尖端医疗的真相

本片主要介绍了三个医疗植入器械和一个机器人器械。

【产品】｛拜耳｝ Essure 永久避孕器，大量出血、腹部疼痛、头痛、炎症。摘除该产品时，可能碎裂，会引发自体免疫反应；该产品不能有效节育，即便产下婴儿，这些婴儿也未必健康。医生在植入时也会失误，如果失误植入了子宫而不是输卵管，会被医疗器械公司推荐多植入几个。使用Essure的女性与结扎的女性节育失败率高出7倍。

Essure至今仍在市场上销售。

医疗公司：研究窗口只持续了1.5年，但使用者则要佩戴终生，并且受试者的满意度测评也被篡改。

🌟FDA 对于医疗器械的管制不利，新医疗器械审批流程极为松散。

【产品】｛强生｝髋关节假体，金属配金属类型（钴），体内钴超标100倍。骨科移植物导致精神问题。

🌟PMA（pre-market approval)VS 510（K）系统：对于中高风险的产品需要经过人体试验，但存在漏洞。MRI影响提示钴中毒影响神经系统，但至今医疗器械行业仍被推荐该假体。

【产品】｛强生｝所有阴道网片（聚丙烯树脂纤维）均通过510（K）系统获得审批，外科医生通过自然组织修复术适应该产品。性生活不正常，

🌟如果医学和市场产生纠纷，赢的永远是市场。

🌟在美国，医疗公司支付给医生通过某些渠道支付回扣是合法的。

【产品】｛Intuitive Surgical｝机器人达芬奇，大量使用新技术却很少问结果。医生可以远程操控进行手术。经过510（K）系统通过。规培医生至少需要九周时间才能操作该机器，但事实上该机器由大量经验不充足的人操作（由外科医生自行决定是否使用），可能会造成病人并发症等。致使阴道断端断裂概率提升3-9倍。

70%的生物医学研究不再由政府，而是行业资质，因此自然会得到行业想要宣传的结果。

CT扫描的辐射量累积会致癌。利润很高。

FDA安装Spector软件监视科学家和医生，以报复检举揭发者。强大的游说团体影响政客，秘密资助政客，降低审批标准。许多FDA专员在离开FDA后供职于医疗公司或是持有股票。FDA官员戈特利布与医疗公司有利益勾连。

以上所有产品涉及的公司（强生、拜耳、Intuitive Surgical）以及FDA均拒绝出镜本纪录片。

安全提示：

1）对身上或体内的器械进行调研，新的产品并不一定更好。

2）对于有风险或高昂的手术要询问他人意见

3）存问医生已经做过多少场手术

4）当你在医院时，让朋友或家人替你发声

5）欲了解你的医生是否接受医疗器械公司报酬咨询相关网站。

The bleeding edge把innovation这个概念给我重新解释了一遍。任何以赢利为目的的创新不能称作创新 ，因为在赢利这一层面上总是有吃亏的一方，而创新这一概念本就是本着对世界的探索精神而被创造出来的，想当然便是具有探索性的人类活动而已。

把在没有经过足够的试验、总结、审核而推广到市面上的医疗用品用于患者身上都是属于强者对弱者，或者是不知情者的剥削罢了，而强权机构则像孩子般迫不及待将其美化包装成创新产品推广上市并在人体上做交易显然是对创新的污蔑

生厂商和FDA，医生的勾结。 不尊重女性的生命安全，很多女性一生的健康都被这些不合格的机械设备摧毁。 生产厂利用游说和资本拉拢政党，影响国会决策。 被欺害的女性团结起来，维护自己的权利，最后将不合格的机械设备踢出市场。 一定要保护好自己的身体，尤其女性，不要给当下的无良知的医疗人员迫害我们的机会！他们根本也不配称作“医疗人员。 创新有时候代表着大风险。 我们要维护好自己的权益真的真的真的！凭什么他们可以修改我们的评价和感受，凭什么他们能够判定我们是否满意！ 人一定要警惕医疗人员说的，什么快速，无疼痛，什么办公室四十多分钟就做完，没什么后遗症，效果非常好，最好最尖端。这些狗语。不过确实值得反思的是，满是幻想的人们总以为这是个好的选择，很少去真正辨别真伪，独立思考，通常很痛快的接受手术，不要求太多证明和证据。相反，他们对于医生拒绝他们的医疗方式，会要求出示更多的不可行的证据。

沉重、震撼。FDA所谓的公信力不过是掩耳盗铃。审核不要求进行人体测试，公开数据来源不客观，部门间互相推卸责任，却大肆宣传产品的积极作用。器械公司减少职业培训，毫无职业道德的医生收回扣，暴露资本主义操纵医疗行业，把普通民众的生命安全当作敛财的资本，甚至能说出“你出血多是因为你是拉美女性。”这种不承认自己问题上升到种族的无耻言论。医疗行业赤裸裸地暴露美国制度的嘴脸。他在宣讲会上侃侃而谈。“We have the ability to creat jobs and prosperity to open and expand markets and unleash innovation.Let’s show the world that we are what’s next.”道貌岸然让人恶心。

