Bendectin And Birth Defects (Page 17) (Top voted first)

I took this drug in the 1970's while pregnant. Am looking for the side effects to the babies. Drug has been off the market for many years. Not sure on correct spelling. Used for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Thank you for any help you can send me. Sincerely, Dana.

REPLY

REPORT

Hey Mr. Verbosity #1......how much does the pharmaceutical company that manufactured
Bendictine pay you by the word? My wife was
just interested, so I told her I would ask, but
then we would get the diatribe about blah blah
blah blah......

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Zip, zero, nada, zilch, nothing, not a cent. No connection to pharma (except as a prescriber).

Were you interested in debating any science/evidence?

Or shall we just continue with mis-information?

Don't get me wrong, hunches lead to ideas, lead to investigations, lead to evidence. Just don't ignore the evidence along the way.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, the very fact that peer reviews and replications took and take place on an ongoing basis[not that any one of them has necessarily been shown as an absolute proven panacea], and especially if there's more than a brief hiatus between each and every subsequent revistitation, like several years or decades, clearly shows that those with the inclination and perhaps concomitant expertise aren't thoroughly satisfied with what has been handed down before, even by them themselves, when they realise that their previous study/studies were possibly flawed or incomplete, so they have another go at it, c'OZ' it is their stock in trade after all. And what about those who've falsely stated that something they deemed significant at the time as being true, and they now havetheir doubts, but don't declare such, full-well knowing or strongly suspecting that many others have taken their word as gospel and acted accordingly upon that evidence. You only need a few of these in the mix and it's Chinese Whispers writ large! Can we be entirely sure now that no one in the field will ever revisit it with a fine tooth comb? There's probably several studies underway at this very moment, especially so now that it's so easy to access information and the folk personally involved with whatever's under the microscope. Even Einstein's long-lived famous 'Speed of Light' is now under question presently by the boffins, c'OZ' some of them aren't thoroughly convinced that light is the fastest thing. How dare they question his theory? [tongue in cheek]. Surely something as easily measured as the speed of light would have been finally decided upon by now? Not so!They've apparently discovered some anomaly. To not continue keeping Bendectin/Debendox/Diclectin and many another suspect drug under intense scrutiny parallels with the false logic of the asinine argument that if a disease is 'believed' to have been truly eradicated then there's no need to immunise against it. We'll never ever know if any disease has been finally wiped out, but you'll always get some imprudent soul saying that it has, only because there's no evidence to hand showing that it still exists. That's foolish logic, not unlike CH's spray. He berates two [? surely he means 3, him being #3] fellows as being know-alls, yet he himself "professes" to know with absolute surety and entirety that these other 2 fellows are know-it-alls. Just what does he predicate such premise upon? A clear-cut case of the pot calling the kettle blackguard! And using wifey's apron-strings as a facile excuse to enter into the 'fray' all the while, tsk,tsk tsk! I have a metaphorical 'bad feeling' that CH is desperately -- but ever-so-ineffectually -- attempting to foment bad feeling on everyone else's behalf. There's owning a blog and there's there's cl_owning a blog, and CH seems to be trying to emulate a cir_cus'todian with sawdust that's back in t_own! Each to his own I say!

Judges are only human, but some forget the fact. There is one retired Federal Court Judge [Marcus Einfeld] here in OZ, who was, until he fell from grace, held in the highest of esteem. But he decided to engage in "deliberate, premeditated perjury", in order to avoid incurring demerit points on his driver's licence, by resolutely [for a while] stating that it was not him driving his car when it was clocked speeding 10kmh over the limit, doing 60kmh in a 50kmh zone. Rather than accept a mere $77 fine at his hearing in Aug 2006, he said his friend, an American college professor, Teresa Brennan, had been driving his car whilst she was visiting here in OZ. The trouble for him was that Ms Brennan had died 3 years before the speeding offence. He still denied any wrongdoing right up until his hearing when he then pled guilty to both charges, receiving a maximum of 3 year's imprisonment[2 years non-parole]! I seem to recall that he had nominated someone else once before too as having been the driver of his car when it was caught speeding. The things that people will do to show that they and their industry[Justice Dept] are beyond reproach and squeaky clean, and many fools believe it. Methinks Einfeld's no orphan. Another woman was found guilty of providing false evidence to police saying it was her driving Einfeld's car and not him. What a trendy comedy of errors! 'Judge' for yourself!

