Talk:Thalidomide/Archive 1

Teratogenic mechanism

How did they find out which of the enantiomers causes the mutations, when they interconnect in aqueous solution? Doesn't seem to add up to me.

General

Let's not forget to quote our sources everyone. We need to improve Wikipedia's credibility.

CHEA!

82.233.236.67

I removed the reference to portmanteau words in relation to the term "Contergankind", which does not fit the definition given in the article on portmanteau words. In fact, the German language uses such compound nouns on an everyday basis, and they are not generally considered neologisms, neither do they fuse different grammatical functions or meanings.

Fair comment. I wrote this bit, and I stand corrected. --Portnadler 20:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

BBC article about use of Thalidomide for brain tumours in children

I'm nowhere near knowledgeable enough to edit the article myself, and I don't even know whether this is new, but I noticed this on the BBC website today: Cancer children given Thalidomide. It's only a short article, with little detail, but it caught my eye. Loganberry (Talk) 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

A discussion about merging Neurosedyn into this article is being held at Talk:Neurosedyn. // Habj 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the discussion there, I have merged the articles. The old Neurosedyn article contained excellent information about specifics for Sweden, perhaps someone can look at this revision [1] and see if any more needs merged over. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the internal links to Neurosedyn, since they now loop back here. --Portnadler 15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

newly diagnosed

Any word on why it's only approved for newly diagnosed cases of MM? --Random832^T 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor rephrasing suggestion

" The company began selling the drug over the counter in Germany in October 1957, under the brand name Contergan. The company claimed that "Even a determined suicide could not take enough Contergan to cause death" and "accidental overdoses by children would be unheard of with this drug." Soon the drug was being sold in 46 countries under "at least 37 names,"[3] without any additional independent testing, and was the drug of choice for pregnant women with morning sickness.[5] Not one of those statements turned out to be true. "

should be changed to

" The company began selling the drug over the counter in Germany in October 1957, under the brand name Contergan. The company claimed that "Even a determined suicide could not take enough Contergan to cause death" and "accidental overdoses by children would be unheard of with this drug." Not one of those statements turned out to be true. Soon the drug was being sold in 46 countries under "at least 37 names,"[3] without any additional independent testing, and was the drug of choice for pregnant women with morning sickness.[5] "

(i.e. i switched the order of the last two sentences)

Bayle Shanks 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true. That just occurred to me. 80.7.199.165 16:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed for unsupported claims

This article and many others mention that 1 enatiomer of thalidomide caused birth defects, and the other did not, however, I have been completely unable to find reasonable evidence attesting to this. In fact, i have only found data showing it impossible to show if this is the case because of the high rate of interconversion and i have read some sources stating that the idea of one enatiomer being safe is a commonly held myth. I noticed that the example of one enatiomer of thalidomide being safe occurs in several other articles on wiki. Daemonllama 08:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)daemonllama

Here is a discussion of the single enatiomer theory, which is correct. A chirally pure version of thalidomide was created but when introduced to the body, converted back to a racemic mixture.

http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2001/stephens_nov01.htm

Notes and queries

No mention of Thalidomide!! A Musical in the arts section, even though this article links to it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.92.38 (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thalidomide analogues are being trialled for my(l)odisplasia (Spelling?) , and should be linked from here. I think Thalidomide is used to treat leprosy. Rich Farmbrough 10:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't immediately find evidence in Google for the very surprising claim that: "It was later discovered that the disabilities and deformities in many Thalidomide survivors are passed on to the survivor's own children through DNA.". Perhaps it should be deleted? Erik Corry

Erik, there were some articles about this last year, one of them on BBC. I will try to find it. L.D. Bear 17:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added info from a 2003 WHO newsletter (cited in external links). I was unable to find a retraction, or further information on the WHO site, so if anyone finds more updated information, go ahead and update. I did find medical articles from the 1990s saying the "second generation" link is unfounded, but thought a more recent article from the WHO might substantiate the claim enough to mention that the possibility has not been completely dismissed. --L.D. Bear 21:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a 2002 article saying second generation effects haven't been proven, at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1124708 . I found the WHO newsletter (and fixed the link on the main page) referred to above. It cites as "evidence" two news media articles. One is BBC in 2000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/952982.stm), the other Sunday Times Focus, 1997 (http://www.whale . to/drugs/thalidomide.html). The 1997 article is based on some of McBride's work that has been soundly criticized. Why is WHO citing the popular press instead of the scientific journal? I'm voting with the opinion pieces from the late '90's, saying that there's no data for thalidomide being a mutagen, and that the few cases where there is an apparent second-generation effect are actually mis-classified genetic defects that are NOT thalidomide-related. (See this article from Drug Safety, 1998 for more: http://www.thalidomide.ca/en/information/thalidomide_2nd_generation.html). I'd like to further down-play the possibility of second generation defects in the article - suggestions for how to do this? Csari 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tacked on some information about second-gen effects in the "technical details" section. Editing welcome. Csari 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On a possibly-related note, why is this page tagged with "Carcinogens"?? Any data? Csari 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to add some information on repercussions of the thalidomide incidents? I am particularly thinking of a phrase I just came across in a Cato Institute Policy Analysis called "Demonizing Drugmakers: The Political Assault on the Pharmaceutical Industry." It's a relatively minor mention under a section on the FDA... "Today, the FDA must certify prescription medicines for both safety and efficacy. The latter requirement was passed after the thalidomide scare in 1962. In the absence of that unnecessary mandate..." etc. Politics aside, was the thalidomide scare responsible for expanding the FDA's role in drug approval? Thanks! --Shae 16:22, 28 May 2005

Ambiguous use of phrase "in vivo"

The conversion between the (R) and (S) in terms of where it happens is unclear in this sentence under the heading "Teratogenic mechanism"

The enantiomers are converted to each other in vivo – that is, if a human is given (R)-thalidomide or (S)-thalidomide, both isomers can be found in the serum – therefore, administering only one enantiomer will not prevent the teratogenic effect in humans.

