Bendectin And Birth Defects (Page 21)

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

Well I hate to throw off a debate of emotion and conjecture with science and logic, but here goes: For starters, of 26 law suits brought against the manufacturer 22 were found for the defendant and the 4 that were for the plantiff were eventually overturned - the manufacturer did not, in fact, pay. But that's hardly evidence one way or another as juries are a crap shoot. But here's some science: From Can Fam Physician Feb 2011 "Long term neurodevelopment of children exposed to maternal nausea/vomiting and diclectin". Conclusion - "No difference in children exposed to diclectin". What was interesting is that the authors note what appears to be a correlation with the degree of nausea/vomiting and improved neuro-cognitive functioning. Reproductive Toxicology Vol 9 1995: Review of extensive literature pertaining to reproductive and teratogenic effects, expert opinions from both plantiff and defense witnesses, epidemiologic studies, animal studies, in vitro studies, basic science studies, review articles, meta analysis, editorials, case reports. Conclusion: "Five-part analysis indicates therapeutic use has no measurable teratogenic effects. Moreover plantiffs experts failed to meet scientific standards that should be expected of knowledgeable scientists." This article is a really good one and goes into some in-depth discussion of statistics which most people posting here simply don't understand. So sorry, but your one doctor on the stand doesn't meet muster. And also sorry to report that with regards to teratogenic effects such as club feet, no drug has had its teratogenic potential studied greater than bendictin and the conclusion of the scientific community is that there is no effect. In fact The American College of Gynecology, The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Candada, and the internationally recognized Motherisk Program all currently recommend Vitamin B6 plus doxylamine (the ingredients of bendictin) as first-line therapy for pregnancy related nausea/vomiting.

Now a bit of logic: since bendictin was removed from the market has the prevalence of the teratogenic problems purported to be secondary to the medication decreased? Answer: No Has the prevalence of mental disorders decreased over that same period? Answer: No. In fact mental disease has increased signficantly, though we certainly could debate whether these diseases are more common or simply diagnosed more frequently. Regardless, seems safe to say they are not less common.

So you may choose to blame yourself, but it's not supported by the facts, and I don't think it's helping much.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtrodic, I find what you brought out, and your opinion is quite interesting and even the things you state that you have also concluded your opinion from.
What I stated---my opinion and post from was an online verdict and actual court document. I do not have time right not to look it up, but if I have time I will post it later. I think its in my bookmarks.
According to the court document the doctor they called to the stand only quoted the studies done that far which was about 1980-81. It proved that it caused kids to be club footed..... nothing about anything else, but it stated there was proof Bendectin caused with its combinations of mixtures of B6 ect, it caused....... club footed babies.
Today, I want to see the statistics and the studies that was made from too, but it was or it wouldn't have been accepted into court. Until I do see the proof with my own eyes, I cannot see that it has been proven other wise.
I will get over blaming my self or carry it with me the rest of my life, but I can't get over the fact what my daughter has went through. Depression etc I've went through is just a part of life for everyone.

