Bendectin And Birth Defects (Page 22)

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

I'm not sure who Christine's[#422] gender-specific "her" refers to, as it's always been my understanding that emtridoc is not of the fairer sex[as am not I] and that Linda is a female's name. Perhaps I'm wrong and emtridoc is in fact a "her", not that it matters to me either way.

It's not actually Bendectin that's been approved by the FDA, but Diclegis, as I said before at the very end of my #414 post. Diclegis is the same combination of pyridoxine and doxylamine as was used in Bendectin, and according to Duchesnay, the Canadian maker of Diclegis, the newly-branded Diclegis is expected to be available by the end of May. Google "Medscape News Diclegis" for the full story to date. The 4th paragraph of this story unfortunately doesn't make sense because if the birth defect rate was [in actual fact] the same among women who used the drug as in those in the general population, then it wouldn't, and of course shouldn't, create the false impression that the drug caused the birth defects. It's either that Edward McCabe, MD, is not able to see that what he said is quite illogical, if he did in fact say it exactly as it's been reported, or he has simply been misquoted.

It's interesting to note also that the 3rd last paragraph of the article states that the drug's active ingredients[doxylamine-pyridoxine] did not pose any "increased" risk for harm to the fetus in epidemiologic studies. So what is the actual known "standard" risk to fetuses? You would need to know what the "standard" risk was well before you could categorically state that no "increased" risk was posed, and of course you would need to be able to prove conclusively that you knew what the "standard" risk was too. Although the results of the study may show that the drug "did" not pose any increased risk, it doesn't go as far as saying that it "does" not, and therefore, "won't". There is an actual very important distinction here between saying that something "didn't" do something under a controlled situation as opposed to saying that something "doesn't" or "cannot" do something, whether under either a controlled situation or otherwise. Sometimes these putative "controlled" situations are not as controlled as many people may have been led to believe. It's very easy to manipulate a controlled situation, very easy indeed, whether the manipulation is deliberately carried out by the perpetrator[s] who is/are well aware of the controls or the manipulation's entirely accidental due to a blunder somewhere, or both. It's been said many times that two wrongs don't make a right, but this is incorrect when it comes down to pure logic, make no mistake about it.

One of the most difficult things to do in this life is to clearly express that which you intend to mean leaving no room for any doubt by anyone...for whatever reason.
People from all walks of life talking/texting at crossed purposes and/or nonchalantly participating in intersecting monologues is rife nowadays and this just
adds to the confusion that we all could well do without.

We are very fortunate indeed to be able to communicate around the globe with this marvellous medium of the internet and of course via The People's Medicine Community forum to boot.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Christine and Linda join us on the facebook page Victims of Bendectin as we are working on getting a petition together for those of us affected by Bendectin. You will find genuine support there. These 2 have been arguing with people about this for years. They must not have much to do than to try to aggravate people affected by this drug. Please join us!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

ILP, you are correct in my gender assessment.

But I'm afraid you missed (though raised) the central point regarding "the impression" that bendectin causes birth defects. When someone has a child with a birth defect (or autisim or depression, etc) and during that pregnancy they took bendictin and they have others (or friends with others) without birth defects and they didn't take bendictin then they naturally make the association and draw the conclusion. What they don't realize is that statistically you wouldn't expect to have a child with a birth defect more than 1 out of 3 (or more than 1 out of many), so the bendictin was merely a coincidence. So you need large numbers to glean if there is a difference. And yes, you can determine background rates, historical rates, and rates in controlled studies. Any good discussion/review of a study should look at whether the controls and methadology were rigorous and relevent. I have suggested here many times that people debate the quality of the studies, but no one ever does. They simply say that the studies don't agree with what they "know to be true" and so they start facebook pages where everyone can mindlessly nod in agreement, condemn science, and burn books without any discourse.

I guess ILP and I will be the only ones left here debating. There are worse lots in life.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I didn't really miss the point because I've always held that we do at times need to "impress" upon certain folk that they mustn't be so "impressionable". "Tell the people what they want to hear" will always be in vogue unfortunately, and woe betide anyone daft enough to stray from its miring merit. Moving right along...emtridoc, it's very easy to understand exactly why the average person can, many times[read as: always], be downright skeptical regarding what they're being told by so-called "professionals" who are supposed to have their patients'/customers' wellbeing at heart if you take into consideration the essence of the wonderful little article, "Shock to the System", featuring in ScientificAmerican April 2013, being about sepsis and the several failed drugs used trying to combat it. One very serious question that's raised in the article is: "How did such a diverse array of compounds, from so many different companies, fail?" It then goes on to say that: "A 10-year study revealed serious flaws in the animal research on which the sepsis drug trials were based. Severe inflammatory responses in mice, it turns out, do not accurately mimic sepsis in people - so a drug that helps mice could make things worse for a person."

