Bendectin And Birth Defects (Page 19)

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

My mother took the drug Benedictine during her pregnancy with me in the 70's. I was born with only one kidney and other problems! Is there a lawsuit currently being pursued or is there any contact info on this?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Gemnibenji, Don't know if you're interested in statistics, but approximately one in every 750 live births today have only a solitry kidney - pretty common. I don't know what other health problems you suffer from. Many, many lawsuits were brought against the manufacturer, none resulting in a judgement against. You can read through the earlier posts here for some discussions about them and some of the science.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, I've found something that not just shows, but proves beyond all doubt whatsoever that, we must be very sceptical about blindly accepting cited statistics, redacted research, etc. Shades of "Nullius in verba". And please don't take my word as being gospel either, c'OZ' it's highly evident that fossicking folk just ain't all singing from the same hymnshe_et'iological.

Here's an extract from Wiki's "Phocomelia" page under the "Thalidomide" heading. It's a prime example of a "non sequitur". I marvel [never forgetting that "marvel"(and "monster") comes from the Greek: *teratos*, "terato"genic etc.] as to whomsoever it was that cobbled it together, and I also marvel [or wonder, should you prefer] as to how many so-called experts from myriad medical/scientific/literary fields have read it and did not take pains to question and correct its absurdity, as it is a highly risible reporting effort on someone's[singular or plural] part.

Here it is verbatim:
----------------
"...Research also proves that although phocomelia was non-existent through the 40's and 50's, by the time the drug was released in Germany in the 60's, cases of phocomelia amplified; the direct cause was linked to thalidomide.[4] The statistic was given that 50% of the mothers with deformed children had taken thalidomide during the first trimester of pregnancy. Throughout Europe, Australia, and the United States, 10,000 cases were reported of infants with phocomelia; only 50% of the 10,000 survived. [...]"
------------------

This doth raise some serious questions, no doubt about it.

The main things to focus on here [again from the extract, but this time they're asterisked] are: *Research also proves* that although phocomelia *was non-existent* through *the 40's and 50's*, by the time the drug was released in Germany *in the 60's*, cases of severe phocomelia *amplified*; the direct cause was linked to thalidomide. [4] The statistic was given that *"50% of the mothers with deformed children* had taken thalidomide during the first trimester of pregnancy."[...]

Here's some questions: If phocomelia was non-existent in the 40's and 50's, and statistics clearly stated that all of a sudden in the 60's, only 50% of mothers who'd taken thalidomide in the 1st trimester had children with deformities, with cases of severe deformities having *amplified*, where did the other 50% of presumably genetically-caused deformities suddenly spring from? But more specifically, why did it? Did this as-yet-unexplained 50% of non-drug-caused teratogenicity spring from a purely genetic cause? I very much doubt it! And we'll rule out actual physical trauma to the many wombs from road accidents, falls, etc., as having caused this other 50% since the statistics has made no mention of such. If something is said to have *amplified*, then there must have been at least some vestige of it initially from which to *amplify* it, yet it was clearly said to be non-existent!

My belief is that, if a person -- or a body of them -- is/are unable to explain things cogently, thereby raising serious suspicion, then it's "London to a brick" [or Thornaby/Stockton-on-Tees to a trickle] that the putative acuminous research -- from which the redacted reportage resoundingly results -- is just as highly suspect, if not more so, and so it should be.

I have a sneaking suspicion that, because the figure of 50% was cited twice in the article's extract, involving two different statistics on the same subject [teratogenesis], "Murphy" has raised his ugly little head once again to obfuscate things like only he can...as is his w_ont'ogeny.