更心疼的是那些女人。听女人说“I can’t drink, I can’t dance, I can’t do anything.”时心情很复杂。她们不仅在健康上受到损害，还有丢了工作成为homeless，甚至因此没有亲密活动而被抛弃，不想再想性别互换是什么样的，只觉得这些受害女性是坚强的、强大的，但是让人心痛。

新技术的改革在大部分人眼中应该都是好事，之前我也是这么认为的。在世界机器人大会上看到了一个团队设计的手术机器人，三个大蛇形臂的机器，高倍显微镜和镊子远程操纵。当时感叹科技的伟大，想想未来发展的高端模样。直到看完影片才觉得应该重新审视对这些东西的看法。用机器人操作的手术失败率甚至可能比医生手动操作失败率更高，这种类型的科技创新应该重新被思考，并且在遇到需要在身体内装器械的手术时，尽量选择有年头的，新技术尤其是在医疗领域，还是应该慎重选择。

美国有种永久节育器Essure,像一根螺旋针一样，被植入女性输卵管，最后效果是输卵管会因为这根金属针而作出反应，最后阻断输卵管通路，起到节育作用。

被植入十余年后的部分女性，出现了腰酸，腿酸，全身无力，子宫刺痛的现象；这些出现这种现象的女人，部分在针取出来后，仍然有更加严重的症状出现，子宫大流血，不能有性生活，还有部分不能取出来，变成无数的金属片散落在子宫，部分人需要切除子宫。

另一个产品叫疝气补片，是一种特殊材质的网，少数女性在分娩后体内相关组织松弛，会出现尿失禁现状，这种网状用于永久植入体内，起到支撑相关组织的作用。然而，植入这些金属网的女性，同样出现大量的问题，无力，连爬楼都爬不了，发烧等等，这种网几年后跟组织与肉融合在一起，因为持续收缩，不断地在挤压体内的组织和骨头，影响了器官功能。当病人想取出来的时候，事实上相当难取，几年做了十七八次手术，仍然无法完全取出。当性交时，金属网割伤了病人丈夫的器官，性生活以后基本上不可能了。

有一种叫达芬奇的机械臂手术仪器，医生用这种机械手术仪器为几个女性做了子宫切除手术，谁知，做了这些手术的女性，体内的肠竟然在走路和上厕所时，从阴道口掉出来！这与对操作这种机械臂的医生缺乏培训有关，有医生反映需要300次完整的手术才能基本上算是熟练，而卖这个器材的公司intutive surgical在卖出这个产品给医院以后根本就没有给医院太多培训，导致医生做用这个机械臂做手术时出现问题。

有个人换了髋关节，用了金属钴，结果钴元素扩散至全身，导致他的神经系统出现错乱。

假隆胸能引发一种罕见的癌症。

用于粉碎纤维瘤以更好取出的器械，竟然导致癌细胞在全身扩散.

。。。。

看了不禁倒抽一口凉气，片中所有的受害者一生都毁了。

那么是什么原因酿成这些恶果呢？

FDA监管疏漏

医疗器械上市不像药品上市这么严格，药品上市需要经过创新药或者是仿制药申请，其中还包括临床实验或生物等效性实验，申请流程十分严格，耗费以亿来计，时间上以十年来计，保证了药品的安全性和有效性。但是医疗器械，尤其是那种植入型的，由于其副作用可能需要经年累月才出现，而当下主要是以病人植入后一两年之间作为观察，且因为这样的病人数量甚少，没有药品所有的三期临床实验这种严格的流程，只需要证明拥有所对标的业已上市的器械的功能即可，通常也只会给FDA呈现一到两个病人的证词。事实上，有些可能连证词都不用。

医疗器械公司为追求利润欺上瞒下

比如疝气网，就算是内部研发成员提出安全性风险，就算是用在实验病人身上出现的不良反应，就算是已经上市后出现的医疗事故，公司都会采取掩饰手段，一方面以期FDA不会成为上市的阻碍，另一方面哄骗医生和病人尽快使用，信誓旦旦。对于已经售卖出现的器械，因为已经实现了利润，在培训方面又可省则省。

医生追求高利润，会尽量上马新器械。

吃回扣这种事情且不说，新的器械因为所宣传的技术含量与相对于旧技术的优点，定价也更高，医生在追求更高利润，以及更稳妥上面，一般会选择前者。他们会宣传新器械的好处，鼓励病人使用。

FDA和医生原本是应该跟病人一道，对抗医疗器械公司，但现实是，医生事实上是利益的一个大极，比之于跟病人一起作战，他自己的利益诉求是显著的；而FDA却已经跟医疗器械公司站在了一起，FDA有相当多已退下来的官员，通过旋转门去了医疗公司当顾问，为医疗器械公司更快地拿 到上市批文做贡献；而FDA的官员，也同样来源于医疗行业。FDA有了更多的来自医药公司、医疗器械公司的利益。在这里，病人是唯一被放弃的，孤独的一群。