You are quoting medical opinions and articles, not actual studies done of others (real people), not the exact backing of the proof per persons claim or situations. I believe that there are hundreds of people that have been effected by this drug, for what ever reason the pharmaceuticals gives it has not taken a toll of each persons circumstances and made studies from that, or else people would have said so. I see nothing that anyone that has been effected ever mentioned they were part of a study.
And if I was, I could give them what proof I have. Hundreds of people have the proof if someone would just look beyond the previous studies to make new studies. This is not all about whether I blame my self or not. Its about the countless kids that suffered from it. The pregnant women that when they took this drug the believed it was safe and would not harm their babies Sure many women didn't have many choices but to take it to keep from being dehydrated, as I did too. But there are other was. Had I known that ginger relieved nausea I might have tried that, as would other women had they not believed Bendectin was safe. You can write a million articles, so can a zillions of other Pharmaceutical companies, and lawyers on Bendectin, but from the ones I have seen online that were affected, and the people I have chatted with online show problems of kids (some have even posted their own photos of their deformities) that suffered from it.... (real people). And it is obvious to hundreds online, not just a bunch of jurors that may have been drunk the night before and thought their verdict just wasn't important to them and wanted to get it over with. Or for whatever reason they came to the conclusions. But many people see they had problems. Hundreds of mothers that rocked their babies and felt the same self blame I felt, that something was wrong, never knowing where to turn or maybe some continually asked themselves "WHY". No doctor would admit it was the medication, as doctors see it as a bigger help than a hindrance. Doctors get kick backs from prescriptions companies. I know that is a fact. So why would they disagree. So presently, there are no answers. There are no ways of any other proof than what they did years ago, if there is then why isn't it public of links to go to on this site, or the other sites like this one, even other court documents anywhere. All any of us really want is honest proof!!!! And I feel the proof is hidden, just as many mothers feel there is a reason they can't reach out and touch it but they feel it is what caused their kids disabilities. Like reaching for a hidden light switch in the dark, and its not there. I don't mean to make this a discussion or such, just an explanation of why I too feel like it caused my daughter to be in the shape she is. When we spent out hundreds of dollars on leg braces, corrective shoes, bone doctors for her feet, our insurance paid for it. We kept wondering "WHY" she had this problem. No other ancestors had flat feet, club feet etc. I was athletic her dad was athletic, we couldn't see why, so we grasped for every reason because we had (no documented true proof). We blamed ourselves and each other because (we had no proof). We felt it but we couldn't prove it, and many affected still can't. Over the last few months I have researched it online, in seeing other photos of kids with mis-formed feet, and legs. I feel my daughter got of lucky to what some I've seen. But still she suffered too. My other child has too but not as much. There are millions of kids with deformities born weekly, and have been since millions of years ago. That we can also take into consideration, but I just pray there was a way to see some (real proof) in black and white, besides the simple stuff on the internet... to see actual names and faces that have been through it too, and each name be provide to the pharmaceutical company to re consider it. That is what I feel needs to be done. But will it?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

It's unlikely that we'll ever know -- unless perhaps some conscientious insider one day blows the whistle -- if any other temporarily-trialled ingredient was ever covertly compounded along with the Pyridoxine, Doxylamine *and/or*[n.b.] Dicyclomine[especially so when Dicyclomine's inclusion was discontinued], the 3 ingredients that originally constituted Bendectin when it was first introduced to the U.S. market in 1956. It's reported that the third ingredient, Dicyclomine, was not omitted from the formulation until 20 years later in 1976 due to its deemed lack of efficacy, making one seriously wonder why it was not only permitted to be included in first placenta..err..first place, but far more importantly, why it took so long for its being found to be considered inefficacious regarding pregnancy nausea, given that Dicyclomine is listed as being a Pregnancy Category B antispasmodic. 20 years is a long time for a prescribed ingredient to finally show itself up as being inefficacious where such a serious ongoing concern as pregnancy nausea then existed and still does no less. It almost seems that they discontinued using dicyclomine because their supply of it dried up unexpectedly rather than they finally, not to mention diligently[sshh], after 20 long years, sussed-out its inefficacy!

I wonder if there exists somewhere -- just gathering cobwebs like old vehicles and sofas in disused barns -- some of the very first batches of not only Bendectin, but also its commercially concocted cousins, being, Debendox, Diclectin, Lenotan and Merbental. The reason I say this is because it's been disclosed that U.S. health regulators were aware in 2002 that steroid treatments from the New England Compounding Center could cause adverse patient reactions, and 10 years later in 2012, news reports of an outbreak of fungal meningitis surfaced and has been tied to the very same Compounding Center. It could have been 20 years again so I suppose things are starting to look up a bit since it's only been a mere 10 years this time around!

