Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2.fluke 9/24/84; site vax2.fluke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!pesnta!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson
From: jacobson@fluke.UUCP (David Jacobson)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Morning sickness
Message-ID: <1029@vax2.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Nov-85 13:10:41 EST
Article-I.D.: vax2.1029
Posted: Tue Nov 26 13:10:41 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 17:20:08 EST
References: <855@osu-eddie.UUCP> <388@bcsaic.UUCP>
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 27

> >Why was Bendectin taken off
> >the market anyway?
> 
> 	Bendectin was taken of the market because of the high
> 	rate of birth defects associated with its use
> 	(it was almost as bad as thalimide (sp?)). 
> 
>  ...
> 	Hang-in there. Best wishes,
> 		P.M.Pincha-Wagener

My recollection of the Bendectin thing was exactly the opposite.  There were 
numerous studies that showed that there was no difference in the rate of
birth defects in the babies of women taking Bendectin vs. those who weren't.
Unfortunately there is a certain rate of birth defects, even when no drugs
are taken.  In our society there is a great tendency for people who have
some misfortune befall them (ie a defective baby) to run to a lawyer and 
sue.  The lawyers encourage this with contingency based fee systems.  It 
happened often enough that juries would award a large judgement out of
sympathy with the family, regardless of whether a cause and effect 
ralationship had been established, that Bendectin was finally removed 
from the market.

  -- David Jacobson   ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!fluke!jacobson

This opinion is solely my own and does not necessarily represent that
of John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.