We're maintaining a vigil.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

ILP, with due respect, if you read the begining of the Wiki entry (which I know you did, but failed to quote), it mentions that Phocomelia was coined in 1836. So clearly it existed in the 1940's and 50's. A rare genetic disorder linked to autosomal recessive genes. It was clearly linked to thalidomide, as the entry author notes. I'm not certain what to make of comment that 50% of the mothers had exposure to thalidomide (and hence your assertion that 50% did not and "sprung up") except to say if you check the citation it is a single author in the "Oxford Companion to the Body" in a section about thalidomide. There are no further citations of studies or statistics so it difficult to conclude anything. I would further point out that since thalidomide was pulled off the market phocomelia remains a rare disorder, so the "fifty percent" doesn't seem to have any basis in statistical rigor. Compare that to the connections that have been suggested here between bendictine and a myriad of disorders, all of which continue at essentially the same rate despite the fact that the drug was long ago pulled from the market.

Having beliefs is important and good. But they shouldn't obscure evidence. Our recent Congressional candidate "believed" that women who were "legitimately" raped could "shut down" and prevent themselves from becoming pregnant. His belief doesn't make it so.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, well said, but when you say that thalidomide was pulled from the market, that is only on a grand scale, and remember that, at one stage, it was once an over-the-counter drug, possiby explaining the reason why cases of thalidomide embryopathy continue to this very day, apparently. It's still prescribed for cancer and leprosy etc., supposedly with "stringent scrutiny", but just like Mandy Rice-Davies[a call girl], who was embroiled in the Profumo affair said -- when it was put to her by prosecuting counsel that Lord Astor not only denied having had an affair with her but also even having ever met her -- "Well he would, wouldn't he?", meaning, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" Just as the so-called experts say that they're always ultra-careful with whatever it is that they're messing around with at the time, be it drugs or nuclear reactors, I could just as facilely say that I'm very careful with each and every alphabetical letter that I tap out on this keyboard, and we all know that that's just yours truly paying a licentious lip service on my p_art'ifice. Just how careful can one be with something as potent as thalidomide? Don't try to answer that one c'OZ' it's entirely rhetori_cal'culated.

Has anyone ever thought about introducing your Congessional candidate to the meanings and utility of "memetics" and "reification"? The latter especially would give him a "solid grounding" in whatever it is that drives him to say the things he says I'm sure. Here's a question that you can have a stab at if you're feeling facetious. Given that the congressional candidate is clearly trying to drive a concrete-hard bar_gain'saying all the while, could a body ever, by way of being inoculated with a special se_rum'ble strip, become immune to a polemic politician as infectious as the aforementioned one is to folk in the stre_et'hnic?

Whilst there may be others, the only female of the species -- that I see on a near daily basis -- I know of that can shut down becoming pregnant, is she of the Australian kangaroo, and it's all contingent on the availability or lack of feed[grass]. If feed's plentiful, she'll have one in the womb, one in the pouch, and another on the hoof alongside her simultaneously. If she had two pouches she'd fill that with a joey too. But if we have a drought, all the male roos in Australia couldn't get her pregnant, even if they tried to "feed her a line"...just like your "in posse" politician's doing over your way. Does he leave pregnant pauses between each of his silly statements in order to assess if his aspired-for constituents all await eagerly with bated breath pushing for more of his deliveries? I just remembered, that "Little Old Lady from Pasadena" could shut 'em down, according to the Beach Boys...but she'd give 'em a length first of course.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Hi so i am 36 have had rheumatic fever ..Paricharditis SVT and aortic insufficiency Degenearative Back Disease Slipped disk in neck and back Antiphospolipid syndrome Raynauds Some abnormality with my uterus.. Problems with my feet bunionectomy by the age of 14 and have been told since than i have extra bones in mjy feet..Have miscarried once and a tubal.. The docs have never been able to understand why i have had so many ailments at such a young age.. I am very smart in someways not so much in others mechanically i suck.. And if you r reading this i cant put sentences together worth anything.. I believe my mother took this med for all of her 4 kids.. Need i mention my sister just had back surgery.. And her daughter has major eye issues blind in one eye and just had surgery..And my brother who is 31 Had really bad asthma growing up ... His daughter just had surgery for SVT My oldest brother had eye surgery when he was a kid..So if anyone can give me ideas where to go for more info?? I told my doctor the other day if i cld just find out why i have all these ailments it wld help me understand it more...