Here's an interesting excerpt I found which relates in no small way to the above:

-- In recent years, raw materials are increasingly obtained from foreign suppliers. Large drug companies, which are FDA inspected, must keep careful track of who has handled raw materials, whilst compounding pharmacies, some so large that they resemble commercial manufacturers, are not bound by similar guidelines. In 2011 the FDA was concerned about the suspected use of unapproved Chinese ingredients in an injectable medication used to reduce the risk of premature birth, but they were refused a sample for testing. Instead, the trade group, the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists, suggested in an email to the compounding pharmacy that they respond to any requests for samples by saying: "We do not compound or distribute 'samples' of any of our prescription medications to anyone." They went on to advise that if the drug was on the premises, a pharmacist should say it was awaiting pickup by a patient.

This doesn't seem to make sense because if the compounding pharmacy states that it doesn't compound anything, then by its own admission it's not a compounding pharmacy. Methinks if the FDA desires samples from any reluctant and recalcitrant compounding pharmacy then they should merely create within their ranks some pseudo patients who will pick up selected samples for analysis, or simply recruit some willing and trustworthy participants from the public. They may well have already undertaken such methods and intend continuing in same vein. I hope so!

If at all possible, a sample of anything ever likely to be deemed pernicious to humans should be obtained and stored away for future reference. There are ways of cutting through red tape -- where the provision of samples are mandatory -- that we must always be wary of, and here's one prime example. A retired hydraulics engineer whom I know told me of the time long ago, just after WWII in fact, when he was working for a very well known aircraft manufacturer in the UK, and on this particular day he was tasked with taking and submitting a sample of a prototypical airframe component to the UK's Dept of Aviation, as was stringently required by law. Unbeknownst to him, given that it was his very first time being tasked with having to transport a component sample the long distance into the city from his company's factory, he was supposed to take two sample pieces of the same component in order that one piece could be tested immediately, if deemed necessary[but rarely ever was in those days], and the other piece kept intact for future reference should the particular aircraft using said component ever come to grief in the future. Because he only took one sample piece of the component with him, which was a stanchion, and upon finally arriving at the Dept's office and being told in no uncertain terms that his single sample was unacceptable as it was a statutory requirement that he provide two pieces, he was then facing the ordeal of having to travel all the way back to the factory to obtain another piece, which he didn't want to do, and his company was wanting to obtain approval on this stanchion as soon as possible, as he well knew. So what did he do? He went to the nearest hardware store, purchased a hacksaw, cut the stanchion very neatly in half, then whilst holding his best poker face, submitted both pieces to a different employee, took receipt of the officially stamped approval, then went on his merry way. I have noticed on the odd occasion that Ron considers himself to be a "cut" above the "rest" ever since his regaling me with that day's little escapa_de'vious!

My mother said that she only took just a few doses of only one lot of prescribed Debendox, and because she didn't like them, she returned the remainder to the pharmacist and told him of her dislike, but she could have quite easily retained the vestige, and probably should have. One can't be too careful sometimes. We know that doctors always tell us to finish the course of prescribed medication, and whilst it is sound advice to do so in one respect, if you ever suffer problems with any medication and can't finish it, then securely retain whatever remains leftover as it may be all you have to easily aid you in adducing evidence in litigation.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Linda,
How ironic that you state I'm quoting "opinion and articles" and you have "proof" of real people. In fact what you have is anecdote, which is not proof at all and merely coincidence, and what I have quoted is the results from scientific research (and provided the citations) which sometimes is bench science, but in most instances is based on 'real people' which is an analysis of data collected in a rigorous manner (some times more rigorous than others, which is why the research is peer reviewed, reanalyzed, repeated, and subjected to meta-analysis). Beyond the research I cited in my previous post I have also cited the results of many other research studies in several other posts. So you say you want to see the proof yourself and I have provided the citations so you can "see it in black and white". I have also provided many times an explination for why anecdotes do not equal "proof". You can read my previous posts if you're interested in understanding the difference between coincidence and research.

