My Thalidomide Challenge

[Split Rock]

Sandwiches nailed it in Post 3.

Sometimes it pays to stand up to science and say, "We're not going there; regardless of what you think!"

LOL! And would you and your Bible quotes and one liners about science have accomplished in the 1960s in Europe? Would you have predicted the consequences of thalidomide use on babies? Would you have recognized that the American FDA inspector had it right? I doubt it.

 

[variant]

One could justify not taking it in 1960 because it had not been tested in an avian model or a human model prior to being prescribed for expectant mothers, it had only undergone tests on mice.

When Thalidomide was tested with an avian model it showed it's teratogenic impacts immediately because of the similarity of androgenic qualities of birds wings and human limbs.

The valid scientific grounds for rejecting thalidomide in that day though was the work of the director of the FDA, who had done pharmacological work on the drug sulfanilamide which contained an industrial solvent that caused multiple side effects. The director asked for more information to prove thalidomide safe because she thought the company in question was holding it back.

 

[laconicstudent]

Why is it on the occasion that I start a thread in this forum, usually about an interesting piece of research, it is ignored, but when AV starts a thread that makes no sense, it gets all of these responses?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Why is it on the occasion that I start a thread in this forum, usually about an interesting piece of research, it is ignored, but when AV starts a thread that makes no sense, it gets all of these responses?

Things that itch the most get the most scratching. Try harder to be confusing and incitive.

 

[variant]

Why is it on the occasion that I start a thread in this forum, usually about an interesting piece of research, it is ignored, but when AV starts a thread that makes no sense, it gets all of these responses?

AV is easy, and rebuking his nonsense is fun.

Looking through the 36 threads you've started, I don't see any interesting pieces of research.

 

[laconicstudent]

AV is easy, and rebuking his nonsense is fun.

Looking through the 36 threads you've started, I don't see any interesting pieces of research.

Ouch.

 

[variant]

Ouch.

What? I don't see a single thread you've started on any research.

http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=3841370&pp=25&page=2

Could be the search function.

 

[AV1611VET]

The director asked for more information to prove thalidomide safe because she thought the company in question was holding it back.

Question: Could myopic science produce more information, or had they exhausted their testing?

What more could they have done -- (specifically)?

 

[variant]

Question: Could myopic science produce more information, or had they exhausted their testing?

What more could they have done -- (specifically)?

As I just said, avian model testing would have shown the problems. After thalidomide it is required testing now through the FDA. It was available at the time, it just hadn't been conducted.

 

[laconicstudent]

What? I don't see a single thread you've started on any research.

http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=3841370&pp=25&page=2

Could be the search function.

It has to be, I can think of at least two that I started. One was on some new, interesting toxicology paper, and another was on infant's intermodal perception of dog's expressions and vocalizations. Wrote a paper on that one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it on the occasion that I start a thread in this forum, usually about an interesting piece of research, it is ignored, but when AV starts a thread that makes no sense, it gets all of these responses?

Because when you're behind closed doors, that's the time to be picky.

All jokes aside though, I think it's because people are here for reasons that are ... let's just say ... beyond intellectual curiosity.

 

[variant]

It has to be, I can think of at least two that I started. One was on some new, interesting toxicology paper, and another was on infant's intermodal perception of dog's expressions and vocalizations. Wrote a paper on that one.

My apologies then.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I just said, avian model testing would have shown the problems. After thalidomide it is required testing now through the FDA. It was available at the time, it just hadn't been conducted.

Why?

 

[laconicstudent]

My apologies then.

Its hardly your fault that the search function is weird. I've had problems with it myself.

 

[variant]

Why?

Why would avian testing show thalidomide problems? Because when you give thalidomide to birds their children are born without wings.

Why weren't the tests done? Because no one did them. The drug companies were not aware of the problem because they hadn't done the testing. The testing was not considered necessary by them because they had not yet encountered a problem such as thalidomide, but all things considered, they would have eventually run into one.

The FDA caught it because their director had prior research experience with this kind of drug and thought the drug company might be being reckless.

But to put it simply the testing wasn't done because it was both costly and expensive and no one made them do it.

After thalidomide, the type of testing I am talking about was mandated for drugs given to pregnant mothers, along with a much more stringent drug approval process that continues to this day.

So, your question has two answers. The scientific reasoning why the FDA didn't approve was based on the research experience of the director of the FDA.

The discovery of problems with thalidomide would have been uncovered everywhere had there been more rigorous tests in place for drug approval.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, your question has two answers. The scientific reasoning why the FDA didn't approve was based on the research experience of the director of the FDA.

The discovery of problems with thalidomide would have been uncovered everywhere had there been more rigorous tests in place for drug approval.

Okay -- let's tie this in with the OP now.

It is 1960, and you, an expectant mother, go to the doctor, and he prescribes/recommends Thalidomide.

You tell him what you just told me:

"Do you realize, doctor, that Thalidomide, if tested on birds, will cause their hatchlings to be born w/o wings? I'm not taking Thalidomide."

If your doctor told you you were wrong -- wouldn't he be the one in the wrong?

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Okay -- let's tie this in with the OP now.

It is 1960, and you, an expectant mother, go to the doctor, and he prescribes/recommends Thalidomide.

You tell him what you just told me:

"Do you realize, doctor, that Thalidomide, if tested on birds, will cause their hatchlings to be born w/o wings? I'm not taking Thalidomide."

If your doctor told you you were wrong -- wouldn't he be the one in the wrong?

Doctors are most definitely not always right. In fact I don't know why doctors prescribe medicines at all. Doctors should be making a diagnosis and those that studied 4 years or more of pharmacology and biochemistry should be prescribing drugs based upon that diagnosis.

 

[variant]

If your doctor told you you were wrong -- wouldn't he be the one in the wrong?

I would be right, and further I would be right because I knew more about the science of pharmacology than the doctor and thus probably wouldn't be looking for his advice on drugs in the first place.

Although I would be an expectant mother with an incredible amount of pharmacological insight in this rather strange example.

So, I doubt it ever happened.

Also, hazza you may have proven that doctors are not always right!

Oh, wait, I forgot that every reasonable human being already knows this. Thalidomide proving that without any hypothetical questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, hazza you may have proven that doctors are not always right!

What?

 

[variant]

What?

It seems to be your only point here.

Unless you can complete the following:

Doctors are not always right therefore......