Before thalidomide was marketed, no pre-marketing teratogenicity studies had been performed, as you're probably well aware, but following the recognition of human teratogenicity in man, initial attempts to reproduce these defects in laboratory rats and mice proved negative, but when such studies were repeated in New Zealand white rabbits, thalidomide proved to induce similar teratogenicity as that in humans. It's been suggested that of all the mammalian species man is the most sensitive to thalidomide's teratogenicity. Certain other widely used drugs, such as acetylsalicylic acid and the corticosteroids, which had come into use before teratogenicity studies became obligatory, and which have not been found to induce organ malformations in humans have subsequently been shown to give positive results in teratogenic tests in some animals. So, surely by now, in this very day and age[2000-2013], the many companies and the people working for them who design and make these drugs, for whatever serious ailment, must realise that they must not go down the well-trodden pathological path of overly-relying on results from animal studies with their drugs, but they look like they have every intent of continuing to do so regardle$$. Test the many drugs on animals if you have to, but see it as only that, a test on an animal, and be ever mindful that man is not only a different animal altogether, but also the most dangerous, not to mention the most endangered too if these animal test results are going to continue being deemed sufficient study by those who should know better by now, but obviously don't.

The article also mentions that people with sepsis may not all be sick in exactly the same way, so individuals may respond quite differently to the same compound. This makes sense. Not too hard to get one's head around. This rings a bell to what I've said several times before regarding many of the pregnant women who took Bendectin and its cousins, and of course those who'll presumably soon be taking Diclegis. Did -- and do -- all of these women suffer the exact same etiology with their pregnancy nausea. I very much doubt it. For all we know, an enzyme or something suchlike of which medical science is yet to discover, could be, in some women[not all, just some], converting doxylamine/pyridoxine into something teratogenic, just as a particular enzyme is said to be able to convert testosterone to estrogen. Just look how the passing of time can surreptitiously morph one into one's detrimental dotage if one doesn't keep an eye on things. And I seem to recall someone saying just recently that there are worse lots in life? Perhaps this is it!

I do relish the fact that you and I are able to perceive the necessity of having to pick a bone with each other occasionally emtridoc, and, to coin a phrase, methinks it'd always best be beyond me to even think about brashly bringing myself to state that we've ever actually to date sought the need to go so far as to be seen arguing the t_oss'ification. :o)

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Thanks Jo Ann.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Emtridoc,
Clearly your thinking is just one sided, and having not experienced any of it personally all you have is science that you list and maybe truly believe it. So be it. I'm done. I owe you nothing. I owe you no explanations. But when the proof comes out some day, and it will, that it did cause problems and you have all this time chose not to take their part. What will you do then?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Linda, Really? I'm one-sided? Have you been reading the posts, here? Have you read your posts here?
When the proof comes out that the medication has a lower side effect profile than other meds and causes none of the problems proported here, yet hundreds of thousands of women suffered needlessly and many pregnancies were complicated or even terminated by dehydration, what will you do then? Oh wait, that time has already come.
No actions occur in a vacuum. What could we have done with all the millions of dollars that have been wasted on these lawsuits? Immunized children? Researched birth defects or cancer or HIV? I'm no fan of big for profit pharma, but I'm equally no fan of big lawyers and wasteful litigation.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I have just read your thread and would like to let you know that I took debendox for a month to help horrific morning sickness and my eldest daughter born from this pregnancy has not been able to have children even having had five attempts with IVF.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I to had a child in 1968 born with birth defects after taking the same morning sickness meds as the reast of you and found there was a class action case decided already and that it contains monies to help these children with the many hospital bills they would amass.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

i read your topic about benedictine and what is wrong with your daughters. I too took Benedictine in 1982 and my daughter has a double uterus and has had several miscarrages, where you able to find out anything helpful?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

There's an interesting article online called: "Danish researchers expose new cause of life-threatening disease, 6 June 2013." Apart from diseases, the article mentions fetal development and birth defects etc., and this new research just might be the key to the unlocking of sought secrets explaining exactly the method by which many drugs[inter alia] are easily able to unduly affect not only fetuses, but developing children and adults to boot.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I took Benedictine when I was pregnant in the 1980s. My daughter just suffered from complete kidney failure and they found that her kidneys never fully developed. I too am wondering if anybody is doing a class action suit.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I don't know about research but my son has the very same problems... I took Bendectin during my pregnancy and he has had problems since K-1st grade... his symptoms are IDENTICAL!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

There is a well-documented article about Benedictin on the Birth Defects for Children website.
The address is: birthdefects.org/research/bendectin_1.php
They also maintain a registry of birth defects that are caused by medications.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