As an aside, are you suggesting all doctors get "kick backs from pharmaceuticals"? That, of course, is simply not true. Sure enough physicians and researchers have received payments from drug companies and lawyers - and so have plaintiff "expert witnesses". The researcher who very famously "proved" immunizations caused birth defects later admitted he falsified his data for monetary gain from the plaintiffs. How ironic that decades after that admission and subsequent demonstration of the safety and efficacy of routine childhood immunizations, people still reference that article (and children suffer preventable disease).
I'm afraid the fact is that you don't want to blame yourself, you want to blame someone else. It's not your fault (I'm presuming you weren't using drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or other known teratogens), but as you yourself point out, children are born with birth defects every day. Statistically, since club foot occurs in about 1 of every 1000 live births, it would be expected that none of your "ancestors" or other children/family members would be born with club foot, yet your daughter would. That's the difference between anecdote and statistics.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I stumbled upon this because my daughter is dealing with extreme bi polar and other related disorders, I was just wondering what on earth might have contributed to it. I took Bendictine for 5 months in 1973, she was born Feb 1974 and has always had mood swings, since a young child but as an adult has really progressed to a state of suffering. She has three beautiful children all young boys, so as far as I know none have problems, she had none with her reproductive organs as many of you describe. My heart goes out to all these children and moms that wonder like I do, what if something we thought was helping us is what is hurting our kids now.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, No I was not on any other drug. And you refuse to see some things, and just by posting them on here neither makes all thing true or not true, from your point of view or mine. You still did not list any where there is black and white proof, via medical journal, court documents, etc. What do you have on this page for people who have been effected or believe have been effected, either way, from benedctin. Are you just on here to confuse the readers that read this stuff, so they won't believe they are effected. Or have you been (personally) affected by it in any way. If you have then what? It would appear this site is for those effected by it, not those claiming proof it didn't appear to be that way at all. It is neither her or there but I would like to ask this....

If anyone else reads this and you took benedctin.... did you cry, worry, wonder, why you child had problems you couldn't figure out way. And when you found out there was (a slight possibility) it was caused from benedctin you may have in some way blamed yourself. If when you seen this article you felt an inner anger that you couldn't pin point. If you are please reply to this, and say yes I blamed myself or no I didn't. Thanks

emtridoc, You see we mothers that have children that have suffered. We can't go back and analyze it. We can't go back and blame our doctors. My doctor from that time period is dead. But we can keep searching for answers. And if enough people see these articles on bendcitin, they have researched it because they too have that incredible curiosity and intuition that it did something, but we can prove it.... YET! But we ill keep searching for the true answer. And one day it may prove the opposite of what you say is no proof and turn into proof. There are zillions of medications on the market that treat one thing and cause 10 other side effects, but depending on how serious it is most people just up up with the side effects if the initial reason for the medication was justified. Right? Is that what it is. Probably. But we didn't mind it being our side effects of the benedctin. We just feel anger, tears, hatred and bitterness on what it did to our kids. They are more the victims in it than anything else if it is ever proved. Or should I put it as "When it is proved"

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

Sometimes some of us can in fact be taking -- or have already taken -- another entirely different drug than that actually prescribed and itemised on the drug's label. Placebos and nocebos both fit this category and have been used in such fashion for many years quite unbeknownst to the consumers. Just the same as some drugs are deliberately used "off-label", and if they then prove to be sufficiently efficacious, their scope will be widened and they'll then rate a mention in glorious detail, not only in that they are now being declared openly for all to see the fact that this particular drug is now being touted and prescribed for an extra ailment or two, but also about how efficient it is at combatting and quickly resolving anything likely to be pernicious regarding not only the originally prescribed intent but also the nasty newbies, just to help flesh out a good story, and woe betide anyone silly enough to want to get in the way of one of those[a good story that is]!