我这些天在做医疗产业相关研究，为医疗行业各种发明感到震撼，觉得人类健康前途很光明，这部片给了我重重一棒，让我清醒了不少。新技术、突破性技术是层出不穷，然而，因为监管器械并没有监管药物来得严格，这些器械的隐患与风险是相当大的，一句话：它远没有说得那么好！一定要记住，你的身体属于你，所有的风险都是你在承受，医生并不能够帮助做决定，有时他追求自己的利益已经超过了你自己的利益。面对医疗器械，一定要多调研其风险，对于植入性器械，可不做的情况下尽量不做。

我想起一个初中同学，他的眼睛1000度以上，后面做了激光手术，就不用戴眼镜了，但是他读博后又开始戴眼镜了，后面我问他，他说眼睛比以前更差了。

我最近想换个眼镜，也经历了在医院做验光时，觉得医生不可靠的事。整个过程是这样的，我在医院（还是个三甲医院）和五家眼镜店都做了验光，为什么我要在六家机构做简单的验光待会再说，在眼镜店直接付给他们钱，要求只做验光。他们做得很仔细，并且都是器械加人工，很认真。而在医院，感觉医生真是有点敷衍，因为临近下班，但还没到下班点，他一直说他儿子乘飞机回国，想要快点搞完我这个验光好去接他，最后验出的度数，医生验的度数次高，除了一家，其余眼镜店的都没那么高，其中有一家还给了建议，说虽然测得这个度数，但实际配镜可以再下调一些度数，这样不会产生头晕等现象。说实在的，我很难判断到底是医生验得对还是眼镜店验得对，也正因为医院与眼镜店，以及眼镜店彼此之间都有差异，我就多找了几家眼镜店验，毕竟眼镜一带就会带五六年，做细致一点也对未来也是好的。联想起医生在整个过程三番四次跟我提香港的一种验光技术，因为我每一次都没接他这个话题，他在整个验光过程中时不时“不经意”地提到，我回忆的时候越发觉这之间可能有猫腻，对他的信任又降低了，所以最终选择了一家我最信任的，同时佩戴相应度数觉得最舒服的一家。

通过我个人接触的两个案例，只想说明两个道理：改变原有机体的医疗器械都是有风险的，以及，医生并不是都是全心全意站在你这边的。

该片给我很大的震撼，因为一次避孕手术而毁了整个生活太让人心有戚戚，肠子流出下体也是我作为一个女生万不敢去想的可怕画面。

但即使作为一个学术垃圾，也会在同情片中受害者的同时觉察到片中很多观点似乎具有太明显的倾向性，“给我你的参考文献和数据”。作为记录片光靠讲故事是很难说服人的。

同时我们也知道，生活中没有百分之百的事情，更别说在医学领域中，即使打个喷嚏也有丧命的可能，而医学的发展却不能因噎废食，要看研究者是否有足够的投入和人道主义精神，要看政府机构时候有进行严格周全的审查，要看厂家是否对医生进行了详尽有效的培训，要看医生是否将必须的治疗步骤准确实行，是否将可能的风险明确告知，要看风险出现后社会的保障机制。这个体系是非常庞大而复杂的。这部片子给我的感觉，他的论调是“这些厂家只是为了敛财而不断推出新的医疗器械，在明知其严重危害的情况下还将其投入市场，而那些FDA的审查人员也是敷衍了事，他们和医疗公司沆瀣一气，利用职位便利相互输送利益，都是狼心狗肺的东西”。

现实生活中可能确实存在这种阴暗事实，但如此强烈的指控倾向让我在最初的震撼之后感到有些不适，这不是一个足够客观的纪录片。你可以说“在这些人身上，我们发现，在一件创新器械的研发和使用过程中仍然存在诸多问题，研发到使用需要大量的临床实验来发现可能提前无法预知的问题，审查方式尚且有所欠缺，厂家对医生的培训不够，医生在手术的操作中可能出现问题，这些风险即使被提前告知，但对于个体来说，0.1%的风险落在一个人身上就是100%，我们表达对这种情况的悲悯，呼吁医疗公司和政府监管更加严肃的承担起他们的责任。”

去找了拜耳的回应，以下是我顺手做的翻译练习，括号内加粗语句是我自己的想法，仅帮助自己理解，所有内容与拜耳无关，原文会贴在本文最后，请感兴趣的大家对照阅读。

翻译文本：

拜耳关于Netflix《The Bleeding Edge》的情况说明书

WHIPPANY, N.J., July 27, 2018 /PRNewswire/

拜耳今日发布了关于《The Bleeding Edge》的情况说明书，这部纪录片于7月27日在Netflix首映，有大量内容涉及到了Essure。Essure曾是FDA批准的唯一一种无创的永久避孕形式，而现在却成了纽约时报、CBS新闻及其他媒体的报道主题。该情况说明书基于拜耳对该片在2018年4月21日Tribeca电影节版本的评论，意在鼓励大家对于Essure进行基于科学的讨论。拜耳提醒已植入Essure的女性，该设备仍然安全有效，从未改变。