"In vivo" would suggest that the conversion takes place within the recipient's body, however reference to a serum implies otherwise.

No it doesn't. You misunderstand what serum means. Try wiktionary:serum. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy category X

Thalidomide is a pregnancy category X drug; does this mean it should be avoided not only by pregnant women but also by male sex partners of pregnant women? --Una Smith (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Found it on Google Books. Hospital for Special Surgery Manual of Rheumatology and Outpatient Orthopedic Disorders, page 526: Because thalidomide can be found in the semen, a man having sexual intercourse with a woman of childbearing potential should use a latex condom. Men wishing to conceive a child should stop thalidomide therapy at least 4 weeks before trying to conceive. --Una Smith (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From the manufacturer website, Birth Defects: THALOMID® (thalidomide) can cause severe birth defects in humans. Because thalidomide is present in the semen of patients receiving the drug, males receiving thalidomide must always use a latex condom during sexual contact with women of childbearing potential, even if he has had a successful vasectomy. The risk to the fetus from semen of male patients taking thalidomide is unknown. Patients taking THALOMID® (thalidomide) should not share their drug with others or donate blood. Male patients taking THALOMID® (thalidomide) should not donate sperm. --Una Smith (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thalidomide and HIV/AIDS

For a while there was some talk about using thalidomide as an anti-HIV/AIDS therapy. Supposedly it worked well, though it was obviously ruled out for women who could become pregnant. What happened? Was it simply obsoleted by better treatments?

To all you who have said that thalidomide is okay ? well it isn't okay? you have said it wrong all wrong this is how it is: please don't use it because it is a bad drug that causes birth defects to little ones who aren't born and how do you think if that was your kid? Would you want to take Thalidomide and have your children in pain when they aren't even born it is sad really if you think about it.

November 5th, 2007

Thalidomide was indeed obsoleted by the protease inhibitors that were approved in the mid to late 1990s; I believe it also quite unexpectedly increased the viral load in HIV+ patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.54.66 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up Research

I have heard that some scientists, whose names I forget, researched the problem with Thalidomide. Apparently, this drug made it difficult for the fetus to receive enough oxygen, hence the birth defects. In an attempt to discover if this was the actual problem, a test was conducted with consenting, pregnant human females. These people were given the previously recommended amount of Thalidomide, yet spent most of their pregnancy in an oxygen enriched environment. When the children were born, none of them suffered birth defects. The test was considered a success. However, a few months (years?) after the experiment, the mothers began calling the scientists. The children born under this oxygen rich environment had enhanced mental awareness. I'm not sure of the actual statistic, but I believe that the average human uses less than 10% of his/her brain. These newly born children were tested an apparently were using some insane amount of their brain's capacity. These children had the entire Encyclopedia Britannica memorized by the age of six.

I have stated this because it was brought up in discussion during a Health class by my teacher. I haven't been able to find any proof of this claim, nor have I discovered the people who conducted this research, or I would have posted it on the actual article. Could readers help me in discovering the validity of this claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrddin34 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 June 2007.

There is a known function for every part of the brain. We use our entire brains. Although scientists aren't always sure exactly *how* certain parts work, they know what it *does.* Check out the human brain article. It's really interesting.CerealBabyMilk 07:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you, with 99.999% certainty, that this story is untrue. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If there were 6-year-olds memorizing the encyclopedia, you'd expect to find at least some sort of news stories to back it up. Even conspiracy theorists would have a hard time explaining this as some sort of cover-up, because that would presumably prevent your teacher from learning about it and passing the info on.

As CerealBabyMilk said, the use of the erroneous "10%" claim makes it even more clear that this is a tale woven by someone without much of an understanding of medicine, not an actual scientific study. No biological scientist would use this myth to explain the results of an experiment.

And, lastly, there would be severe ethical issues in exposing fetuses to a drug known to have such horrible effects, with or without the mothers' consent. Such an experiment would probably never be done by any reputable institution, and any results reported by a non-reputable institution are inherently suspect.

As stories go, this one is about as credible as the Raelians' cloning project. I'd be very curious to know where your teacher heard this story, and why on earth he or she thought it was professional to tell students something so uttery unbelievable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this story sounds completely implausible, if all it took for the IQs of babies to increase at birth was for the mothers to be given higher concentrations of oxygen, then thalidomide recepients would not have been the first to undergo this treatment. I agree with Icarus3's comment about extrodinary evidence, I have seen nothing to back up this claim LordBoreal51 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I know for a fact that thalidomide only affected fetuses whose mothers took the drug between 21 and 35 days after gestation. Thalidomide is anti-angiogenic, which means it starves tumor of their blood supply. It is believed that it affected fetuses by similarly depriving the growing fetus of blood supply. I have never heard the deprivation of oxygen theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.54.66 (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Mutagen

In the "Side Effects" section, the second-to-last and last paragraphs read as follows: "...thalidomide is not a mutagen. Thalidomide may be a mutagen." REALLY? It is or it isn't, genius! Can someone determine the CORRECT content for that section? Unbelievable.... 24.13.34.230 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at editing it. It is still not pefect, but at least has reduced the cognitive dissonance somewhat! 192.193.245.14 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

10 years in myeloma

doi:10.1182/blood-2007-10-117457 JFW | T@lk 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Not sure what the "rules" are about this, but I couldn't help notice that the "History" section is copied nearly verbatim from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/110/2/404. Pnoeric 07:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks indeed like an extensive rewrite of the page you provided. I will try and contact the author of the original history section. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed an unacceptable copyvio. Noting the source does not change this. Isolated quotes would be okay, but the entire page was used, lightly modified and mostly unquoted. I've thus stubbed the section. It should be rewritten in our own words, preferably using multiple sources. Superm401 - Talk 22:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant

This article gives the same information over and over again. It needs heavy editing, possibly a complete rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.186.101 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Risk of birth defects?

