Howard is currently sitting around minus a hip, lucky to be alive post BHR – little wonder…

After reading article ” patient info” the hair on my neck is up again.

My interest is thats justice prevails irregardless of  the hip device used.

Mr McMinn”s comments  portray  BHR data results based on a controlled group of patients, 2345.

If you read the FDA‘s denial of approving this device in 2004 you should see the FDA’s concern that McMinn’s data came from this same group of patients, and he controlled the group?

Also the FDA expressed concerns of the unknown affects metal ions could have on a human being.

McMinn references information that is 20-30 years old; comments made by Mr.McMinn indicate out of 350 patients 10 year review, only a few of the 350 attended and their ion levels were not alarming.

Comments BHR shouldn’t be catergorized in the same manner as DePuy or ASR, they all have chromium-cobalt including the BHR?

Then I always read positive responses from professional athletes, who are always great for product marketing.

Here is a concerning statement;

” I, (McMinn) obtained some of the successful metal components and had them carefully analyzed. ( BY Whom) Their beneficial design features and materials were incorporated into my earliest concept models. After further tests (On Whom,how many, were are the Real Results other than that controlled group) we implanted the first modern metal on metal (MOM) resurfacing in February 1991,with the patients fully understanding that although this was UNCHARTERED TERRITORY it had been carefully thought through and well considered.

Article continues the device had largely been used by a few of us hip surgeons in Birmingham and not released for general useage. The BHR was introduced in 1997 as a product based on the many lessons learnt during these years.

What lessons, were people classified as a lesson? where is there lesson info?) after the BHR was introduced training programs were instituted for surgeons (what training-videos) and studies were started. These relate to hip function, metal ions, implant migration,stress shielding, to name a few.

The UK Register show ASR and Cornet are performing worse than BHR. Does this mean that Smith&Nephew‘s BHR had problems? Are we not intitled to this information?

It seems to me that any information I want re: Smith & Nephew’s Birmingham Hip (BHR), just tells stories of success, you can even ask several pro athletes that have endorsed the BHR ( probably written off as a marketing expense or ? ) or you can read statistical data provided by Smith & Nephew, but that data seems to be tightly controlled by Smith & Nephew, do you think these results are biased?

MrMcMinn, in his declaration: states that I  do not receive royalties for the BHR, nor do I own shares and stocks in the company that produces them. Didn’t he receive $100,000,000 plus for his invention?? maybe forgot to mention.

Also there seems to mention the younger as the perfect candidate, what about me, I just turned 65.

Facts seem to remain if a hip device is metal on metal, or metal on plastic, potentially any device can cause harm.

I, McMinn, am confident that this technology will stand the test of time as the published evidence has been proving.

This makes me so much more at ease.

Regain lost dreams, use the BHR, ask the professional athletes!!!

I hope that people using the BHR have no problems, but there are those not so lucky.

May be Mr. McMinn would like to see me and my results?

Lost dreams, I have enough trouble sleeping, so my dreams are few and far apart, and the one’s I can recall are just keeping alive.

My operation took place in 2007- 2010 I have no hip, and live in a wheel chair, all the tissue and muscle that supported my hip are gone.

My original surgeon did everything correctly according to my new surgeon who removed the device, he lectures throughout the US, when he is not in surgery.

I had my blood checked recently and results showed chromium level was off the charts, and my cobalt was on the very high side of normal, this was done over a year after having the BHR removed.

You are more than welcomed to interview me, but I represent terrible results, that may disqualify me from being interviewed.

Smith & Nephew was aware of these potential problems, but when you read their reports there is very little if any adverse information disclosed to the public, but their profits are high, they are buying other companies, and now are supposidly trying to captivate the European market, and may be go to China for easier approvals.

BHR patients must speak up, if this problem is ever to be changed!

Respectfully

Howard Sadwin

Related articles

• Sadwin Raises More Questions – Will They Ever Be Answered? (earlsview.com)
• McMinn Centre Data Suggests How Bad DePuy ASR was v. Others on the Market (earlsview.com)
• Mr McMinn, Inventor of the BHR Gives A Balanced Response to ABC 4Corners Program (earlsview.com)
• MHRA Advice for Patients (earlsview.com)
• Associate Professor Michael J. Neil – Doesn’t Recommend Resurfacing (earlsview.com)
• Dozens suing over DePuy hip replacement (earlsview.com)
• ‘Metal on metal’ hip implants leave some recipients in pain, at risk (earlsview.com)
• Veterans are Put through Another War – Hip Recall (earlsview.com)
• Metal Ion Measurement as a Diagnostic Tool to Identify Problems with Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing (earlsview.com)