In December 2015, Danielle Valoras underwent a breast augmentation procedure. Over the next year, her health began to rapidly decline.
She first noticed her recovery was taking longer than expected. Next, she began to experience fatigue and puffiness in her extremities. Nine months in, Danielle had developed digestive issues, severe bloating, ovarian cysts, cramping, acne, and hair loss.
As a certified physician assistant who had practiced medicine for over two decades and who had spent years as a field clinical engineer for medical devices, Danielle knew something was terribly wrong. Doctors attributed her symptoms to perimenopause, but treatment did nothing.
Finally, a year in, Danielle had a “eureka” moment. While studying functional medicine, she realized that all her symptoms had started just after her breast augmentation. This realization led her, and ultimately her doctors, to a diagnosis of breast implant illness (BII).
Conservative estimates suggest 30 percent of breast implant recipients develop systemic health symptoms, often referred to as BII. But many medical practitioners miss BII as a cause, leading to a host of ineffective treatment protocols while the inflammatory source—the implant—continues its work unabated.
Danielle Valoras, MPAS, PA-C, knows this firsthand. After her own struggle with undiagnosed BII, she spent the next eight years focused exclusively on understanding the systemic and structural impacts of breast implants. She’s distilled all of this information into a comprehensive, five-hour Master Class that provides the clinical depth practitioners need to recognize breast implant illness, assess its impact, and guide their patients toward recovery.
A Brief History of Breast Implants
Breast augmentation has a much longer history than most people realize. One of the earliest known augmentation attempts happened in 1895, when Vincenz Czerny, a German surgeon, transferred a lipoma to a patient’s breast to maintain symmetry after removing a tumor.
Dr. Czerny was not alone. Doctors in the late 1800s began experimenting with different ways to enhance breast size. Other early techniques included paraffin injections, sponges, ivory, and even glass balls.
Not surprisingly, these early attempts often caused serious health complications, ranging from inflammation to necrosis—and even blindness in some cases.
In the 1960s, the first silicone gel implants were introduced, ushering in the “modern era” of breast implants. Thomas Cronin and Frank Gerow invented these devices, which were first sold by the Dow Corning Corporation.
Silicone implants grew in popularity throughout the 1960s, but as they did, people began to question how safe they were. This led to an alternative type of implant being developed in the 1970s: saline implants. Saline was marketed as a safer option because if an implant leaked or ruptured, the body would simply absorb the sterile saltwater.
By the ‘80s, however, silicon implants were still the favored method for breast augmentation. But eventually, reports of health complications started cropping up. The FDA stepped in with a partial ban in 1992, although they largely reversed their decision in 2006, calling them safe once more for cosmetic use.
Breast implant technology has continued to evolve since then, with cohesive gel or “gummy bear” silicone implants becoming a popular choice since their introduction in the early 2000s. Compared to older implants, these “gummy bears” maintain their shape better, feel more natural, and reduce the risk of rupture.
Are Breast Implants a Shell Game?
But it’s not just what’s on the inside that matters. Ultimately, the shell has the greatest effect on health because it is constantly in contact with the body.
Whether silicone or saline, all implants have similar outer shells. These shells are made of medical-grade silicone elastomer and cross-linked with platinum or tin to add strength. While durable, thus reducing the risk of rupture, they are not perfect.
For one, silicone is permeable, which means all breast implants suffer from “gel bleed.” According to Valoras, silicone and chemicals like platinum, tin, and zinc leach into the body from day one, even without a rupture event. This means for women with implants, chemicals are constantly entering the bloodstream.
Second, breast implants have surface impurities because of the manufacturing process. Additionally, outside impurities can chemically bond with unsaturated silicone molecules. Moreover, relative surface roughness can contribute to the amount of inflammation and foreign body response attributed to implants. The bottom line: Even if the silicone itself is sterile, what’s on the surface may not be.
You’re probably already seeing breast implant illness patients, but you might not recognize it. Symptoms include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, joint pain, autoimmune flares, and other issues that often get attributed to menopause, aging, or something else entirely. Without asking about implants and connecting the constellation of symptoms, you’re missing what may be the key driver of the entire symptom picture for some of your patients.