作为女性健康领域的领导者，拜耳坚信广大女性和他们的医生制定生育健康决策都应该基于可靠的科学支持。但是相反，《The Bleeding Edge》中的Esuure形象非常缺乏科学支持，即使拜耳在影片完成前就向制片方提供了大量关于Essure的科学信息。该影片大量基于个人故事和有选择性的信息来呈现提前预设出来的Essure形象，而完全无视了那些可以支持FDA做出的“Essure的益处大于其风险”决议的科学证据，和该设备的警告声明。同时，该影片还大量依赖于很多矛盾的信息源，而隐藏了他们潜在的偏向性。这对于有赖于Essure来保障其生殖健康的广大女性来说是一种伤害，这可能会鼓励她们去移除该设备，这样她们就要承担风险和不必要的手术伤害。（拜耳曾向制片方提供相关科学证明但并未被提及；片中也并未提及拜耳对于该产品提出的警告声明；这种言之凿凿的引导会让其他正常使用的女性试图通过手术移除设备，从而可能带来不必要的痛苦和其他风险）

值得注意的是，关于Essure，该片的唯一科学数据来源于发表在JAMA杂志的“the 2018 Bouillon study”，而片中展示的部分其实是该片的制片方脱离了上下文的断章取义。纵观全文，该研究其实恰恰驳斥了该片所树立的Essure形象。该第三方研究对比了植入Essure的女性和接受了输卵管结扎的女性，他们发现，不论是术后一年还是术后三年，所有影片中提到的Essure带来疼痛和子宫切除，其实在使用Essure的女性身上出现的概率要低于输卵管结扎的女性。该研究的作者总结道：“这些发现并不支持与宫腔镜手术相关的方法（例如Essure）会带来医疗风险提高。”制片方对于该重要结论绝口不提，显然是因为这与他们预设的观点相矛盾，这确实会引起大家对于该片客观性和准确性的怀疑。（该片援引相关研究却断章取义，对与自身设定相反的研究结论避而不谈）

而Essure相关的科学证据总共包含了40篇已发表论文，包括对200000名女性长达20年的跟进，并且证明了Essure的安全性和有效性，而这些在影片中并未提及。而且FDA也没有改变他们关于“Essure的益处大于其潜在风险”的结论。（Essure的有效性基于大量的研究报道）

该片对于Essure的大部分观点都是基于对该设备有所担忧的女性的故事，而并非科学讨论。拜耳对任何有关其药品或设备的关心都十分重视。并且，值得注意的是，该片有没涉及到任何一位对Essure满意的女性。这个省略很重要，因为在为期3,6,12,18,24,36,48和60个月二期实验和关键性临床试验的随访中，将配有Essure的舒适度评级为“良好”或“优秀”的女性不低于99%。而在临床实验中，五年后反馈体验在“及格”到“非常满意”区间内的女性高于97%。该数据总结在FDA在the 2015 Advisory Committee会前的执行摘要中。

任何关于该片和Essure的讨论都不能避开“移除”问题，这也正是该片中多数女性讨论的重点。该片对于这一关键点并没有给以足够的重视。向广大女性传播关于Essure的不准确甚至误导性的信息，或是鼓励她们通过摘除子宫来移除该设备，是一种潜在的重大公共安全事件，因为这会误导那些配有Essure的女性想办法移除它，这是不必要的，反而会导致新的，额外的健康问题。更重要的是，引起关注的子宫切除术其实与Essure的使用说明并不相符，使用说明中提到“Essure的移除一般不需要进行子宫切除”，并在说明书中给出了其他方法。该使用说明是基于科学/临床数据和全球医学专家的意见制定的。拜耳强烈建议配有Essure的女性，如果有任何问题和担忧请咨询专业的内科医生。（片中很多女性采用子宫切除来移除设备，这不是使用说明推荐的方法）

《The Bleeding Edge》还有赖于一些人来解释和证实他们关于Essure的故事，而该片其实隐藏了一些矛盾之处，这对于观众评价这些人和该片的可行度来说至关重要。例如，心理学家Diana Zuckerman在本片出境，她在批评Essure的论坛中十分著名。她在the 2015 FDA Advisory Committee会议中反对Essure，并在同年参加了由批评Essure的宣传组组织的另一场会议。并且她作为付费专家参加了至少一起针对Essure的诉讼，这是纽约时报在2018年7月20确定的内容，而在本片中并未提及。

同样的，Madris Tomes在本片中作为独立专家出现，但其实她也有很长一段时间和反Essure小组一起工作，并且在今年二月的会议上加入了他们。2016年5月9日，由律师事务所Unglesby + Williams公布的一则有关Essure的新闻称她受Unglesby + Williams雇佣。这件反对Essure的工作并未在本片中提及。