It's interesting that Linda made mention of "intuition" in her #409 post because courts of law have since long ago created and used this thing called "legal fiction", and it may be considered as being quite counterintuitive *in fact* when it comes to the crunch of having to make a legal finding one way or the other as to how something must be interpreted and then acted upon according to law, as if it is fact when it's clearly not, and in some[many?] cases, never was, and never will be, *in fact*! But it will in law simply because it is very convenient for some people. This procedure therefore doesn't actually make the final decision to be true, but just so. This is exemplified by the ongoing saga surrounding Bendectin and the likelihood of its being teratogenic in any way. If a person can't actually provide evidence of any actual teratogenicity regarding Bendectin and its aforementioned concocted cousins, then some of those persons appointed to work in the courts of law are quite content to state and affirm that the suspect drug didn't, and doesn't, cause any. Now this is really no different to a "legal fiction" in some aspects, one being that it provides opportunity of actually making a finding and not leaving a desired decision up in the air like an open finding, which coronial courts often do as they sometimes quite clearly have no other option. "Legal fictions" should not be extended so as to lead to an unjust result but because they are based on the admission of fiction it's quite possible that they've already led to myriad unjust results many times and will continue so unabated. It's just struck me now that law courts and tiny convenience stores on the corner have a lot in common! Just like when Garrison Keillor was promoting "Ralph's store" and he said: "If you can't find what you want at Ralph's then you can probably get along pretty well without it!" This unfortunately doesn't help those who are presently looking for any teratogenicity in Bendectin etc..

Whilst many jurisdictions in the United States have now abolished the "doctrine of survival" by statute, and Australia's "terra nullius" was finally rejected after much ado, many "legal fictions" will live on to fight another day and stoically serve the very suited purposes that certain people still desperately desire of them.

Some companies have openly admitted that their serums most likely caused some severe abnormalities in some children but because the low percentages of these abnormalities are vastly outweighed by the presumed preventions then governments will continue to permit and encourage immunizations. It's merely a "numbers game", but if this same low number of children who were adversely affected by these immunizations developed gross deformities similar to those caused by thalidomide then the regulators would need to quickly return to the drawing board. If something can go wrong when you're especially up against it, it usually does, as the Japanese soon discovered at Midway! It behooves all of us to remain vigilant where we can, especially so for each and every person who for whatever reason is unable to. Hope is never lost for a just cause. Happy Easter to one and all from Down Under! :o)

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Linda, You're kidding, right?? Again, I listed two peer reviewed medical and scientific journal articles: Canadian Family Physician Feb 2011 and Reproductive Toxicology Vol 9 1995. I have previously cited on this site Cochrane Database Systematic Rewiew 2010 Sep 8 Vol 9, Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2003 Feb; 67(2) 88-97, and Am J Obstetrics and Gynecol 2002 May; 186. I have also referenced several court cases and referenced source material that can be fact checked. These are not my opinions (as oppossed to virtually every other post on here save a few), and I am the only one to bring "black and white proof" to the table as oppossed to conjecture, speculation, and anecdotes.

This site is not for those affected by bendectin (or not, as the case may be), but a discussion board. I stumbled upon it when I was trying to recall the ingredients for a friend who was suffering from morning sickness. I was stunned and somewhat appalled by the misinformation and utter lack of understanding of scientific theory and statistics. My goal is simply to interject some facts into the discussion which largely fall on deaf ears since no one wants to face an inconvenient truth (thank you Al Gore)

In the 1500's Copernicus found evidence that the Sun, not the Earth was at the center of our solar system, but he didn't have "black and white" proof. Later Galileo offered more evidence, but absent the ability to stand on the moon, it wasn't seen as proof. So he was arrested for heresy.

They say ignorance is bliss. Most of the posters here don't sound too blissful.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

emtridoc, the only reason that I've been content to remain in an ever-increasing blissful state of mind is simply because I know that I'm the consummate ignoramus. Rene Descarte, eat your heart out!