My daughter has Bpd bipolar PTSD and ADHD I took debondox for nine months her life and mine ruined

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

I took Debondox in 1977 for serious morning sickness and my first daughter was born with problems with her liver. She only lived for 8 days. My 2nd daughter was born just less than 12 months later. Even though I had serious morning sickness my GP advised against the use of Debondox. My 2nd daughter is perfect apart from being infertile, so I do blame Debondox. Pity they don't test these drugs on the scientists first, then they may feel some of the guilt we mothers feel.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

This medication is well studied and no link with liver disease exists. Statistically you would expect that if you suffered the loss of a child from a rare disease or birth defect that subsequent children would not suffer the same. You needn't feel guilty for taking the medication.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

I took it in 1979 when pregnant with my daughter. She has always had stomach problems. Her first two years her father and I took turns staying up til the vomited. She had crazy bad projectile vomiting as infant. Then we noticed if she was woke up shed hallucinate and freak out. Babysitters always had to be at home or I'd have to pay for overnights. She's 33 now and has lost all her beautiful teeth. She has terrible panic attacks and what's bothering me now is her memory. She remembers things that NEVER happened. She has 2 children they both have super sensitive hearing, can't go to see movie at theaters cuz it's too loud.
I remember when she was three we were moving and I picked up news paper the wrap a glass in and an article said that Benedictine was taken off market cuz it was causing stomach valve development problems in unborn babies. But in 80's no one listened to me about what was happening. I'd like to see if we can all get a list of our children's symptoms and then talk to class action attorneys. This is not only affecting our children but grands. How many generations will this hurt? I made a rule after this happened and then when my so. Was almost given a deadl med for epilepsy to never take a med that is younger than me. No new meds!!! If I get replies or requests ill set up email for the lists first then see where we can go. If someone already has done this let us know where we can go for help.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

Amysmom, sorry to hear of your daughter's problems and thanks for your post. Anyone suffering reflux problems, possibly due to their having[like me] a "lazy" lower esophageal sphincter[stomach valve], or one that is malformed in some way, may like to have a look at the LINX Reflux Management System which was approved for use by the FDA in March 2012. It's basically a small device, shaped like a child's bracelet, with the beads being made from titanium and each bead having a magnetic core. It works on the principle that the magnetism of the beaded bracelet augments the natural muscle-closure of sphincter. Installation of the device is performed using laparoscopy. It is supposed to allow food to be swallowed past the bracelet into the stomach but to then prevent stomach contents from being "refluxed". Google *Bracelet-Like Device Controls Chronic Acid Reflux, Study Finds*. There's a good photo and pictures in the article of how it's supposed to work. Best of luck.

Emtridoc, do you know of anything regarding Bendectin and it's being suspected of causing lower esophageal sphincter problems in any way at all?

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Emtridoc, after reading an article "Many neurologists unaware of safety risks related to anti-epilepsy drugs"[courtesy of Johns Hopkins Medicine on "EurekAlert"], risks unwittingly taken by some patients and caused in large part by these doctors either not being aware of the necessity to carry out "haplotype screening" on their patients of Asian descent, as the article well explains, or perhaps knowing full well that they should screen, but don't, simply because of apathy or difficulty accessing laboratories performing such screening, plus attendant time constraints etc., I'm therefore wondering if some type of similar screening for *all women* suffering from pregnancy nausea/vomiting can be dismissed entirely as being requisite and forever so. Is it not possible that there still lurks somewhere a teratogenic common denominator, whether this denominator is directly linked to Bendectin per se or something else besides, perhaps taken in concert with Bendectin but prevented from being metabolized, even from a normally nourishing/intensified diet?

We know that we must steer well clear of grapefruit if taking some types of medicine but otherwise it's quite ok. And we know that insufficent folic acid [or being unable to metabolize it] causes spina bifida. Carbamazepine, quite apart from its known risk with some of the aforementioned patients of Asian descent, also features yet again with Valproate and Lamotrigine in being linked to spina bifida inter alia.. There has not as yet been a specific gene linked to spina bifida, yet it's a disorder that does tend to run in families, and it's reported that even from an estimated 95% of all cases of spina bifida, there is no genetic history in the family of any spinal cord or neural tube defects. So methinks that we cannot yet relax in ruling out not only Bendectin, but many another substance also. When one considers the raft of possible permutations presently hell bent on procuring perniciousness for mankind from a prescriptive potpourri of enzymes, chemicals, metabolics and myriad levels of sensitivity in wo/man to boot, and never forgetting man's evolution, anything's possible, even further want of requisite research...be it in the very least but of a redoubtable range.

"Preemptive treatment of severe morning sickness decreases suffering for moms-to-be"[from the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, "EurekaAlert"] was interesting reading also.

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