I am looking for the risk of birth defects when the mother have used Thalodomide. Is it near 100% or around a few percent? Is there research on this? And is it relevant to this article if there is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.83.237 (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Start

The whole reason for not knowing Thalidomide was a teratogen was because they only tested it on rats. A rodent's metabolism is different to rabbits and primates and a rat can digest and make use of Thalidomide before it harms the foetus; so why does it say it is a potent teratogen in rats when this is quite obviously incorrect. Can this please be noted somewhere in the article and removed from the top. Wikisaver62 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't Have Babies If You Have to Take This Medicine

I would tell women that take Thalidomide not to have babies if they can't find a substitute for this drug because we all know it screws up the babies before they're born. 66.191.115.61 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Cbsteffen

Wow, just... wow. Does this guy also tell people not to drive their cars into the ocean because then they will fall into the water? Christ.... 24.13.34.230 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they already have 66.191.115.61.Wikisaver62 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

American slant?

I'm just browsing this page after hearing it referenced by someone else. BUT, after a brief(ish) read it seems to focus a lot on US reactions, even though there were only 17 kids born with the deformities. There was a huge German legal case against the mother company, and it was much worse elsewhere across the world. Perhaps we could devote a section to the US, and bring the rest of the article on track, and make it more neutral too? 172.188.70.95 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this was largly not a problem in the US; I know Canada (in addition to Europe) also allowed the use of the drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit

After listing to a BBC radio programme in the UK about the history of thalidomide (which you will can listen to for the next week here]) I thought I'd see what was in the wikipedia article. I have since done some quite heavy editing and rearrangement to remove the US-centric tone, added a number of wikilinks to link to medical terms and US-specific terms such as "FDA" and "black box warning" and removed some duplicated information about the use of the drug today. I will be adding more information about the history of thalidomide in the UK and Europe when I get some more editing time. Richerman (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Dates?

My father was born in Germany in 1948. His mother had been a test subject for thalidomide while she was pregnant with him and as a result his arms only formed up to the elbow area. Yet all of the dates mentioned in this article are after 1950. I do not see how it is possible for thalidomide to be "discovered" after 1950 when it was being tested before then. --Chris Goy 18:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

,

I guess either your mistaken about your father's birthdate or it wasn't thalidomide that caused the birth defects Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To pursue this (even though it appears closed) I attended a lecture where I was told Thalidamide was given "off label by certain physicians prior to testing and approval, and continued to be given off label by many physicians after that" <-- perhaps that's a possible explanation for the condition mentioned by Nardokid|Chris Goy above. However, I'm not sure as to the veracity of that claim. Brynic (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) - Medical Student

Actually this adds creedence to the following, which is taken from the Development section:

A report published by Dr Martin W Johnson, director of the Thalidomide Trust in the UK, detailed evidence that suggested the drug had been developed under the direction of a Nazi scientist in 1944, as an antidote to nerve gases such as sarin, ten years before Grünenthal secured a patent in 1954. Richerman (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

UK survival numbers

This source [2] claims 455 survivors, however an article today [3] claims 466. I have adjusted the main page, unfortunately doing before confirming the number. Does anyone know of a reliable source for this information? Clearly the BBC contradicting itself on this shines doubt onto the credibility! Cpl Syx ^[talk] 11:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian says 466 "still living in the UK" [4] as does the mirror [5] Richerman (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Richerman. Cpl Syx ^[talk] 00:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"flids"

Where does this term come from? Is it through saying "thalidomide" quickly, and replacing the "th" with an "f", like a child would? Sorry, I'm no linguist, I'm sure there are technical terms for what I'm trying to describe... Or is there some other reason? Forgive me if I'm being painfully obtuse. Something tells me it's the first, but I want to be sure! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 15:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'f' could be mocking a speech possible impediment as in 'fick' for 'thick', meaning stupid.--Ms Hanna A. Jones (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortened version of "FLipper kIDS"? 98.218.254.8 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

British slang, see flid. --Auric (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unusual phrasing in Brazil section [resolved]

"Since then production, dispensing and prescription of thalidomide have been strictly controlled and cases of thalidomide embryopathy are thought to have occurred until today."

The phrasing here is unusual, suggesting either an omitted word reversing the meaning: ("Since then production, dispensing and prescription of thalidomide have been strictly controlled and no further cases of thalidomide embryopathy are thought to have occurred.")

or the need for a rewrite: ("Since then production, dispensing and prescription of thalidomide have been strictly controlled, but additional cases of thalidomide embryopathy are thought to have occurred.")

I don't have journal access--can anyone confirm which is correct?

[Resolved - someone has modified the article to show that the latter interpretation is correct] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panaceus (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

David Lega?