I have some info re the "peer review" process. I don't see it as being the be all end all, never have, and neither does Professor Edwina Cornish of Monash University, Melbourne. She said of it that it's "a bit like democracy, a hopeless process, but it's the best we've got." I think we can do better, it's just that it'll take some time yet, and hopefully time that we do in fact possess. She was being interviewed along with 2011 Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry, Dan Shechtman, on The Science Show[ABC Radio National 30 Mar 2013]. She also said that bold ideas that challenge the status quo do not get funded. If someone such as Shechtman had as one of his peers -- and/or mentors -- none other than such an esteemed scientist and dual Nobel Prize winner as Linus Pauling, which Shechtman in fact did, and he[Pauling] was unable to -- for whatever substantive reason -- visualise in his mind something that is an indisputable scientific fact, a fact that won Shechtman a Nobel Prize, then what hope have we in relying on the interpretations of those persons who are supposed to know their onions in their particular field of expertise, but don't, like Linus Pauling didn't regarding Shectman's crystals? Pauling was close with trying to interpret DNA's structure but he saw it as having three and not the but two actual helices that Watson and Crick de-"deuced"[pun intended] it as having. The miss was as good as a mile for Pauling, very close but no cigar. Pauling had the hide to tell Shechtman that he[Shechtman] didn't understand electron microscopy, intimated that he was a quasi scientist, and wanted to banish him from the lab. Copernicus and Galileo had it relatively easy in trying to convince their doubters compared to what Shechtman was up against with Pauling's behaviour towards him. It makes me wonder just what was Pauling so fearful of? He wasn't the only one harbouring fears either because even though Shechtman knew he had "cracked it" with the discovery of quasiperiodic crystals, he took two years to publish the results due to fear of the scientific community's reaction, results which bore him a Nobel Prize no less. Bravo! If it was me I think I'd relish greater the fact that I'd upstaged Pauling than being awarded the Nobel Prize. Perhaps Linus should have given Shechtman one of his Nobel Prizes or at least offered to polish Shechtman's should it ever look like becoming tarnished, since Pauling had seemingly done his level best to tarnish Shechtman's name in the scientific community. This raises the inevitable question, how many other scientists who were really onto something for the benefit[not forgetting bane] of their fellow man had their endeavours thwarted by blinkered peer reviews etc., or just someone who perhaps wanted to bask in a particular glory that they felt should be only theirs and/or perhaps very few others to enjoy?

Certainty only serves to harden attitude, of this I'm absolutely certain!

Because Dr William McBride was eventually found guilty of having deliberately falsified data about Debendox, and was struck off for about 5 years, this would no doubt create some level of apprehension in anyone else of his ilk saying something adverse about Debendox, Bendectin or Diclectin etc.. And because some of these antiemetics were withdrawn from their respective market, and therefore then far less likely to cause any further "anticipated" teratogenicity, if they in fact ever did cause any, this would also to some indeterminable degree deter any scientist from continuing to push his/her barrow even if they had something fairly cogent towards proving teratogenicity or else regarding said antiemetics' use.

Naturally, I'm basing most, if not all, of what I've said above on that which I've only read and heard regarding such, although I've no reason to disbelieve any of it thus far. I'm quite prepared to accept that some or even all of it is a load of nonsense, but not until such time as I'm presented with something more credible.

emtridoc, careful with the spelling of "op*posse*d" lest folk start thinking that you might be in favor of going against the granary in trying to secretly round up a posse before going to ground! Once formed, trying to keep a posse in order can be a gruelling grind for the [p]unwary!

Regarding "scientific theory" and "statistics", many folk are well aware of exactly that which these two things are supposed to have as a "raison detre", but these two things have been found wanting more than once. Shechtman talks about both theorists and experimentalists. Pauling apparently tried an inchoate experiment of his very own doing in theorising against Shectman's proof of the crystals' existence, for all the good it did him! Couching it in layperson's language, one can now so easily see that it should have been, in the very least, "crystal cle_ar'got" to Pauling! :o)

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I'm not Erin Brockovich, and PG and E had all the proof they wanted until someone collected the (case load) in (black and white) proof from (((((actual suffers))))) of it, that there actually was a problem.
Does this make sense what I'm getting at. You can round up all the proof from you want of hundreds of studies of past days. This is 2013 not 1987 or such. All I ask is that you consider there is a possibility that it really did affect women, and their babies-- and that if its a cover up there won't be the black and white proof on any book shelf, of the proof that is does affect people. Not people they select to choose from to participate in their studies.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

It seems that even the world-renowned CSIRO has some employees and at least one associate, said to be the driving force behind a decidely dodgy deal, who weren't above telling lies to the multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis about cheap chemicals purchased from China that they tried to pa$$ off as being their own "trade secret" formula. But their lack of common sense/continuing concern for their fellow man has now been well-exposed, as today's [11 Apr 2013] article in WAtoday.com.au explains.

