You got better. The next woman can also get better — without the maximalist version of the surgery. Defending the aggressive operation against evidence-based critique doesn't protect future patients — it harms them.
Every time I post a video about systemic symptoms from breast implants — BII, SSBI, or whatever framing you prefer — the comments fill up with a very specific pattern that genuinely makes me sad.
It's not what you'd expect. It's not the women themselves I find sad. It's the women who had their implants removed, improved afterward, and are now so invested in keeping things the same that they're comfortable with other women being harmed.
I want to talk to this group directly, because I think there's a path forward — and it's not the one being defended in the comments.
Every video I do, the same comments roll in from the same group of women. They use the same talking points:
I want to address each of these directly, because the conversation is stuck in a place that's actively hurting the next generation of BII patients.
Yes, I absolutely want you to get better. I've never said anything to the contrary.
What I am saying is: you can get better with the right surgery, not the most aggressive one.
The research is clear on this. Women who had implants removed by:
…all improved at similar rates. The improvement was from removing the implants, not from the maximalist version of the operation.
So when I say women don't need en bloc capsulectomy for BII symptoms, I'm not arguing they shouldn't feel better. I'm arguing they shouldn't have a more dangerous surgery to get there.
I want to be really clear: no one is gaslighting you. I have never said your symptoms weren't real. I treat BII patients regularly. I remove implants regularly. I don't doubt that women experience genuine, often debilitating symptoms.
What I am telling you — and what the evidence supports — is that part of your surgery helped you, and part of it didn't. The part that helped was removing the implant. The aggressive capsulectomy on top of that didn't add benefit. Multiple studies have shown this. (Heavy metals in capsules? Same levels as in women who never had implants. So that's not why the surgery worked either.)
Acknowledging that some of your surgery wasn't necessary is not the same as dismissing your symptoms or your improvement. Both can be true at the same time. You got better. The maximalist part of the operation isn't what made you better.
This one is genuinely funny, and I have to address it directly.
The reality of the financial incentives:
So when you accuse me of being motivated by money for recommending the less profitable, less invasive, evidence-based surgery — and defending surgeons charging $30K for the more aggressive version — you have the arrow pointed the wrong direction.
The people making real money in this space are the explant celebrity surgeons charging exorbitantly for procedures that aren't evidence-supported. I would much rather a patient have the right operation at a lower cost than the wrong operation at a higher cost. If anything, I'm advocating against my own financial interests by saying this.
If you're a woman who had a BII explant surgery and you feel better — I am genuinely happy for you. That's a wonderful outcome.
What I'm asking is that you consider this:
The next woman who comes to this community asking about BII surgery deserves the option of a less invasive, less expensive, equally effective operation.
She doesn't need to go through:
…to get the same outcome you got. You got better. She can also get better — without the maximalist version.
When you defend the explant-influencer community against evidence-based critique, you're effectively telling that next woman that she needs the bigger surgery to feel as good as you do. And that's not true, and it's not kind.
In every area of medicine, we change our practice as better information becomes available.
A doctor who doesn't evolve when new evidence emerges is, frankly, not a good doctor. They're a doctor stuck in the past — confident in what they've always done, ignoring data that contradicts it.
The explant influencers being held up as authorities on BII are, in many cases, doctors who have not evolved with the evidence. The research showing that the maximalist explant doesn't add benefit has been out for years. The fact that they're still recommending it — and that their patient base is defending it — is what's sad.
I genuinely want what BII patients want: better care.
Better care means:
That's the path. And honestly — it's the path that should already be obvious to anyone who actually cares about women suffering from these symptoms.
I want to acknowledge something important: many BII patients have had bad experiences with doctors. Doctors who dismissed their symptoms. Doctors who insisted nothing was wrong. Doctors who refused to listen.
That history is real, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't. The defensive posture of the BII community didn't come from nowhere — it came from years of being told their symptoms didn't exist.
But the response to "doctors dismissed me" cannot be "now I will dismiss the doctors who agree my symptoms exist but disagree about which surgery to recommend." That's the trap. That's how a community ends up entrenched in defending a specific surgical approach that's no longer supported by data.
To the women who had explant surgery and feel better — I'm glad you feel better. I'm on your side.
But please consider that defending the maximalist surgery against evidence-based critique doesn't protect future patients — it harms them. The next woman with BII deserves the option of:
The surgeons making $30,000 per patient for aggressive operations that aren't needed are not your allies. The ones being attacked in the comments for trying to bring evidence-based care to BII patients are.
Women deserve better than being preyed on by charlatans profiting off of their pain. No matter how many comments I get telling me to stop, I'm going to keep putting out content to help women. That's the entire point.