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

On exactly what irrefutable basis is it thought, and therefore could be but cogently posited, that placentas, 'across'[more later] the board[ed], are fungible? We already know that many folk have, for whatever reason[more so those "stemming" from an idiopathic etiology], organs that are considered to be deficient to some degree from that which is considered "normal" in mankind. Methinks that believing all placentas to have carried out[and will continue to do so without fail] their function equipotentially is no different from the ideations of a child at its sensorimotor stage in life thinking that just because a barrier, like a screen, has been placed 'across' the child's field of view to obscure the object[toy] that was previously in view, then the child will believe that the object[or potential TeratOgenicitY, if you like] is nonexistent. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Richard Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must avoid fooling themselves. Whilst cargo should be carried and secured with a protective barrier, like a baby in the womb, said cargo and barrier need be continually checked in transit until deli_very carefully.

"Cogito ergo sum". "I think, therefore I am_niotic". - with apologies to Rene Descarte.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, further to your #367 post about "phocomelia" being coined in 1836, and phocomelia supposedly being linked to a genetic disorder, perhaps so, but unfortunately there's no proof either way that this putative genetic disorder didn't actually have as its genesis the high probability that folk in that epoch were taking some known to be very dangerous and/or very dubious potions to cure ailments, some of which were probably innocuous, but just looked and/or felt pernicious. Accordingly, the alchemists having open slather back then, and in their fervently trying to get "in the $wim", may have done more damage to the genetic "pool" than was worth the bo_ther'apeutically. Oh what a tangl_ed'ifying Web we we_ave'r!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

There's an interesting article in the "Health" section of "New Scientist" about how fetal DNA -- after crossing the placenta -- can enter and remain in a mother's brain for decades - a phenomenon called "fetal microchimerism".

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, here's something to ponder on at your leisure. Considering that the mechanism of microchimerism is purported to be not fully understood, what is the possibility of any drug -- even one such as[you guessed it..err..them, in their guilded guise] Bendectin/Debendox/Diclectin -- altering the genetic makeup of the fetal migrant cells in the maternal host before they return[if they in fact do] to the fetus.

It may well be true that an antiemetic, or many another drug, does not itself cross the placenta to cause any teratogenicity for the simple reason that certain drugs -- if not myriad of them -- are able to do their damage outside the womb and are therefore able to dodge any etiological blame -- sought by any serious but still natally-nescient investigative inquiry -- with an alchemical alibi, per a vicarious vice-visceral if you like. These contaminants could even derive from foods with vestiges of powerful and pernicious chemicals used in growing them. Another thing to think about is how times do these cells migrate back and forth with their updated genetic information[malformation?] during the one gestation period? These cells' transitions across the plac_enta'ilment conjure up thoughts not dissimilar to Lewis and Clark on their Voyage of Discovery, ie, babes in the wo_od'yssey. Although it is said that one must never shoot the messenger[DNA, (mRNA?)], it appears that it may be wise, in some cases, to diverge from this adage somewhat, but how will one ever know just which one to dispose of...and of course, just when, and more particularly...exact_ly'tically how?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

On reading "The Implications of General Electric v. Joiner for Admissibility of Expert Testimony" it soon becomes evident that no court of law should ever be expected and entirely entrusted to -- without error -- determine the veracity of opposing scientific experts' complex evidence. To place such blind faith-forensic is quite analogous with that very-well-known parlous undertaking of knowingly sending a boy on a man's er_*randan*. It would, therefore, in many cases, be decidely more beneficial to all concerned if the law courts participated in desisting 'en bloc' from ever trying to stick their oar in when it's manifest that to do so could only assist them to get themselves into too deep a wa_ter'tium quid.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

