Bendectin And Birth Defects (Page 35) (Top voted first)

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

REPLY

REPORT

I took tons of Bendectin for severe morning sickness. 2 in am, 2 in afternoon, 2 b4 bed! Daughter is FINE! She is an RN.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I had 4 children born from 1965 to 1972. I took benedictine with two of the four children for extreme morning sickness for 5 months, with each pregnancy. With the two sons i took Benedictine- they both are legally blind, and will never be able to drive a car because of their blindness. How can i get help proving Benedictine caused this.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I just came across the information talking about the side effects of Bendectine. Scary stuff. It is hard to believe, I took Bendectine...like it was candy..during my first pregnancy for the entire 9 months. I was so sick and could not get off of it. My son is totally normal from what I can tell, he is extremely intelligent, graduated top 2 percent of high school, college and medical school. He is physically very goodlooking, and from what I can see, has not had any medical issue. During the second pregnancy, I took Bendectine for maybe the first 3 months....and from what I can see this son has no issues from this medication either. He is as bright, successful and physically as good looking as his brother. I don't know how I could have survived the first pregnancy without the use of this medication. Something else to worry about..

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I took Bendictine in 1979 and 1980 and had a girl and a boy. Both have gifted I.Q.'s and excelled in sports. No birth defects and no major health problems. Could it be a coincidence that those responding with children with birth defects took Bendictine. Would these children have had those birth defects anyways. We will never know because you can't go back in time. However, I had a friend who lost twins because she was so sick and her doctor would not prescribe Bendictine. I could not have functioned without it. No grandchildren yet, but that is by choice.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

The stats are out there. The rate of birth defects and other side effects was no different for women who took this medication vs. those who did not. That's why none of the many law suits were ever settled against the manufacturer. If you look through the posts here this drug could be blamed for everything from migraines, to multiple sclerosis, ADHD, stroke, heart disease, and everything in between. It's certainly regrettable that people suffer from these maladies and I certainly do not wish anyone nor their children or grandchildren to carry a burden, but how many of you have looked at other factors? Consider the period of time most people are writing about: smoking and alcohol use during pregnancy were prevalent. DDT was still used as an insecticide and was found in waterways, fish, and other foods. I hope you find peace. Sometimes unfortunate things happen and there just isn't someone to blame.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

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

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

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

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

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 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

Ignorant comments. Easier to take the road less traveled.....remember to have respect for folks who are trying against all odds to uncover a truth. Your not very objective or helpful. You may eat your words one day so leave a little room for desert. Don't bother to reply to me as this is not a question.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Nauseating is the right word for emtridoc !!!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Kristy, You sound like a remarkable person and little will get in the way of you getting everything you can out of life. I certainly don't have an explination for what you've gone through/are going through with no basis for making a judgement. Way too many unknowns. All I'm saying is that an "N" of 1 (1 case) isn't a basis for drawing scientific conclusions. Searching for themes is a good idea, but this is one of the most studied drugs with loads of research using multiple techniques b/c people really thought there might be something. Despite ILP's imagined undiagnosed congenital abnromality that no one can see, feel, touch, the science has demonstrated no link. I'm sorry ILP, but there is really no logic in this argument, nor that somehow the missing link is all this medication that was taken unkowningly across millions of pregnancies (how could that even happen unless someone was putting it in the food or water supply across the country? Tuskegee would pale compared to that). Recall that several of the studies looked at the incidence of various problems (congenital defects, autism, etc) before and after the med came off the market with no change (or increase rates, in the case of autism, another discussion all together). It seems highly unlikely that people are breaking out their 30 year old bottles of bendictin and passing them around.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Re: Jeni (# 9)

I took Bendectin with my second child in 82’ and he was born deaf. I have met three other women who all have a child the same age, had taken the drug during their pregnancy and their child was born deaf.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

Dana,

The drug Bendictine you are referring to was reported to cause birth defects in some cases. But a similar drug is prescribed today and it's called Diclectin. Funny how some people will say to stay away from something while others say it's perfectly safe. I think it's a matter of speaking to at least several physicians and following your intuition, as far as what feels right for you and who you trust.

The drug Diclectin is a combination of Doxylamine (an antihistamine) and Vitamin B6.

A good resource with a brief overview on Diclectin can be viewed at www.sosmorningsickness.com/thinkabout.html.

Hope this helps!

REPLY

Was this helpful? 0

I took Benedictine in 1967, 1968, 1989. My third son was born with defects: He had a hemangioma near his windpipe and had to have a trach for 16 mo. at age 6mo. At age 7 he was diagnosed with kidney failure due to a undersized ureter and underwent surgery to open the ureter. He was under dr. care until he was 12. As an adult, he has experienced kidney problems including scar tissue which had to be removed. I really believe that Benedictine had something to do with these problems.

REPLY

Was this helpful? 1

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