I saw a lecture with David Lega a couple of years ago, where he claimed that his condition was due to his mother getting some kind of infection during pregnancy (in other words, he should not be on this list). Anyone with info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.131.91.2 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I reacted on David Lega too, especially since he is born 1973 - more than a decade after the scandal was revealed. Swedish authorities banned the substance in the early sixties. I'll remove him from the list. --Aatox (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not developed by Grünenthal?

Funny enough, the source for both other purported developers (Nazi scientists, British scientists) is ultimately the same man, Carlos De Napoli, see the two linked "Sunday Times " articles:

• Nazi scientists: Meanwhile, the author of a forthcoming book on Nazi scientists claims to have a copy of a document written in November 1944 by a director of IG Farben, the German pharmaceutical firm, which refers to the development of a substance, the chemical formula of which matches thalidomide. Carlos De Napoli, an Argentinian who has published books on the activities of the Nazis who fled to South America after the war, claims his book,[...] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683577.ece )
• British scientists: Now documents show that scientists led by a British professor had discovered a compound with an almost identical chemical formula to thalidomide at least four years earlier. The new paper trail has emerged after the discovery by an author, Carlos De Napoli, of a US patent application in 2005 by Antibioticos, an Italian company, registering its method of manufacturing thalidomide. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6832320.ece )
  

This looks fishy to me. Do we really want to include these ideas in the article? --Biologos (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The new text added by Braab69 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thalidomide&action=historysubmit&diff=418982755&oldid=417331188 ) lends even more room to the widely unaccepted theories of one Argentinian author. Do we really want to place this information so prominently in this article?--Biologos (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Numerical inaccuracy in Brazil section

"A study published in 1994 found 61 people born after 1965 whose limb defects and exposure history were compatible with thalidomide embryopathy. In 63.6% of these cases, thalidomide had been prescribed without the physician informing the patient about the drug's teratogenicity."

Giving a percentage for such small numbers seems odd, and the figures given can't be right.

63.6% of 61 is 38.796. 38/61 is 62.6%; 39/61 is 63.93% (to 4SF).

Could someone with journal access find out the correct numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.201.26 (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I found a publication from 1996 with different numbers and added the information to the article. The article by Paumgartten and Chahoud that might be the source of the dubious numbers quoted above, is quoted by Schuler-Faccini et al (2007) ([6]) as a reference for the information that since 1994, no new cases have been officially registered.--Biologos (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Compensation

I am very surprised that there is so little in the page on the fight for compensation for the victims. There is a little content about the situation in the UK but not elsewhere. There is an enormous amount in reliable sources that would justify at least its own section and probably its own page. I notice relevant articles here and here, as recently as this weekend. Has there been a discussion on here, about this? TerriersFan (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Use in the 1970s

Do we have any information about the use of this drug in the US in the 1970s? I have photo sent into us from someone born in 1978 who claims that her birth defects were a result of her mother's thalidomide use during pregnancy. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite possible. The Australian newspaper 'The Daily Telegraph,' 27 June 2011, mentioned in an article that since 1962, when the world was notified of the dangers of thalidomide, mothers have continued to take the drug, and hundreds of babies have been born with defects. According to the article, the most recent affected baby was born six months ago in Brazil, where the public is apparently unaware thalidomide is dangerous. It's possible thalidomide could have come into the United States via South America. Eligius (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Frederick King ?

Daniel Foggo wrote in the Sunday Times in 2009 : In the patent, Antibioticos states that thalidomide was first synthesised in Britain in 1949 by a team led by Frederick King, a professor of chemistry at Nottingham University, who worked on secret projects during the war. . Has this hypothesis been confirmed ? I just found : "Frederick Ernest King (Freddie) was born in East London in 1905, studied chemistry in London and Oxford, achieved Fellowship of The Royal Society at the age of 49, and held the Jesse Boot Chair of Organic Chemistry at Nottingham from 1948 to 1955. He moved on to senior positions in industry as a scientific advisor, first to British Celanese and then to British Petroleum, retiring in 1970" cf http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/49/299.abstract Trente7cinq (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Much more developped here: http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/49/299.full.pdf . for example : Freddie remained in the Dyson Perrins Laboratory in Oxford, pursuing some of his own work, but was also involved in Defence Research with the Ministry of Supply. One paper (18), on potential vesicants, was later published from the non-confidential aspects of this work. Trente7cinq (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

CLEANUP

In my opnion the article is not very accurate and informatve. Many facts has been missed. Please do visit the German article, there the scandal is discribed very well. I think the whole part "History" has to be overwritten (e.g. the mention of Nazi-medics are all very suspicious and not verified very well. In the German article there are no facts like this. Furthermore, details like litigation, or compensation has been missed in many ways). --111Alleskoenner (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Multiple research pubs referenced here say samples caused defects in US", Time magazine vs. Birth Defect Research for Children

This is the comment for this [7] recent edit. The source directly quoted for this is not a research publication, though, but the website of a patient advocacy group (http://www.birthdefects.org/research/bendectin_1.php ). Could you please quote the relevant research pubs? This source is used multiple times in the article. For the statement that Thalidomide samples were distributed to 20,000 patients in the US, the source gives the following reference: Deposition of Dr. Raymond Pogge (July 26, 1976), Mekdeci vs. Merrell National Laboratories, case #77-255 Ore-Civ-Y , apparently a court case where the author of the text was the plaintiff. A less "involved" and better documented source would definitely bring an improvement to the article. With the present sources situation, I think that a Time magazine article is more reliable than the website of an advocacy group.--Biologos (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to read for a lay person