Good health and best wishes to one and all! It's a tough life if you don't weaken!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

ILP NOBODY CARES!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Au contraire, they do care, whether they [the same person actually] alternate between using different names such as C.H. or W.E., else they wouldn't be passing comment on such. One really must allow other people to express themselves for themselves instead of trying to hog it all for yourself by trying to establish yourself as spokesperson for all and sundry. If you have no care or concern then that's a sad predica_ment'ality. Many folk want easy answers to what sometimes presents as being very complex, but persistence is the key. It's 'simply' the best modus operandi. Especially when keeping an eye on any likelihood of a resurgence of 'Brownshirts'. The Nazis, in 1933, tried burning all the books that didn't correspond with their ideology, but it's a tad more difficult to burn a blog.

"Don't Care" was made to care,
"I Forgot" was hung,
and "Wait A Bit" was sent to bed,
and made to hold his tongue.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

W.E., it's evident that you do care. I think that deep down you really do care [otherwise you'd embrace indifference], although I'm not thoroughly convinced that you're able to express such care comprehensively other than to vent your spleen by attempting to habitually-hijack that which isn't yours to do so. W.E. represents War Eagle, not WE [as in the 'collective' everybody]. You've just as much right to speak for yourself, as everyone has, but it's not democratic in the slightest to appoint yourself as being the "Care"taker.

You've stated several times now that you/'we' don't care, ergo: Methinks "Thou protesteth too much", in both senses of the well-known adage. Do take 'care' now...won't you?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I took Bendictine in the early 70's for morning sickness and took it until the last two weeks of my pregnancy. My son has Asperger's and I have always felt that drug had something to do wtih it. At 44 he is still a joy but definately has life altering problems.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Hello JLD, Welcome to the site! We have asked ourselves the same question.do some research online and you will find some groups with a quest : ) there will be some people here that may make you believe your wrong,pay no attention to interlinear peruser and emtridoc.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Thanks for the intro, War Eagle. Indeed, you need not pay any interest to me if you are inclined to ignore any science/data. For instance there has been some discussion around Asperger's; one poster felt that since she and her husband were the only couple among all their siblings to have a child with Asperger's and she was the only one to use bendictin, it must be the culprit. It's natural to draw such conclusions and why science is not based on anecdotal experience but rather on testing and analysis of data. So in the anecdotal experience cited above the poster overlooked that a) the background rate of Asperger's is such that you wouldn't expect it to occur more than once among her and her family and b) while still much is unknown about Asperger's, the current leaning is looking at genetic combinations - unique to the poster and her husband. Many, many more children have been born to women who never took bendictin than to those who did (in fact the rate of Asperger's has been going up despite that bendictin was pulled from the market decades ago)
In any event War Eagle and others like to bash contrarian (to their) thinking without engaging in discourse despite this being a "discussion" site. I try to bring in what is known from the medical literature, but since the evidence doesn't always jibe with what some were hoping for it's dismissed. Yet the science I have presented has never been refuted on this site with contrary evidence or even attempts to demonstrate fault in the study design (except, perhaps, ILP, who at leasts tries to offer theories of why associations may be missed, even if we disagree). If you have some time you can spend a few hours reading through the back and forth and draw your own conclusions.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, further to your " It's natural to draw such conclusions...", it's also natural for some folk to want to find the real reason for something having happened [or to prevent reoccurences] as opposed to those who just want to blame someone [anyone, usually] for their lot in life, an endeavour which only obscures [for them, mostly] that which may otherwise be resolved to some degree if not entirely. And of course there's those with the eternal dollar signs in front of their eyes. They'll pretend to believe anything for an easy buck or WEasel's-way out of a bind in just trying to cause a flap, per perpetually "winging it". These folk are sometimes the same ones who live in and enjoy all the trappings [amidst their flawed flappings] of a democracy but fail [through their being hyper-hypocritical] to act in a democratic way. Sometimes, the longest way round is the quickest way there. Salutations to The People's Medicine Community. Bravo!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, what I meant regarding checklists that should be used and followed 24/7 was that if they were, then researchers could then absolutely reliably assume that checklists had been complied with everywhere by all personnel. The benefit would then be comprehensive and not just piecemeal. Anything percentage of compliance is better than nothing, sure, but, "Make your good better, and make your better best etc". As it[guessed percentage of checklist compliance] stands, especially for those researching sepsis etc., possibly resulting from/during surgery etc., it's too wishy-washy[pun intended..err..scrub that!]. As we know, they [checklists] are never followed 24/7, and possibly never will be, and of course there's those that will say they used them but deliberately or otherwise didn't. Unless accurate records are able to be kept then there's too much guessing going on. Now that Dr Gawande's disclosed that many doctors [20%] were [and possibly still are]both openly and strongly against using the checklist for their patients' surgeries but would want it used if they [the doctors] were to have an operation themselves, how ill-at-ease will this make future patients undergoing not only surgical procedures, but any dealings with doctors? It's well-known that patients are meant to be as calm and reassured as possible throughout the whole procedure, even minor ones. Other than their [patients] rightly being so calmed, it's iatrogenicity writ large! And highly risible too, due to its ailing antithetic variability!