本片还采访了Dr. Julio Novoa，但是观众并不知道的是，他一直很激进的推荐女性采取手术方法移除Essure，并且他在其中还有经济利益。此外，Dr. Julio Novoa并不是受到职业认证的妇产科医师，并且从未接受过Essure相关的产品培训。（以上列举了三位出境专家，说明他们一直以来都有反对Essure的倾向，而且都在这种反对中有不同形式的获利，这个Dr. Julio Novoa并不是受到职业认证的妇产科医师，并且从未接受过Essure相关的产品培训我真是惊呆。）

本片还略去了任何关于已获FDA批准的使用说明的内容。该使用说明向医生提供了关于该产品的重要信息，并包含了Essure可能导致的潜在风险的细节。例如，使用说明超过20次提及到了潜在的穿孔风险，还包括很多关于疼痛、过敏和超敏反应，这些都是基于Essure的科学数据。（拜耳在使用说明中明确列举了该设备的潜在风险，并要求医生向患者说明）

该片的其他内容也并不真实，只是为了让Essure显得不安全或/和无效。例子之一就是对Essure的2002 FDA Advisory Committee meeting部分的误导性和选择性的剪辑。该片称委员会成员拿严重不良事件的可能性开玩笑。他们其实没有做这样的事情。咨询委员会在那一部分甚至并没有提及不良事件或是Essure的安全性。所有的科学证据，临床试验和超过20年的科学和临床经验都依然支持Essure的益处大于其风险，并且在依赖Essure进行避孕的病人中，其有效率达到了99.3%。（片中最令人对FDA审查制度胆寒的开会片段真实性存疑）

Essure是一种创新型的三级医疗器械，经过了FDA的RMA审查，这也是该机构对医疗器械最严格的审查方式。自Essure在2002年投入使用以来，该机构还在原有基础上对Essure进行了48项补充审批并认证了其安全性。

在2018年7月20日，拜耳宣布其决定自2018年12月31日起自愿停止Essure作为永久避孕方案在美国的销售和推广。这项决定基于近年Essure在美国销售额的下降和Essure业务不可持续的结论。造成Essure在美销量下滑的因素有很多，包括永久避孕法的使用率下降，而其他避孕方法例如长效可逆的避孕法的增加，以及对该设备不准确和误导性的宣传（例如The Bleeding Edge）等。重要的是，Essure的利弊性是没有改变的，而且拜耳坚持认可该产品的安全性和有效性。（Essure退出市场不是安全问题，而是因为其他避孕方法更受欢迎，或是类似本片的负面宣传对公众的误导导致销量不佳）

关于Essure

Essure通过造成输卵管堵塞来帮助女性实现永久避孕（女性绝育）

重要安全信息

警告：一些采用Essure进行永久避孕的病人经历了一些不良事件，包括子宫和/或输卵管穿孔，植入物进入腹腔或盆腔，持续疼痛，以及疑似过敏或超敏反应。如果需要移除设备来解决这些不良事件，则需要进行手术。这些信息应该在讨论Essure的益处和风险时向有意采用该设备的病人说明。

Essure不适用与以下情况：不确定是否要永久绝育，疑似怀孕，只能植入一支Essure，已经结扎，已知对显影剂过敏，不愿意进行Essure确认测试，有不明阴道出血，或是女性生殖器官疑似或已知患有癌症。

以下情况则应暂缓植入Essure：过去6周内已经怀孕，患有妇科感染，或是正处于经期后半期。

以下情况应向医生说明：正在服用免疫抑制剂药物，确认或可能对金属、聚酯纤维、镍、钛、铂、银-锡或不锈钢等Essure成分过敏，正在使用IUD进行避孕，过去做过或未来考虑通过子宫内膜切除来减少子宫出血。

警告：请在进行Essure植入前确定您已经生过孩子，因为Essure是一种永久性的绝育方案。

警告：你需要同时采用其他方法来避孕，直到通过Essure确认测试（手术3个月后），并且你的医生明确告诉你可以完全依赖Essure来避孕。对一些女性来说，Essure生效时间可能大于3个月，需要在6个月时重新进行确认。和你的医生讨论在这段时间你应该采用什么方式避孕。如果你在受到确认之前就完全依赖Essure进行避孕，那你会有怀孕的风险。

在手术中：在市场前调研中，部分女性（9.3%）经历了轻度到中度的疼痛。你的医生可能不能正确的进行植入。在少数病例中，Essure在植入中可能会发生部分破碎。如果发生破碎，在适当情况下，你的医生会移除这些碎片。在使用子宫镜、Essure或其他器械时，有可能造成子宫或输卵管穿孔。在市场前调研中，Essure植入造成的穿孔发生率为1.8%。穿孔可能会导致肠道或膀胱出血或受伤，可能会需要手术治疗。你的医生可能会建议采用局部麻醉。向你的医生咨询这种麻醉的风险。