This article is beautifully written; but like quite a few scientific articles I find it a difficult read; it seems more appropriate for an encyclopedia on medicine than for an encyclopedia for the common reader. I had never heard terms like teratogenesis and immunomodulatory before; I would suggest writing "birth defects (teratogenesis)..." or similar. Best, SkaraB 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree entirely that the article is "beautifully written" - a lot of it, at least at present, is very poor, foreign English - why, in such an important article on a complex subject, do we have to have people writing in here who only think they can write English. This will be part of the reason the article seems difficult to understand - lot needs to be coherently rewritten. Maelli (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that not all of the relevant subject matter is easily apprehended by the common reader. At least three solutions exist to this problem: (i) remove the more advanced material; (ii) thoroughly explain that material within the body of the article; (iii) rely on linked articles to enable self-education by the reader. Given the difficulties of providing a readable article that explains every concept in accessible language, and given Wikipedia's mission as a repository of all the world's knowledge, (iii) is the only really compatible option. Thus, the tag on this section of the article should be removed, and such tags should in general be deprecated.Patent.drafter (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

iii Implemented. 46.138.95.18 (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, (iii) violates Wikipedia guidelines.

WP:NOT PAPER "Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."

It's actually possible to explain every major concept in this article in language that a literate non-specialist reader can understand. You can see examples in the New York Times, Scientific American, Science magazine review articles, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Merck Manual Home Edition.

This is particularly important in the introduction and beginning sections.

If there is anything that absolutely can't be explained in accessible language, that should go in a section further down in the article. --Nbauman (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems

This article speaks of nothing about the scientific nature of the drug, which is typical of most drug references on Wikipedia. What about the drug? Not the disadvantages or the politics. If I knew how to author Wikipedia, I would fix it. Can somebody do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.19.61 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Praise for apology?

The section on the aftermath of the scandal says that those affected praised the manufacturer for apologizing but criticized it for not paying compensation, citing the BBC.

Interestingly, this is the five paragraphs of the start of the BBC article, which does not read as praise to me:

The company which invented thalidomide has "insulted" those affected by the drug by issuing an "insincere" apology, campaigners have said.

The drug, sold in the 1950s as a cure for morning sickness, was linked to birth defects and withdrawn in 1961.

German-based Gruenenthal has issued its first apology in 50 years, but said the drug's possible side-effects "could not be detected" before it was marketed.

But the UK's Thalidomide Trust said any apology should also admit wrongdoing.

Nick Dobrik, a member of the trust's national advisory council, said it "should be an unreserved apology, not a conditional apology".

The complete article at the BBC entitled Gruenenthal's thalidomide apology 'insulting' is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19448046 76.0.12.230 (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Complete reorganization

I've just finished reorganizing the article to centralize all the information on possible uses and recent clinical trials. The information was sprouting up in random places all over the article, and it was getting a bit difficult to read. I'd appreciate it if you'd look through to make sure I got everything and didn't leave pieces in random places. Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits from Dec 12, 2012

Hi I just noticed that since Dec 12, 2012, "the CIBA pharmaceutical company" is mentioned as the developer of Thalidomide, not Grünenthal. I am very surprised to see this, and I will revert it in a moment, but the information is apparently referenced by a Lancet article from 2004 (which I unfortunately do not have access to). I am not sure whether this is a misquote from the article or whether the authors of the article were misinformed. It might be worthwhile, though, to double-check the extensive edits made on this day by this editor, who hasn't made any edits before or since: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thalidomide&diff=527768429&oldid=527737522 --Biologos (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Relevance of racemic nature needs explanation

The section Teratogenic mechanism does not explain the relevance of the fact that thalidomide is an interconverting racemate. Perhaps some content has been removed as unsatisfactory and not replaced by a more correct version. As I remember hearing at a seminar a few years ago, there is evidence (what?) that one enantiomer produced the therapeutic effects and the other was responsible for the teratogenicity. There was therefore a brief hope that an enantiopure product might be safer, but this was abandoned when the enantiomers were found to convert in vivo. This isn't my field but perusal of the discussions above suggests that other people have heard something similar, so I think the point should be clarified in this article, with proper references of course. Dirac66 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FDA Approval and Thalidomide Today

I think the article would read better if the FDA approval was incorporated into the Possible indications section and the title changed. This would then give a more chronological description of the research that continued with Thalidomide from the 1960s to present day.

________

You might want to edit this for tone. The exclamation point, and exaspirated use of the term "incredibly," seem like editorializing.

Use of phrase "non-animal"

I am wondering what the addition of the words "non-animal" to the article means. One example of this appears in the sentence "If adequate or non-animal testing had been done, thalidomide might never have been approved to be sold anywhere." Is it referring to human clinical trials? If so, why not just say "human clinical trials," or "more extensive human clinical trials which included pregnant women?" I would have to imagine that at least some limited human clinical trials took place. I cannot conceive of any other type of "non-animal" testing that could have been conducted in that era. L.D. Bear 01:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

External Links

There is a nice collection of Links available under http://www.k-faktor.com/thalidomide/ which I would suggest to add to the article, although there are no external links so far. Would that be o.k.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.107.202 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2004 (UTC)

Optical Isomers

I grabbed this from the talk page on optical isomerism...

