There were a handful of victims in the USA. It is not minor issue when one is a victim. But, Christine Block knows the nightmare and has a lot to say about the plans to find uses for it.
I sincerely hope this expression of sorrow will be followed up by Gruenenthal with sincere relief and comfort for its victims.
Gruenenthal should not see their contribution to this remembrance as vindication. But, if there is sincere use for the drug and those receiving it are fully informed of its dangers should we seek retribution by causing pain for others.
Christine Block (click here) is one of approximately 10 Thalidomide's living in USA . The drug was never approved in the 1960s. She is concerned about the new widened use of thalidomide in North America ....
...It is during this climate of strong activist movements affecting the strict rules of FDA policies that thalidomide is making its return. The drug is used in research for treatment of a variety of diseases, such as ENL (a painful and deforming symptom of leprosy); Tuberculosis; Graft versus host disease, CGVHD, (when the new bone marrow tissue tries to reject its new body and causes such symptoms as blindness, mouth ulcers, loss of teeth and death); Blindness (thalidomide may be useful against eye disorders); Oral and genital ulcers; And finally AIDS and HIV....
I don't want to hear how the over protective FDA could ever cause harm. Never. If it weren't for the protections of USA laws and the people dedicated to them our country would be mourning the effects along with Europe. I don't appreciate some of the panels and their decisions regarding long standing and proven protections from such drugs and procedures when the modifications are made to reduce the cost to insurance companies. I sincerely believe the FDA can make the best decisions upheld by immunity to lobbyists, power and money.
by SCOTT HENSLEY
...Back in the late 1950s,(click title to entry - thank you) the drug was sold in 46 countries, though not the U.S., and was particularly popular in then-West Germany, the U.K. and Australia. But in 1961, the drug was taken off the market after the link to birth defects emerged.
By then, though, thousands of children had been born with deformities. There was a long trial in Germany, where Gruenenthal, the drug's maker, is based, that resulted in the establishment of a foundation to compensate victims. But victims have said the compensation wasn't enough and faulted the company for not apologizing.
Today, more than a half-century later, Gruenenthal for the first time said it was sorry. The occasion was the dedication of a memorial to the victims in Stolberg, Germany, near the company's headquarters. The sculpture features a girl with malformed feet and no arms....
How did it happen?
Those in corporate and government authority passed it off as 'species specific' malformations. In other words, what happened to bunny rabbits could never happen to humans. They ignored the dangers with profits in the view. There are times I really wish research was left to the universities and not corporate labs. The temptations of corruption are too great.
There is a reason why corporations have foundation grants. Such research should be a high priority for consideration to that paradigm, than seeking profits. It would be far better to have pure research find a reason for profits than profits finding a reason for a drug.
...According to the Catalogue of Teratogenic Agents (Shepard 1976): (click here) 'several...principles were forcefully illustrated by observations made of the outbreak. The first point was that there existed extreme variability in species susceptibility to thalidomide'. The Catalogue reports that by 1966 there were 14 seperate publications describing the effects of thalidomide on pregnant mice yet nearly all reported negative findings or else a few defects which did not resemble the characteristic effects of the drug. Only in certain strains of rabbit and primate can thalidomide's effect on the human foetus be reproduced....
One of the best reasons why corporations practice their own research and development took place in WWII. Dow Chemical conducted research while all other corporations cut back on any such funding worried the war only left space for manufacturing.
During WWII, Dow Chemical made a great deal of progress in their research and when the GIs came home their profits soared for the new products they marketed.
It is a good example of good corporate governance, but, such products are not medications. I know many really competent PhDs that are also professors and they are genuinely dedicated to cutting edge with students graduating with success and not failure. They are so good at what they do and their knowledge is needed in teaching for the future of the our brain trust. Oh, well.