My Monther took the Drug while pregnant with me in 1979, and until this very monoment we thought I was completely unafected. However I have recnetly started doing some indepth research about ADHD in adults and am noting many s/s that have gone unrecognised until now. This drug was linked to hyperatvivity disorders and because I have managed for 33 years to cope an dorganise my every move we never made the connection until now. I too graduated top of my calss and am a fairly attractive medical professional who also happened to have been diagnosed with cervical displaisa after my second child. Wow, this is mind blowoing
PS: my duahgter was born with club foot...I wander how many generations could be effected?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

There's a very interesting article in the breaking news section of "NewsDaily", entitled: "Work just beginning as drugmakers put Nobel discoveries to test", posted 10/10/2012 at 4:46pm EDT. Hopefully, the work of the two Nobel laureates in chemistry -- Dr. Brian Kobilka and his mentor, Dr. Robert Lefkowitz -- is soon able to unlock still-sought-for important information about Bendectin/Debendox/Diclectin, among myriad other drugs' mantled mysteries. The import of the cited news article seriously raises the queasy question yet again: To exactly what decided degree is the seemingly-fungible placid placenta still deemed to be intrinsically impervious to any and all artificial assailing agents that habitually hanker to attack vulnerable fetuses? This is a question that'd definitely jade the judicious, some of whom are even known to reck not their own rede.

In respect of these two Nobel laureates' indefatigable work, and the resultant findings now exposed at a molecular level, longtime drug researcher Sid Topiol said, "This is what people have been awaiting for years."

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Heather, I'm not sure what it is specifically that you find mind-blowing but I do hope that whatever it is it'll aid you with your want to continue further researching ADHD in adults. Your 33 years of having your shoulder to the wheel certainly evinces that it's ever-so-true when they say that: "Persistence is the key". Bravo!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

In 1978 I took Bendictine with my first born, for about 5 months of the pregnancy. My son was born with a slight form of celebral palsy, had a heart murmur, took seizures, had difficulty in walking, at age 4 had to have the achellie tendon stretched, has no fine motor skills on the left side, has had to have orthotics most of his adult life, now at age 34 has just been diagnosed with number 4 and 5 vertabrae fused together and is being scheduled for surgery! I used to wonder if this drug that was stopped in early 1980"s had anything to do with his disabilities.....guess I have gotten some answers to that here on this forum!!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Sara, sorry, but you are mistaking a few observations as evidence for an association that doesn't exist. It is my observation that the Sun rotates around the Earth on a daily basis but that doesn't make it so. If I were to observe that I was born with a heart murmur and my mother drank orange juice while she was pregnant with me should I then conclude that OJ causes heart murmurs? No doubt if I posted that I had a murmur and my mother drank OJ while pregnant I would find a few hundred people who could make the same association. In fact I would bet with some certainty that of the people suffering from the myriad of problems listed on this site by a few hundred people (birth defects, cerebral palsy, personality disorders, behavioral problems, migraines, chronic pain, autism, etc), a much higher percentage were exposed to orange juice in utero then were exposed to bendictin. All the disorders listed occur at the same rate (or even higher) today, long after the medication has been withdrawn from the market. As I have listed elsewhere in this discussion board, the scientific community has examined the evidence and no association between these diseases and bendictin has been found. Heather reports that bendictin has been linked with ADHD but I can find no such studies and have never before heard of such a link (beyond discussion boards, which again, do not constitute science). Please, I'd be interested in any published peer reviewed research.