A few fine details concerning thalidomide: The stereoisomers are converted to each other in vivo. That is, if a human is given D-thalidomide or L-thalidomide, both isomers can be found in the serum. Hence, administering only one isomer will not prevent the teratogenic effect in humans. Also, animal models failed to predict the human teratogencity because most mammals do not have such toxicity from the drug. Only humans and (I believe) Norwegian rabbits show the teratogenic effect. Eric Chevlen

I've copied/pasted the isomer bit into the article. But the animal bit here disagrees with the result about pregnant rats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanb (talk • contribs) 07:26, 18 July 2003 (UTC)

it did cause effects in all animals tested according to:

• http://www.animalrights.net/faq/topics/medical_research/thalidomide.html

• This may in fact be true, but I would submit two important talking points here -- first, it's from an animal rights page, a type of site known hardly to be a bastion of objective science, and second, thalidomide is nasty stuff that was clearly not properly tested to begin with. I don't think there's any disagreement that Grunenthal slammed it through the approval process, so whatever the truth of the matter regarding animal models it's clear that something went wrong in a way that could have been prevented. Haikupoet 00:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's an anti-animal rights page. It is at least as unobjective as you suggest, however, and not a suitable source for any kind of information about thalidomide (or much anything else, by the look of it). - toh 18:49, 2005 July 29 (UTC)

• Take a look at this website http://www.chem.utoronto.ca/coursenotes/CHM348F/docs/Stereo/thalid/index.html from the University of Toronto and its links. Apparently, the fact that one stereoisomer is safe is actaully a hoax.

TEchicnal Matter was removed

This article was truncated considerably on Feb 28 by 81.133.11.116 and has since been edited by others. This is the only edit that 81.133.11.166 ever made. I think I would characterize the changes as 'de-technicalizing' the article. To that point, the article had many scientific details, which it now does not have. I'll be contemplating restoring some (or all) of the details, but I thought I would post this, to solicit other comments. Was it too detailed? I will consider any comments made below in my review. And of course, if you feel the urge, be bold, and 'fix' it yourself!

Brian Rock 23:46, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

I would agree with this, although the technical info could perhaps be relegated to a subsection e.g. "Chemical Structure of Thalidomide" and/or put at the end of the article, as the chemical structure and systematic name is not what people will normally be looking for from an article about Thalidomide. However, I do not know what the standard practice is for giving structures of well known chemicals - if indeed there is one. Gingekerr 16:02, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, a separate section was what I had in mind. There's no reason it shouldn't be at the end. Thalidomide is of interest to the scientific community for a number of reasons, and technical detail will be of interest to some readers. I was rather surprised that someone would remove genuine content from an encyclopedia article, rather than just move it to emphasize the items of more general interest. Brian Rock 17:24, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I was taught by a very well respected embryologist in the UK, while in medical school, that the reason it was allowed to cause such a havoc on the human population was that it WAS tested on animals (rabbits, I believe) for safety and appeared to be safe before going into the human population. This was 3 years ago now, but I vaguely remember it being about only primates having the enzyme to convert between the two enantiomers and it having only been tested on rats and rabbits with no primates that this wasn't seen. The lecture was actually about choosing the correct animal model and this was the example of what happens if you get it wrong.--KX36 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember a similar lecture in my first year of nursing, but couldn't remember the details. Thanks for this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacDoosh (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Developments in Spain Nov 2013

I deleted most of the latest edits from 15:03, 21 November 2013, which were probably prompted by the latest court ruling in Spain, for the following reasons:

• Although revenue in Grünenthal in 2012 was 973 million € (ref http://www.grunenthal.com/grt-web/Grunenthal_Group/Company/Facts_and_Figures/124700099.jsp),

Unencyclopedic mixing of facts.

• the first Spanish victims had to wait until 2013 to be awarded 20,000€ (ref http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/11/20/inenglish/1384971811_107975.html).

The Spanish victims had tried to get compensation from the Spanish state, not from Grünenthal (http://www.conterganstiftung.de/download/Studie_Leistungen_Ansprueche_thalidomidgeschaedigter_Menschen.pdf [in German]). "Had to wait" is unencyclopdic wording here. Also, the court ruling states that they are to receive 20,000 € per percentage point of disability, i.e. much more than 20,000 e for most of them.

• Between 1997 and 2008 Grünenthal declined further payments to the thalidomide victims, because at that time the settled payments were exhausted.

Makes no sense here since settled payments are not explained.

• In August 2012, the company issued its first apology in a half-century saying it regretted the consequences of the drug that led to the births of children without limbs or with shortened limbs during the 1950s and 1960s.

Already included in the article further down, in the more appropriate section 'Aftermath of scandal'.

• The Grunenthal Group is a family owned pharmacutical business with 19 shareholders. (ref http://www.grunenthal.com/grt-web/Grunenthal_Group/Company/Facts_and_Figures/124700099.jsp).

Irrelevant here, belongs in Grünenthal article. --Biologos (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

David Healy Citation

I modified the paragraph relating to Dr. Healy's book. While the book may make the statements attributed to it, some of these statements are factually incorrect.

1) Statement that U.S. Patents on pharmaceuticals and not simply manufacturing processes were first allowed by legislation passed in the aftermath of the 1963 Thalidomide tragedy: U.S. patents on pharmaceuticals have been allowed at least since the 18th century. See for example: http://www.lloydlibrary.org/scholar/Patents%20-%20V8%20-%20I1.pdf, and the article in JAMA from 1917 advocating annullment of the Salvarasan patent http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=443418

2)Statement that prescriptions for certain drugs were first required by legislation passed in the aftermath of the 1963 Thalidomide tragedy: See the FDA website, which indicates that this requirement dates to 1938. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingOver-the-CounterMedicines/ucm093550.pdf

3) Given the aformentioned misstatements of fact, a stronger source is needed for the claim that "Pharmageddon shows how these arrangements have not been successful and have actually led to an escalating number of drug induced deaths and injuries." I cut this back to "Industry critics including David Healy have argued that such measures have not been sufficient", which I believe fairly represents this important minority viewpoint. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