术后：一些女性经历了轻度到中度疼痛（12.9%）和/或痉挛(29.6%)，阴道出血(6.8%)，及盆腔或背部不适。一些女性出现了头痛，恶心和/或呕吐(10.8%)，头晕和/或晕倒。在术后应该安排人照顾你。在极少数病例中，Essure可能会被排出体外。

在Essure确认测试中：测试需要照X光，你可能会暴露在低剂量的辐射中，大部分是X射线。一些女性会出现恶心和/或呕吐，头晕和/或晕倒，痉挛，疼痛或不适。在极少数病例中，有些女性可能会留疤或感染。

长期风险：在Essure植入后可能会出现不同程度及持续时间的疼痛（急性或持续性），更有可能出现在有疼痛史的女性身上。也有病例中出现Essure被植入到腹腔和盆腔下部。若出现这种情况，你将不能依赖Essure进行避孕。对该设备成分过敏的病人可能会经历过敏反应。此外，一些病人可能会在术后出现对镍或其他设备成分的过敏反应。过敏反应的症状可能包括荨麻疹，皮疹，肿胀和瘙痒。尚无有效的测试来语言谁会对该植入发生反应。没有哪种避孕方法是100%有效的。Essure植入后也可能会发生宫外孕。这会危及生命。如果需要移除植入物，则需要进行手术。

Essure的安全性和有效性尚未在21岁以下或45岁以上的妇女中确立。

Essure不能预防艾滋病毒或其他性传播疾病。

仅限处方。

重要信息

注意：联邦法律限制这种设备只能在医生的指导下销售；仅供具备子宫镜知识的医生使用;阅读并理解使用说明书和医师培训手册;并成功完成Essure培训项目，包括指导实习直至能力建立，通常为5例。

本设备的销售和分发仅限于用户和/或以拜耳提供的批准标签中规定的形式和方式向患者提供有关本设备的风险和益处的信息的用户和机构。

和你的医生谈谈Essure并讨论它是否适合你。在决定进行Essure手术之前，与医生一起检查患者信息手册中的患者-医生讨论清单。

拜耳是一家全球性的企业，在医疗保健和农业生命科学领域拥有核心竞争力。其产品和服务旨在造福人民，提高人民的生活质量。与此同时，集团的目标是通过创新、增长和高盈利能力来创造价值。拜耳致力于可持续发展的原则，以及作为企业公民的社会和道德责任。2017财年，集团员工约99800人，销售额为350亿欧元。资本支出达24亿欧元，研发支出达45亿欧元。更多信息，请访问www.bayer.us。

拜耳原文：

Bayer United States of America

Bayer Fact Checks Netflix's The Bleeding Edge

WHIPPANY, N.J., July 27, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Bayer today released a Fact Check of The Bleeding Edge, which premieres on Netflix on July 27, devotes significant time to Essure, the only FDA-approved non-incisional form of permanent birth control, and is now the subject of media coverage by The New York Times, CBS News, and others. This Fact Check is based on Bayer's review of the film's premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 21, 2018 and is intended to encourage a science-based conversation about Essure. Bayer also is reminding women with Essure that the safety profile of the device remains positive and unchanged.

(PRNewsfoto/Bayer)

As a leader in women's healthcare, Bayer believes strongly that women and their physicians should make reproductive health decisions based on sound science. In contrast, the portrayal of Essure in The Bleeding Edge lacks scientific support, despite the fact that Bayer provided the producers with extensive scientific information on Essure before the completion of the film. The film presents an inaccurate and misleading picture of Essure by relying almost entirely on anecdotes, cherry-picking information to fit a predetermined conclusion, ignoring the full body of scientific evidence that supports the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) determination that Essure's benefits outweigh its risks and disregarding the appropriate warnings that accompany the device. The film also relies on many conflicted sources without disclosing their potential biases. This does a disservice to the thousands of women who rely on Essure for their reproductive health, as it may encourage them to pursue risky and unnecessary surgery to remove the device.

Notably, the film's only reference to scientific data regarding Essure is the 2018 Bouillon study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ("JAMA"), which its producers cite out of context and portray in its least favorable light. Taken as a whole, the study actually undermines the central premise of the film's representation of Essure. The independently funded research compared women with Essure to those who had tubal ligation surgery, the only other method of permanent birth control, and found that many of the concerns described in the film with regard to Essure -- pain (analgesic use) and hysterectomy -- were lower in Essure patients than in tubal ligation patients at both one and three years post procedure. The authors of the study concluded: "These findings do not support increased medical risks associated with hysteroscopic sterilization [e.g., Essure]." The decision by the filmmakers to exclude highly relevant conclusions from a study they cited, apparently because they conflict with their desired narrative, do raise serious concerns about the objectivity and accuracy of the movie.

The totality of scientific evidence, which was not discussed in the film, includes 40 published studies involving approximately 200,000 women over two decades, and demonstrates the safety and efficacy of Essure, which has remained consistent over time. The FDA also has not changed its conclusion that Essure's benefits outweigh any potential risks.