ILP, to address your question regarding microchimerism, the process of fetal cells crossing the placenta and implanting in the mother (and vice-versa) and persisting for years (decades) and the potential implications for any untoward effect of bendictin, I'm not really sure what to say. The signficance of microchimeric cells is not known and only just being studied. I'm not clear on what implications you think exist and certainly most anything is possible, but again, it's also possible that the microchimeric cells render the fetus susceptible to the teratogenic effect of the aforementioned orange juice - I just think the latter is extremely unlikely and probably just slightly less likely than the former.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, welcome back, I thought your computer might have bitten the dust or something worse besides. If, hypothetically, Bendectin did lower tolerance to orange juice, resulting in fetal malformations, then it [the drug per se] musn't be absolved entirely from having to face the music, even if it was, prima facie, thought that the OJ was the only culprit. The antiemetic may have catalysed with the OJ, and/or something else, to cause deformities. Rememeber that sodium and chloride, on their own, are potentially very dangerous, but together, and in the right proportion, constitute salt. It's not simply a case of blaming Merrell Dow's boffins, but if a drug is culpable for pernicious side-affects, then it must be held to account, and so too anyone who strives to maintain that the errant drug is innocuous. There's a thing called "Proximate cause"[Wiki], and it may well, in time, be found to apply to not only Bendectin, but some other drugs too, in respect of these drugs having done things far[or slightly] removed from what is considered therapeutic in the eyes of the law/medicine. And if these drugs are found to be fully at fault, it still doesn't, and won't necessarily, prove that the particular drug was dangerous with every person who took/takes it. Australia's Taipan is supposed to be the most venomous snake in the world, yet not every person, even when bitten badly by one, has met his/her Waterloo, so are we to infer from these folk's lucky streak that Taipans' venom is no stronger than root beer, and that those who have succumbed were but of a weak disposition? Some that did die may well have succumbed purely from panic and not solely due to the venom at all, but the law would still rule that the death resulted from snake bite[proximate cause], and it'd be very difficult, or but academic, to attempt proving otherwise. As long as there's an official finding then everyone's supposed to go home happy thinking that the matter's been settled. But has It? I've still got my porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa, and I'll wager I'm no orphan.

With respect, apart from stating that she's found some answers on this forum, Sara hasn't actually specified anything conclusive either way.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I too have had trouble finding actual scientific proof of the ADHD link, as you said other than in discussion boards. the actual curiosity however came from a conversation in 1984. when my mother asked her doctor for the drug during pregnancy with my sister. the doctor explained that it had been taken off the market do to a link to hyperactivity disorders; this could however simply be here say.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

ILP,
While the bite of the Taipan may not fell everyone, the venom has been demonstrated as a toxin, there's a clear mechanism by which it works, and there's a clear association between the bite and death. Some people live happy lives smoking cigarettes in to their 100's, but the preponderance of evidence and scientific research has demonstrated clear links to COPD, various cancers, blood clots, and other diseases. You have raised thalidomide which clearly doesn't cause birth defects in all, and in fact the events are rare enough that it took a while to notice the association at first, but then, when studied, the link was demonstrated by science and statistics and multiple plausible mechanisms exist whereby thalidimide could have a teratogenic effect. None of these things can be said for bendictin. In fact, when statistics are properly applied no link has been demonstrated - the effects in question do not occur with greater frequency. Now you have suggested that only a subset of women (and their fetuses) may be susceptible to the effect and it's virtually immposible to disprove the theory (or at least I lack the in-depth knowledge of statistics to do so), but in the final analysis since exposure to the drug does not cause birth defects (or any other disease) at a rate any different than women who were not exposed to the drug how can you conclude that there is any impact? There is a new frontier in cancer therapy where chemotherapy will be tailored to your particular cancer (based on gene sequencing) rather than simply breast cancer, in general, for example. This is what you're aluding to, I believe, and some day we may be able to predict who will have a rash with some antibiotics and who will have life threatening reactions to immunizations, heart medications, etc. Medicine will be safer, no doubt.

I don't intend to put words in Sara's mouth, but the clear implication from "I used to wonder but now I have answers from this forum" is that the conclusions drawn here by a few are fact, when there is nothing factual about the statements at all.