United kingdom

Very little on the thalidomide affaire in the United Kingdom, the Role of Distillers, David Mason, Jack Ashley MP, Rupert Murdoch and others involved yet on Wikipedia. Robert Prummel (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add a sentence or two (with citations), but to do justice to that whole sorry affair (I saw the TV programme yesterday too) you would need to split off a separate article or there would be complaints that there was too much emphasis in this article on the UK, when it only accounts for 10-20% of cases worldwide. Richerman (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

testing on foetuses

"scientists did not believe any drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing foetus" - this seems to be disputed as far as I can see, many drugs were tested but thalidomide was not. I am not an expert here but looking through Harold Evans' memoirs about the Sunday Times this seems to be what the producers argued, not was general practise. Justinc (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Reason for facile racemization.

The article now says Thalidomide is racemic; the individual enantiomers can racemize due to the acidic hydrogen at the chiral centre. But in the structures given, the chiral centre is a nitrogen bonded to three carbons, with no acidic hydrogen shown. Does the text mean that the imide forms a conjugate acid which racemizes by deprotonation and re-protonation? I doubt the importance of this mechanism because imides are not very acid. Instead I think (and vaguely remember reading) that the racemization would proceed by nitrogen inversion, which in N-containing molecules has a much lower energy barrier than carbon inversion. Can someone find a reference which addresses this point properly? Dirac66 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think I see. The chiral centre is actually the carbon of the glutaric acid ring which is bonded to the phthalimide substituent. This does have one hydrogen which is acidic due to keto-enol tautomerism. Perhaps the chiral centre should be identified in the text. Dirac66 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dirac66 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Cancer

The use of thalidomide for cancer is a major topic that has been inaccurately summarized by Jytdog. Recent edits have turned this into a 4 line topic with superficial discussion of an important therapy. The review article by Folkman in 2001 summarizes the steps in the discovery and its translation to the clinic. Why are these edits not acceptable?

References

134.174.21.158 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to talk. Rather than getting into the nitty gritty of what was wrong with your edits, would you please clarify what exactly is important to you? Is it mentioning D'Amato's name in particular? thx Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No. However different discoveries where made by different people. The series of discoveries cant be lumped into one step. Thalidomide and its derivatives are the major therapy for myeloma. The late Dr. Folkman is the father of the field of angiogenesis and discovered that the angiogenesis stimulator bFGF was elevated in leukemia patients(1993). He was the first to hypothesize that blood born cancers were treatable with angiogenesis inhibitors. Vacca discovered that angiogenesis is elevated in the bone marrow of myeloma patients (1994), which supported this hypothesis. D'Amato discovered that thalidomide is an angiogenesis inhibitor(1994) and inhibits the growth of carcinomas in rabbits. (He also discovered 2-methoxyestradiol was an angiogenesis inhibitor but that is not relevant here) Folkman and D'Amato proposed the human trials with thalidomide for myeloma(1997). Barologie carried out this trial and was the first to treat myeloma patients with thalidomide(1997). All of this is summarized by Dr. Folkman in his review and is not citing the primary references as per Wikipedia guidelines. Each step was a significant leap forward in the field of angiogenesis and cancer. There are many other reviews providing this same information, that are more central than the ones you cite. 134.174.21.158 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

for pete's sake i can read. you don't need to keep repeating yourself. Please tell me what is at stake for you in this and I can help. What I can tell you is that your description about any one person doing any step there is not an accurate description of how science is done. The content cannot read that way. But again please tell me what is important to you in this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk)

I can assure you that this is an realistic description of how science is done. Already in this Thalidomide wikipedia page there is a lengthy description of the history of the drug development, the legacy of birth defects and the use in leprosy. A little detail in the development of its use in cancer is not over done since it is a fairly interesting story of the revival of a hated drug. (more interesting than its use for leprosy) Folkman, D'Amato and Barlogie each contributed successive significant components towards the final establishment of thalidomide as an FDA approved drug for Myeloma. Do you want a summary without any of the key scientists mentioned by name? (However it is hard to tell the story without mentioning these three) Can you suggest a better way to summarize the science? What is important to me is that the story is told accurately. 134.174.21.190 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

the current content is accurate. There is clearly some part of the detail included in your preferred version and missing in the current content that matters to you, and I have no more time to waste on this vagueness. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The content that you inserted is inaccurate and makes no sense. First, how does studying diabetic retinopathy and macular degeneration result in the discovery of thalidomide as an angiogenesis inhibitor? (Thalidomide was discovered by Dr. D'Amato by looking for existing drugs that had been reported to cause amenorrhea and birth defects, which were side effects he predicted would be present with any putative angiogenesis inhibitor) Second, although Dr. D'Amato was an ophthalmologist, this was not a discovery made by a group of ophthalmologists. Third, 2-methoxyestradiol has nothing to do with thalidomide. Fourth, the actual discovery that was made by a group of ophthalmologists working for Folkman was that VEGF was an important angiogenic factor in the eye and that inhibiting VEGF with an antibody (Avastin) could be a useful treatment for diabetic retinopathy and macular degeneration. You are mixing this VEGF story up with the other story of the discovery of thalidomide for cancer. Fifth, while Folkman and D'Amato were the first to advocate for the use of thalidomide for the treatment of a patient with Myeloma, they were not the ones that actually treated the first patient. That was done by Barlogie. Virtually everything in your current summary is inaccurate (based off a review by Bielenberg that briefly touches on this subject) yet you block a complete description of the discovery summarized directly from a review written by the father of the field, Dr. Folkman. Heck, would you like me to contact Dr. Bielenberg to tell you the same thing? I suggest you allow those with expertise in the field of angiogenesis and oncology to write this section. Is there another editor who can give their opinion? This is an important story of a component of Dr. Folkman's work that has now been butchered. There is no "preferred story" or a COI in my summary. Just an accurate account that can be easily found in any of a dozen independent reviews. 134.174.21.190 (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