Full marks indeed to ex-CSIRO scientist Dr Gerry Swiegers for doing the right thing by notifying DataTrace way back in March 2010 that injury or death could likely result from counterfeiting attacks on the easily compromised DataTrace product. Shades of Grunenthal's lawyers telling Grunenthal, the maker of Thalidomide, that sales of Thalidomide as an antiemetic could cause irreparable damage to the company's reputation, let alone what the drug did in fact cause to its many victims worldwide. I see that the FDA has approved Diclegis as an antiemetic for pregnancy nausea.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

The Sydney Morning Herald's Economics Editor Ross Gittins' article, **When gut feelings are better than careful analysis**, tells of what happened years ago to a 21-month-old boy after he was admitted to a leading American teaching hospital. If this story is true then it appears that many[but certainly not all] of the doctors who attended this young boy had well and truly lost hold of the intuitive plot that most likely would have enabled them to treat him with all due care, so that he'd at least have been given a charge's chance of recuperating, and survival.

Given that this little boy was seen by a host of "specialists" who did tests on him over a period of 9 weeks before he died, and that they then continued testing at the autopsy hoping to find a hidden cause, nothing in the way of anything conclusive came to light by their reckoning. This leads one to start thinking that if many "specialists" at a leading teaching hospital couldn't find the cause of a very serious ailment within 9 weeks then no-one else could. Now, if it was "too difficult"[read as: "impossible"] for these "specialists" to find the cause of a very serious problem in a 21-month-old boy, how much more difficult would it be to be absolutely certain, beyond all doubt, that an antiemetic drug such as Bendectin *couldn't*[not just statistically *doesn't*] ever cause teratogenicity in fetuses, and not necessarily every fetus, but some? There is, too, always the possibility that the Bendectin ingested by some women prevented the vomiting of something else that was consumed, and this other consumed item per se, or excess of it, was teratogenic in some way. It's well noted that pregnancy nausea, and more particularly, pernicious vomiting, needs be treated, but there's always the chance that something, whatever it may be, resting in the pregnant body's stomach, is better expelled than retained.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

They are bringing Bendectine back, heard it on the news the other night, my mom took it with all 3 pregnancy's I was the 3rd child and I have several medical problems due to the use of Bendectine, first I had Pyloric Stenosis as an infant almost unheard of in female's then at 6 months I had unusual scar tissue grow over and had a 2nd surgery, now 45 years old, I have several issues, Hypothyroidism, Celiac, Allergies (to everything), just to name a few. How can they allow this drug to come back?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Christine, I'm not aware that bendictine is being brought back, but if it is it's b/c the overwhelming outcomes of the studies on the drug show it does not cause fetal problems. Pyloric stenosis is hardly "unheard" of in female infants, though certainly more common in males. And the more things you try to pin on one thing (hypothyroid, celiac, allergies), the less likely they are related (though I could argue those at least frequently have a common thread in immune disease).
ILP, people die with multiple specialists trying to figure it out routinely. Sometimes b/c of all the specialists, I'm sad to say. How do we know it's not too much sunlight (or not enough) that's caused these problems if we're to take your argument to the logical conclusion?

Linda, Chromium VI and Hinkley/PG&E is a good example, but supports the oppostie of your conclusion - the research demonstrated that the chromium is a carcinogen, but PG&E hid that they were aware and that it was leaking into the water. So the scientific community didn't ignore data or falsify data, PG&E hid it and ignored it. I'm not saying that no ever does bogus studies. It's always a good idea to look at the sponor of any study to have some idea if there's financial gain for a favorable study. Drug company sponored studies are wisely interpreted with eye towards skepticism.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

you can say what you want, I have issues with digestion because after having pyloric stenosis I had adheasions, therefore the just cut it open and I do not digest food normally, you can believe what you want that Bendectine is not responsible but I am the one that lives with this day in and day out.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