When you attend Danielle Valoras’s Master Class, you’ll learn how breast implants can turn into a source of inflammation and illness in the body, and what to do to get your breast implant patients back on track.
The Lasting Health Impact of Breast Implants
While safety arguably wasn’t a strong criterion in the earliest days of breast augmentation, from the 1960s onward, it has been an important component of technological progress.
For instance, when Dow Corning first sold gel implants, it was thought to be a safe product. They were, after all, made from silicon, which is often described as inert. But as we discussed above, this does not show the full picture. Both silicone and saline implants:
- Suffer from gel bleed.
- Can and do leak or rupture.
- Can contain surface impurities.
Historically, the FDA has also been aware of the potential dangers of breast implants. Early on, these devices were unregulated, but in 1976, they were categorized as class II (moderate-risk) devices. Over time, concerns about implant safety arose, and in 1988, the US government reclassified breast implants as class III (high-risk) devices. And, as mentioned above, the FDA banned silicone gel implants for cosmetic use from 1992 through 2006, in large part due to manufacturers not adequately addressing safety concerns.
While FDA regulations and classifications are certainly necessary, they do not in and of themselves obviate all risks. Many women can and do still report adverse health issues that can be traced back to breast implants (i.e., BII). Danielle Valoras estimates that at least 30 percent of women with implants—that’s 10 million people worldwide—will experience systemic symptoms stemming from breast augmentation. With numbers this high, BII represents a truly global healthcare crisis.
Why Some Patients Aren’t Getting Better: The Breast Implant Illness Connection with Danielle Valoras
Danielle ultimately chose to have her implants explanted (removed) in October of 2017. The relief was immediate: she felt “80 percent better” upon waking from surgery. Her symptoms abated, and today, she is healthier than ever before.
Her traumatic experience with breast implants led her to become an advocate and researcher to help other women suffering from BII. As she herself experienced, doctors all too often fail to consider implants when treating women’s health issues. BII is simply a blind spot in most practitioners’ care protocols. But it doesn’t have to be a blind spot for your practice.
The clinical depth you need to recognize and help patients with BII has never been systematized or taught—until now. Danielle Valoras, MPAS, PA-C, has dedicated the past eight years to understanding the adverse health impacts of breast implants. She’s treated hundreds of women with implant-related illness, consulted with experienced plastic surgeons, reviewed pathology from explanted devices, and tracked the research as it emerges.
She’s distilled all of that into a comprehensive, five-hour Master Class that provides the clinical depth practitioners need to:
- Develop a comprehensive understanding of the systemic and structural health impacts of breast implants
- Recognize and differentiate breast implant illness and implant-associated complications
- Assess patient risk, symptom burden, and clinical significance using structured, evidence-informed frameworks
- Guide patients through informed, multidisciplinary, and recovery-oriented care pathways
- And more…
This class will give you new insight into a patient population with stubborn mystery symptoms and change how you approach their care. You can learn more and register here.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is breast implant illness (BII)?
Breast implant illness is a pattern of systemic symptoms linked to breast implants acting as a chronic inflammatory and immune trigger. Symptoms can include fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, joint pain, hormonal disruption, autoimmune flares, and gut issues, often without clear findings on standard labs.
Why is BII so commonly missed in clinical practice?
BII symptoms are nonspecific and often attributed to menopause, stress, or aging. Many practitioners don’t routinely ask about implants or connect the symptom pattern to a foreign-body-driven inflammatory response.
Does the type of implant (silicone vs saline) reduce the risk of BII?
Not necessarily. Silicone and saline implants share similar outer shells, which are permeable and subject to gel bleed and surface contamination. Even intact, all implants can act as a long-term inflammatory source.
How can practitioners learn to properly assess and manage suspected BII cases?
Danielle Valoras’s Breast Implant Illness Master Class provides a structured, evidence-informed approach to recognizing breast implant illness, assessing clinical significance, and guiding patients through informed care decisions. It’s designed to help practitioners confidently address a major blind spot in women’s health care.