In the meantime Jimmy Hoffa is dead, so I would advise doing the green thing and turning your porch light out at night to save a little electricity!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, I haven't concluded anything, and methinks there's "no need"[not to be confused with " known need" sound familiar?] to. We mustn't place too much store in statistics either, and apart from the fact that facts can be so easily fudged[see Richard Feynman on Millikan's "Oil Drop Experiment" Wiki] and indeed are, there's always good ol' lies, damned lies, and statistics to bring up the re_ar'gumentation. In respect of Thalidomide, just because it may have been prescribed by a qualified doctor and dispensed by a qualified pharmacist doesn't prove that in all cases that the now-known teratogen was actually ingested by all those unfortunate women experiencing what was thought -- but not necessarily proven -- to be only pregnancy nausea. What if some -- if not all -- of those women who had/have children with deformities were actually suffering from some other entirely different ailment on its own, or in concert with pregnancy nausea? I've toughed out ailments in the past for quite a time only to eventually seek a nostrum from the doctor at the 11th hour, as a last resort, but then been granted a rapid reprieve, resulting in my not actually having taken the pains[pun intended] to begin the course of drugs. When I didn't report again to the doctor for that particular ailment, which I didn't, since I was cured, then the drug company, via any missive from the doctor/pharmacist, might well assume that their drug is efficacious, but I didn't actually take any??!!! Accordingly, if my having purchased the drug was recorded somewhere that I actually took the drug until I finshed the course, then whatever was recorded was pure bunkum. It's well-known that the body can and does effect its own repair, not dissimiliar to the old dictum: "Physician, heal thyself!" I don't think medicine will ever be safer. Perhaps it'll be more predictable, but never safer. We are told that putative authorities are making things safer today, like motor vehicles and road rule requirements, but fatalities and injuries escalate like there ain't no tomorrow. Nature will do whatever she can to thin out/encumber the population. I think she's closely related to Murphy.

Mankind will forever try to push the envelope to its limits as it's in his/her nature to do so.Taking what you said about your lacking the in-depth knowledge of statistics[which goes for me too] as a prime example, when scientists conduct their individual[supposedly] experiments, if they ever take even one statistic/measurement/finding, however minute, from another scientist's work as being gospel, and it's not, because it is flawed in some small way, then the practising scientist's results will not be exact. He'll/she'll swear black and blue that they are correct [because everything he's done is deemed correct] until you're able to show them that they've based their findings on but dubitable trust in an esteemed scientist who's gone before, or their own psychological effect[subjectivity] has come into play somewhere corrupting the results. A prime example of this is with a normal single-cylinder reciprocating engine[not the Scotch Yoke engine]. Just about every guy[even some mechanical engineers] who's messed about with engines all their lives [and think they know 'em inside out], when asked exactly where in the cylinder bore will the piston be when the flywheel is rotated 90 degrees[clockwise or counter-clockwise, it doesn't differ] from TDC[top dead centre], will tell you that the piston will be exactly halfway[50%] down. Because they already know that when it's rotated 180 degrees the piston is at BDC[bottom dead centre], they automatically[and foolishly] assume that when it's rotated exactly 90 degrees the piston will have travelled exactly halfway down the bore, which is Bunkum with a capital B. The only way it could ever position itself exactly halfway in cahoots with the flywheel having been rotated exactly 90 degrees is if the connecting rod was of an infinite length, and we don't yet know how to make one of those, let alone have the in-depth knowledge of how to fit one inside an engine. Until these guys are shown the evidence in situ they'll swear black and blue sticking to their gullible guns all the while, and they'll even wager big money trying to convince themselves that what you've said is a fallacy. And you should see their face when the penny drops! They have such a worried look on their face because they then start to think of just how many other things[specifically more complex things than just a simple engine] in their lives might they have errantly assumed to be fact.

Many *p_un'enlightened* folk around the *globe* perhaps know nothing of Jimmy Hoffa[or care], but some still purposely leave their porch light on at night, just to follow suit of what they've seen others do, and for no other reason. When the Jimmy Hoffa concept is explained to them, it does then, for them, tend[care] to throw a whole new *light* on things, due to their now -- not p_unlike for Jimmy -- having been given the *g_lowdown*!

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