And all the people who had/have pyloric stenosis, celiac, allergies, etc, who were not exposed to bendictin? What do you say to them? If it helps you to believe it doesn't matter too much to me. But I suspect that harboring anger doesn't help your digestive troubles.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

My friend and I both took Bendectin in the 1980's. We are amazed that both of our sons have the same problems with ADD, moodiness, disorganization, impulsivity, can't keep a job, can't focus enough to take college courses. Is there any research about this

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

EMTRIDOC, You danced around that reply with golden boots on. What I was getting was that,,, yes, I believe much is withheld, by whom at this point is not completely clear. And I believe that not every situation or illness should not be blamed on benedictine. But there is a link it somewhere of what it does cause, other wise people would not feel this way.
We fell it, we are not out to just blame the makers of it, or whine about it. We feel it changed our lives in some way. We want real----up to date studies, done in 2013, by reputable people, scientist, etc to determine further research. Can you give us that? Not just on the medication its self, on the people affected of studies ( all the victims) on each and everyone that took it, that is willing to consent to it.
Which brings me back to a further question that comes to mind.....What have you got in it? You have not stated that you are a suffering victim. What are you on this site for? I can't help but wonder that. Answer that with a simple answer and don't dance around it like all the other answers. Or can you? Are they paying you to discourage the people that have questions about it? Please assure me you are legit to be on this site, or do you work for them? As for Benedictine cover ups, most importantly, with your negative answers, I believe that people like you are put on here to keep the curiosity down for the victims so that they do not add the proverbial 2 + 2 and figure out that things do not add up to the usual 4.
You can say no one is paying you to do this, but to those on here surely with reading all your discouraging replies, would wonder who would take as much of their free time to discourage others on a site like this unless they had an advantage in it some where for themselves. You clearly do make some interesting points, but we feel it, we see our kids different and we sense something, but we can't as yet prove it. And every where we turn people that tell us we are wrong only enlightens the fact to us we are in a victim situation with this drug. How do you explain that or will that be a reply you will again twist the answer.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

You said that perfectly that is why I didn't bother to reply to her... I feel this person has a vested interest and is on here to discourage negative feedback.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Linda,
I have answered before and will answer again. I stumbled across this site when I was searching for the ingredients for bendictin (I could remember doxalamine, but couldn't recall if it was Vit B6 or B12) b/c a friend was suffering from hyperemsis gravidarum. I was stunned by the amount of misinformation and misapplication of statistics beginning with someone who noted that only one of her 3 children had polydactyly and for that pregnancy she took bendictine while for the others she did not. Of course given the rate of polydactyly in live births you would expect that only 1 of 3 (in fact 1 of several hundreds) of your children would be born with such a birth defect. That is the difference between anecdote and statistics.
You are absolutely right that you should be mindful of who supported studies when interpretting conclusions, and the studies I've cited are not drug company sponsored studies (and again, no one here has cited any peer reviewed to support their contentions). A very simple study I cited simply looked at the rate of disease during the time bendectin was on the market and since it was pulled off. There was no change in the rate (in fact many of the conditions mentioned here like autism, depression, asthma, etc occur at a higher rate today). The one thing that did occur more frequently was hospitalization for pregnancy related dehydration. But don't take my word for it: in the 21st century the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Canadian equivalent body (as well as the World Health Organization, I believe) have advocated the use of bendictin as first line therapy in pregnancy related nausea and vomiting.

I'm a bad dancer. I come to the table with facts and science. You and others are much better at doing the two-step and drawing conclusions that are simply not supported. When you say "But there is a link it somewhere of what it does cause, other wise people would not feel this way. We fell it" demonstrates anecdotal experience, not any kind of science. True enough that experience and intuition should lead to study. The difference is that you choose to ignore the evidence. Most of the studies are older b/c the drug is off the market, but I have cited publications from the mid-2000's. If I cited a study from 2013 next year you'd simply say "but it's 2014" b/c it doesn't support what you want to believe.

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