Most of the movie's focus on Essure is told not through science, but rather through the stories of women who reported concerns about the device. Bayer takes any concerns regarding its medicines and devices seriously. Still, it is notable that not a single woman who is satisfied with Essure is included in the film. This omission is important because in the Phase II and Pivotal trials at follow up time points of three, six, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months, at least 99% of women were reported to have rated comfort of wearing the Essure inserts as "good" or "excellent." In the Pivotal trial, at least 97% of women were reported to be "somewhat" to "very satisfied" at all visits through five years. This is summarized in FDA's executive summary prepared in advance of the 2015 Advisory Committee.

No discussion of the movie and Essure should ignore the issue of removal, which most women featured in the film discuss. The film provides no balance on this important topic. Providing women with inaccurate or misleading information about the safety of Essure, or encouraging removal via hysterectomy, is potentially a serious public health issue as it may lead women with Essure to unnecessarily seek removal, and can result in new or additional health problems. Moreover, the singular focus on hysterectomy is inconsistent with Essure's FDA-approved Instructions for Use (IFU), which state that "hysterectomy generally is not required to remove the Essure inserts" as there are other methods identified in the IFU. The IFU is based on scientific/clinical data and opinions from medical experts worldwide. Bayer strongly encourages women with Essure who have questions or concerns to consult with their physicians.

The Bleeding Edge also relies on a number of sources to explain and validate its story regarding Essure, but the movie does not disclose conflicts that are essential for viewers to fully evaluate the credibility of these individuals and the film. For instance, psychologist Diana Zuckerman appeared in the film and is well known in the Essure critics community. She spoke at the 2015 FDA Advisory Committee meeting arguing against Essure and participated in another meeting that same year with the FDA organized by an advocacy group that has been critical of Essure. She has also served as a paid expert in litigation for at least one Essure plaintiff, a fact confirmed by The New York Times on July 20, 2018, but not disclosed in the film.

Similarly, Madris Tomes is presented as an independent expert in the film, but she also has a long history working with an anti-Essure advocacy group and joined them in congressional meetings in February of this year. A May 9, 2016, press release by a plaintiff law firm involved in the Essure litigation, Unglesby + Williams, reported on Tomes' work on Essure and described her as someone who was "hired by Unglesby + Williams." Again, this litigation-related work against Essure is not disclosed in the film.

Dr. Julio Novoa was also interviewed in the film, but viewers were not told that he aggressively markets surgery to women to remove Essure and has a financial interest in recommending removal of the product. Dr. Novoa is not a board-certified OB-GYN and has never been trained on the Essure procedure.

The film also omits any mention of the FDA-approved Instructions For Use (IFU), which provide doctors with important information about the product and include detailed references to the potential risks for Essure. For example, the IFU mentions the potential risk of perforation more than 20 times, contains multiple references to pain and allergic or hypersensitivity reactions – all based on Essure data.

Other content in the film is completely misrepresented in order to make Essure appear unsafe, ineffective or both. One example is the inclusion of a misleading and selectively edited portion of the Essure 2002 FDA Advisory Committee meeting, which recommended the approval of the device. The movie suggests that members of the committee joked about the possibility of serious adverse events. They did no such thing. The Advisory Committee was not even discussing adverse events or the safety of Essure in that portion of the meeting. The full body of scientific evidence, clinical trials and more than two decades of science and real world clinical experience continues to support the positive benefit/risk profile of Essure and its strong efficacy of 99.3% in patients who chose to rely on Essure for birth control.

****

Essure is an innovative Class III medical device that was approved under FDA's Premarket Approval (PMA) review, the agency's most rigorous pathway for medical devices. Since the initial application for Essure was approved in 2002, the agency has continued to review and approve Essure's safety and efficacy through 48 supplements to the original application.

On July 20, 2018, Bayer announced that it had made a business decision to voluntarily discontinue sales and distribution of the Essure System for Permanent Birth Control in the United States after December 31, 2018. This decision is based on a decline in U.S. sales of Essure in recent years and the conclusion that the Essure business is no longer sustainable. Several factors have contributed to declining interest in Essure among women in the U.S., including decreased use of permanent contraception overall, increased reliance on other birth control options, such as long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), and inaccurate or misleading publicity about the device, such as The Bleeding Edge. Notably, the benefit-risk profile of Essure has not changed, and Bayer continues to stand behind the product's safety and efficacy.

About Essure

Essure is indicated for women who desire permanent birth control (female sterilization) by blocking the fallopian tubes.

Important Safety Information

WARNING: Some patients implanted with the Essure System for Permanent Birth Control have experienced and/or reported adverse events, including perforation of the uterus and/or fallopian tubes, identification of inserts in the abdominal or pelvic cavity, persistent pain, and suspected allergic or hypersensitivity reactions. If the device needs to be removed to address such an adverse event, a surgical procedure will be required. This information should be shared with patients considering sterilization with the Essure System of Permanent Birth Control during discussion of the benefits and risks of the device.

