage for breast reduction

In the US, your physical problems *alone* would qualify you for breast reduction, paid for by your provider. You would not even have to mention your psychological pain. Unfortunately, it would seem that in the US, insurance does not recognize the validity of psychological torment. This is not a problem with breast reduction, of course, but what about all the other people that are suffering, such as those with flatchestedness to the point of not even having breasts?

 

Their agony can be quickly relieved by the simple operation of breast augmentation. The failure of insurance companies to pay for the relief of psychological torment is an atrocity. People who are being **stepped on** need to sue the HMO’s. This has got to stop! In Brazil and France and some of the American states, breast reduction is the most popular and successful form of surgery. They would certainly agree that more than a handful is a pain. I would suggest that you change your doctor.

 

Go find one that will recommend a breast reduction to your socialized medicine. If you were in America, I would be glad to suggest the various specifics of how to get your breast reduction paid for, but I don’t know about Canada. Sounds like a horrid place, if doctors won’t let women get their breast reductions paid for. Good luck. I hope you get a breast reduction really soon. BTW, now that you have been posting to newsgroups for a month now, what do you think of this aspect of the internet? I notice that many more women talk about getting breast reduction (on the newsgroups) than women who talk about getting breast augmentation.

Breast reduction and breast augmentation

There are *more* breast reduction recipients than breast augmentation recipients. Most of these women cite several non medical reasons to get the reduction. Too much attention, bras that don’t fit, or difficulty shopping for apparel, posture problems, social problems (such as stares or comments from people), self-esteem issues, thinking that they look bad in some way, a feeling of not fitting in or freakishness.

 

There is even a strange and very common belief that breast reduction is some kind of diet aid: note that diet or size acceptance newsgroups get the greatest number of these testimonials. Going to articles and websites and surveys, we see that of all the reasons women generally cite for getting breast reduction, the medical reasons don’t start until halfway down the list! Yet more than nine out of ten of these manage to get their operations paid for by the HMO’s! Sorry, but I smell hypocrisy here…big time. And something better be done about it.

 

Can you imagine defining the relief of one pain as valid, and another as not? Can you imagine defining one persons pain as meaningful and another as not? This is prejudice, bigotry, discrimination. It is unjust, elitist, totally unfair, nothing but a method of abuse.

 

It’s like saying that a poor person must be held responsible for her crime of perjury but the rich and powerful politician gets to get away with it anytime he wants. It’s like saying that Suzy, who has back pain due to big breasts, but has a strong back and has no disease, just pain, gets a free breast reduction, but Sally, who has pain every time she walks, can’t get her operation to relieve it, because she can still walk, she just has pain.

The role of media in increased breast reduction

Actually, breast reduction, thanks to the work done by the media shills begun at the beginning of the nineties, has a very special status. Meaning that just because it is *breast reduction*, insurance will pay for it. But the amount of money being put out for breast reduction by insurance companies is so huge, half a billion dollars (exceeding the total expenditures in the US for augmentations) that other people, with serious chronic pain problems that they cannot blame on breasts, are being *denied*.

 

Potentially, the insurance companies now face billions of dollars in potential lawsuits from these others, should they wake up and discover the connection. Of course, the insurance companies know all about this. The major promotion of breast reduction is done by the medical community in the US. The doctors have such a high status that the insurance companies are forced to go along with this, in the belief that they are concurring with public opinion.

 

Furthermore, thanks to AMA endorsement, the sympathies of the legal community is engaged. Meaning that when it comes to BR, the courts will decide in favor of the surgeons every time, even if they have truly damaged the patient. It can be very humiliating to discover that if anything went wrong, the system will inevitably decide that it is the patients fault. In one case, it meant that the patient was sent to jail, in spite of the fact that she had been clearly mislead by trusted medical professionals. Anything to protect the doctors promoting this PS product, even the sacrifice of individuals.

The need for cosmetic body changes

I understand your sense of frustration. Please don’t misunderstand some of the comments from people in this news group. If you had said you wanted to remain forever without SRS that would be okay too. But on the other hand this is the SRS news group, so it probably makes sense for us to focus on that given the news group charter.

 

From your description of your need and feelings of functioning well as woman in day to day life, you progressed to a description that sounds to me like some discomforts with various aspects of yourself in more intimate situations, which when not fully clothed, lead you to feel that people might ask questions about you. But consider things for a moment. You live in southern California. There are many women with all sorts of tattoos.

 

They don’t have to be an unfeminine thing. Yet, what were you trying to convey to people with the long description? Please understand that I ask with only the kindest, most supportive, and sincerest desire to understand your feelings and intent. If I may review your discussion of yourself and some of the assumptions you thought that people in this news group might make. First, when you described yourself as a preoperative transsexual, your are most likely to lead people to believe that you are interested in SRS. With that in mind, if you ask many people here, especially those who have had SRS like myself, I can say that for me, when I was a transsexual and not a post SRS female, getting SRS was very important to me because being a transsexual for me was very much about getting my genitals fixed.

 

I very much found that my day to day life was restricted by having the wrong genitals, even after many years of cross living. The more the years went by the more I was convinced. The eighteen years since my SRS have confirmed that for me. So, on the one hand maybe SRS isn’t the end all be all, but this is a group of people who know this issue and have lived this issue for a long time.

Breast augmentation and thin women

Breast augmentation is targeted at mainly thin women, so the breast implant industry also exploits confusion on the statistical relation of breast size and body fat. Breast augmentation is apparent to the trained eye when it has been done on thin women, but when augmentation is done on overweight women, it is very hard to tell. Conversely, the after effects of breast reduction are very hard to detect (identify on sight) when done on thin women. But when it is done on overweight women it is pretty easy to detect.

 

The breast reduction quite often renders the distribution of bodily proportions, which is apparent thru the body fat, into most unnatural states. The combined shape and size of the the breast reduced breasts, when compared against the overall frame of the woman to which they are attached, often tends to create a body shape that is conflict with what one would expect from the normal and natural biological physiological anatomical patterns of the development of organisms. I won’t pull any punches.

 

The effects of the breast reduction industry acting thru the hollowed medical industry have been absolutely stupendous. This is because the industry actually has a very limitted resource to exploit. The breast reduction industry, since the silicone scandles of 1991, has managed to pull in more profits every year than has the breast implant industry (in the US).

 

The PS’s have managed to assure that the growth of the breast reduction industry fully matches the growth of the breast augmentation industry, thereby exploiting the self esteem issues related to breast size to a maximum. But the breast reduction campaigns relie on a resource that is vastly more limitted than breast implants, in other words, there are going to be many, many times more small breasted women in the population than there are going to be women with huge breasts.