Re "scientific evidence" [or in many cases, just "notional narrative and/or full-on fudging"], you may be interested in - Michael Brooks' "Radicals in Science" 1 and 2 [with transcripts] on the ABC's 'The Science Report'. - Stanley Prusiner [among many others] rates a mention with his 'prions' etc.

Another school of thought holds that "all scientific theories (the very theories that explain scientific observations) [perhaps putative 'evidence' arising therefrom too] must be falsifiable". "Organicism" _ being the theory that the total organization of an organism rather than the functioning of individual organs is the determinant of life processes _ is most interesting and conjures up thoughts of what may happen to a foetus if anything whatsoever disrupts the normal functioning of but one [let alone several in concert] of the mother's organs during pregnancy. It parallels with a person [or feeble foetus] having to fight on too many (af)fronts. Something has to give...and usually does.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Hey all of you BIG WORD, stand up in court and per se, nosy types with no real point after blabbering on and on.... Like ya ok so evidence, investigation and proof all amount to, regardless of wether yoiu want to believe it or not, a whole bunch of children born to moms on the crap (diclectin, bendectine, debendox) and have made it to adulthood and now want answers as to why they are not quite right. We hear all of your B.S. and really think you should stick it. We want it stopped and WE ya we want answers not blablabla

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Stuckinit, it would appear you are not interested in answers, only anecdotes. How can you say you want answers when you openly decry "evidence, investigation, and proof" - the very things that you use to arrive at answers? Why do you think the scientific community has concluded that bendictin is not linked to these birth defects and other maladies? Because the preponderance of evidence would conclude otherwise.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, just as an example of how easy it is for folk -- this includes any and all members of the scientific community too, who may be considered experts in their field, but not at expressing themselves and their works' efforts correctly -- to talk at crossed purposes, your final sentence in #294 directly opposes that of your penultimate sentence, i.e., the import of your finale is that, the preponderance of evidence would conclude that Bendectin IS responsible for abnormalities! Now if this [your final statement] was presented in court as evidence having come from not just one, but several experts, the judge, if he/she et al. weren't on the ball, then the court's finding could be arrived at from simply having been led up that garden path_ological, would you not agree? Stuckinit wants answers, as myriad folk do, and the answer to these abnormalties' causations may have already been laid bare, but has since been obscured by folk simply misinterpreting the 'evidence' [read as: 'each other'], c'OZ' that's what's involved here, "each other"...nonetheless.

My belief is that the scientific community hasn't concluded with this issue entirely. Someone ''scientific" out there will still be looking into it with much int_ent'erprise. That's the core meaning of science [feeding on hope] at work!

All the best to one and all from Down Under, and go easy on that cranberry sauce y'all...y'hear?!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

ILP, Guess I would ask when you would consider the evidence sufficient? For some perhaps never. For the medical community the question was pretty well laid to rest, at least as far as birth defects are concerned. But of course all answers are not known, and the quest is ongoing.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Hey ILP, I got a question for you,what's the proper use of the word ain't, or is it even a word,some say it is not,most spell it wrong (aint). People up north say they never heard of it, oh ya, by north I mean the north east part of the U.S.A.Where I am from we use ain't all the time. Sounds kinda hooser the northers say, example.... I ain't going to run,,,,, you ain't the foremen on the job. What's proper? Well, proper for americans to say.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, in trying to answer your question, I can only say that, for me, "evidence" relates to that which is evident, or obvious, and as I'm sure you well know already, we humans are legend for missing the bleedin' obvious. We're "past masters" at it. P'haps c'OZ' we're only human, after all's said and done!