Essure is not right for you if you are uncertain about ending your fertility, suspect you are pregnant, can have only one insert placed, have had your tubes tied, have a known allergy to contrast dye, are unwilling to undergo the Essure Confirmation Test, have unexplained vaginal bleeding, or have suspected or known cancer of the female reproductive organs.

You should delay having the Essure procedure if you are or have been pregnant within the past 6 weeks, have an active gynecological infection, or are in the second half of your menstrual cycle.

Tell your doctor if you are taking immunosuppressants, have, or think that you may have, a history of metal allergies, or an allergy to polyester fibers, nickel, titanium, platinum, silver-tin, or stainless steel or any other components of the Essure system, are currently using an IUD for contraception, or have had or are considering a procedure to reduce bleeding from the uterus such as endometrial ablation.

WARNING: Be sure you are done having children before you undergo the Essure procedure. Essure is a permanent method of birth control.

WARNING: You must continue to use another form of birth control until you have your Essure Confirmation Test (3 months after the procedure) and your doctor tells you that you can rely on Essure for birth control. For some women, it may take longer than 3 months for Essure to be effective, requiring a repeat confirmation test at 6 months. Talk to your doctor about which method of birth control you should use during this period. If you rely on Essure for birth control before receiving confirmation from your doctor, you are at risk of getting pregnant.

During the Procedure: In the premarketing study, some women experienced mild to moderate pain (9.3%). Your doctor may be unable to place one or both Essure inserts correctly. In rare cases, part of an Essure insert may break off during placement. If breakage occurs, your doctor will remove the piece, if appropriate. There is a risk of perforation of the uterus or fallopian tube by the hysteroscope, Essure system or other instruments used during the procedure. In the original premarket studies, perforation due to the Essure insert occurred in 1.8% of women. A perforation may lead to bleeding or injury to bowel or bladder, which may require surgery. Your doctor may recommend a local anesthesia. Ask your doctor about the risks associated with this type of anesthesia.

Immediately Following the Procedure: In the premarketing study, some women experienced mild to moderate pain (12.9%) and/or cramping (29.6%), vaginal bleeding (6.8%), and pelvic or back discomfort for a few days. Some women experience headaches, nausea and/or vomiting (10.8%), or dizziness and/or fainting. You should arrange to have someone take you home after the procedure. In rare instances, an Essure insert may be expelled from the body.

During the Essure Confirmation Test: As one of the Essure Confirmation Tests (a modified HSG) requires an x-ray, you may be exposed to very low levels of radiation, as with most x-rays, if this test is used. Some women may experience nausea and/or vomiting, dizziness and/or fainting, cramping, pain or discomfort. In rare instances, women may experience spotting and/or infection.

Long-term Risks: Pain (acute or persistent) of varying intensity and length of time may occur and continue following Essure placement. This is also more likely to occur in women with a history of pain. There are reports of an Essure insert being located in the lower abdomen and pelvis. If this occurs, you cannot rely on Essure for birth control. Patients with known hypersensitivity to any of the components of the Essure system may experience an allergic reaction to the insert. In addition, some patients may develop an allergy to nickel or other components of the insert following placement. Symptoms reported in women using Essure that may be associated with an allergic reaction include hives, rash, swelling and itching. There is no reliable test to predict who may develop a reaction to the inserts. No birth control method is 100% effective. Ectopic pregnancies (pregnancy outside the uterus) may occur with Essure. This can be life-threatening. If insert removal is indicated, surgery will be necessary.

The safety and effectiveness of Essure has not been established in women under 21 or over 45 years old.

Essure does not protect against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases.

Prescription Only

IMPORTANT

Caution: Federal law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a physician. Device to be used only by physicians who are knowledgeable hysteroscopists; have read and understood the Instructions for Use and Physician Training Manual; and have successfully completed the Essure training program, including preceptoring in placement until competency is established, typically 5 cases.

The sale and distribution of this device are restricted to users and/or user facilities that provide information to patients about the risks and benefits of this device in the form and manner specified in the approved labeling provided by Bayer.

Talk to your doctor about Essure and whether it is right for you. Review the Patient-Doctor Discussion Checklist in the Patient Information Booklet with your doctor before deciding to have the Essure procedure.

About Bayer

Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the Life Science fields of health care and agriculture. Its products and services are designed to benefit people and improve their quality of life. At the same time, the Group aims to create value through innovation, growth and high earning power. Bayer is committed to the principles of sustainable development and to its social and ethical responsibilities as a corporate citizen. In fiscal 2017, the Group employed around 99,800 people and had sales of EUR 35.0 billion. Capital expenditures amounted to EUR 2.4 billion, R&D expenses to EUR 4.5 billion. For more information, go to www.bayer.us.

# # #

© 2018 Bayer

Bayer and the Bayer Cross are registered trademarks of Bayer.

文章来源：

//www.bayer.us/en/newsroom/press-releases/article/?id=123231