W.E., it's an interesting point you raise regarding the word *ain't*. Anyone who chooses to use it in conversation or text should do so without any concern as to whether it's proper or not. It's been in regular use for at least 150 years, and not just in the south of the U.S.A., therefore, it's stood the test of time, and still holding its own with the best of them. The only trouble with using it, and many other words too, is if the people hearing or reading it have never heard it [or other words] before, and have no way at all of finding out what is meant by its use. *Ain't* already has many different meanings and may gain some more in time to come. If you Google *ain't* on Wikipedia's free encyclopedia you'll find plenty of info about it. *Ain't* ain't such a bad word after all. It actually fits in sometimes where no other word could better take its place. I have found the English language to be a very precarious thing indeed, whether it's used properly or improperly. Any other language is possibly the same. We are very fortunate to have the means with which to communicate, whether it's around a table or the around the world. Our capital city, Perth, Western Australia, is known as "The City of Light", thanks to John Glenn's orbiting the Earth in Feb, 1962, so that he could see us from outer space as he went around. We turned them on again for him in the Space Shuttle, 36 years later in 1998. It was also good to hear astronaut Neil Armstrong say, from the moon: "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed!"

John Glenn still *ain't* offered to help pay some of my electric power bill either! {:o)

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Thank you for trying to educate the people, but for the affected folks here trying to discuss side effects and issues regarding the drug prescribed to unsuspecting expectant mothers... I myself fell it is very important to try to caution against the POSSIBILITY that all of these afflictions MAY be linked to the use of anti nausea pills. Seeing that many othersw here are also saying that they have children and in many families it sounds like the affected ones just happen to be the pregnancy that they used the drug. Absolutely it can be a million different things that have created these issues, a chemical reaction in the whomb? Allergy to the child, who knows but what I want to ask is why not reduce the risk by not including a pill that MAY have adverse reactions, different in each case!? I sympathize with the ladies that get so sick they cant function and I wish there was a safe answer as simple as pop a little pill but a life full of questions that seem to have no answer is equally as unbearable.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I took the drug. I still think that there is a problem with the drug. My son at 32 is having problems. I think it could effect something in the brain.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I took Benedectine in 1977 while pregnant for my first son. He was born with an undescended testicle and had to have it corrected at 12 weeks along with a hernia. By the age of 8, after a terrible infection, it was found that he had an extra ureter and had to have corrective surgery by the time he was 10. His children, if he has any, have a 70 per cent chance of having this renal problem, otherwise, he is perfect, thank God, but I wish I had known about the possible dangers.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

During pregnancy 40 yrs ago I was prescribed Bendectin. Caused urinary groos defects in my child. He has many physical l...

7 REPLIES

I am wondering if there are any women who have completed their suggested doses of Accutane and had children later. Have ...

10 REPLIES

My best friend is 4 months pregnant and she already took 24 tablets of primulot nor 10mg. That was 2pcs. twice daily for...

5 REPLIES

Fell pregnant whilst taking Extine what are some of the birth defects this medication can cause ? ## Hello, Marni! How a...

1 REPLY

im pregnant and hurting will it hurt the baby??? ## First, based on the imprint code which you posted, the drug which yo...

1 REPLY

I took Bendectin in 1978 for 7 months of morning sickness. My daughter has Addisons disease, an auto-immune condition, a...

15 REPLIES

nausea drug during pregancy ## I was pregnant with my daughter in 1974-75. My Dr. prescribed Bendectine because my nause...

5 REPLIES

I was born in Chicago in 1978, and my mother had taken Bendectin. Like many other pregnant women during that time, she w...

4 REPLIES

used for morning sickness. Discontinued around 1973. Why? ## I was born in1967 my left foot was severely deformed. There...

2 REPLIES

In 1970 I took Bendectin for morning sickness. My daughter developed type one diabetes at age 7. I've read a lot of ...

4 REPLIES