maybe you like it better now? Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thats well written. A minor correction is that the 1994 PNAS paper was work done in rabbits. (thus in vivo not in vitro). Thanks for working on it. 173.76.248.192 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the corrections. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Thalidomide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140104184440/http://oncozine.com/profiles/blogs/how-a-vilified-drug-became-a-life-saving-agent-against-cancer to http://oncozine.com/profiles/blogs/how-a-vilified-drug-became-a-life-saving-agent-against-cancer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140812002242/http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/2001/201_kelsey.html to http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/201_kelsey.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313095445/http://www.saude.df.gov.br/003/00301009.asp?ttCD_CHAVE=31041 to http://www.saude.df.gov.br/003/00301009.asp?ttCD_CHAVE=31041
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929135332/http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=21267 to http://www.history.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=21267

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thalidomide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140104184802/http://oncozine.com/page/thalidomide-secret-past-the-link-with-nazi-germany to http://oncozine.com/page/thalidomide-secret-past-the-link-with-nazi-germany

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

separate article

Shouldn't the Thalidomide birth defects crisis be its own article? —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I feel that it should be split off, there's certainly enough material to warrant it and most readers will be interested in that rather than the technical information. Opencooper (talk)

I would agree as well. I just helped to spawn the child article ExxonMobil climate change controversy from the ExxonMobil article for a similar reason: there is simply so much material that a shorter summary in the main article and a longer focused article makes more sense. The key, though, is to agree beforehand what the sub-article will cover, and stick to that. Also agree on a name beforehand, and stick to it. SageRad (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Rate of malformations

I'm curious, they quote these large numbers of babies born with defects, but how does that compare to the total number of fetuses exposed to thalidomide? I mean, were most" fetuses exposed effected, some fetuses, or was it a much smaller, but still unacceptable number. If 3,000,000 women take a drug, and 300 fetuses develop abnormalities, that's still unacceptable and 300 is still a large number...but not as large a proportion as half or more babies being affected.

Next, it says that this FDA note was found "hidden" in FDA archives. This seems to somehow suggest that this was "hidden" intentionally, and that there was some sort of "coverup" or something. But it could easily mean "hidden" as in no one knew it was there, out of sight, etc. It ought to be more clear about this, or use a different choice of words.

Last, I agree with the above poster, that there should be more on the "thalidomide baby crisis", if not a separate article. How did it finally become clear what was happening? How was the public informed? How did they react? Were there lawsuits? What exactly were the "public pressures" applied, and how specifically did this change the way drug approval worked? What happened to the surviving children? And of course, as I already mentioned, were MOST people effected, or only a percentage?.45Colt 18:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is remarkably light on the Thalidomide scandal that is still ongoing to this day. So light a cynic might suspect some cleansing and minding could have taken place. Very disappointing and unfortunately I am not the expert needed to fix things. 188.221.182.123 (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is too vague to be helpful. To what extent is the thalidomide scandal ongoing today? What do you think is missing from the article? Which editors do you think are cleansing the article? ChemNerd (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only speak as someone who went to school with a thalidomide baby in the 1960's. I have no idea whether she survives today, but I do see from time to time adults with birth defects (arms/hands) consistent with thalidomide syndrome, although I'm sure there are other causes of the defect. It is EGREGIOUS and OUTRAGEOUS that birth defects and infant death are NOT LISTED as "adverse reactions"!!!!! There can be no question that this article is massively biased and completely avoids the scandal in Europe (one dissenter in the FDA kept it from being approved in the USA, a hero - and of course he nearly got crucified for it...he died recently, I believe 2015, 2016).Abitslow (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Belongs here not in the article

"There seems to be history of thalidomide before 1954, specifically testing in concentration camps in Nazi Germany (source: 2014 documentary Attacking the Devil"[8]

So moved Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen the documentary, but I suspect that this ultimately goes back to Carlos de Napoli, an Argentinian author who has made several unrelated claims about the origin of thalidomide. You can find previous discussions on this in the archive of this Talk page (see link close to the top of this page).--Biologos (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Only the S enantiomer causes the defects

Just to say, the article doesn't make this clear at least not early on (or I missed it) though when it says "The racemization process can occur in vivo so that any plan to administer a purified single enantiomer to avoid the teratogenic effects will most likely be in vain" that is based on the finding that the R enantiomer does not cause defects. I think it would help the general reader just to say somewhere that only the S enantiomer causes the defects [9], somewhere before that sentence. Robert Walker (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify this apparent case of WP:OR

The following paragraph contains a brad, far-reaching conclusion, and does so with citation of a single review, and the rest primary sources that someone here is interpreting. Is this the best we can do? I am not arguing that the conclusion is incorrect, only that its being argued this way seems to go against our principles of how valid points are to be made here. Is this the consensus view (with scads of reviews and book chapters), or is it the conclusion of a Wikipedia editor based on the primary sources appearing?

Thalidomide is racemic; the individual enantiomers can racemize due to the acidic hydrogen at the chiral centre, which is the carbon of the glutarimide ring bonded to the phthalimide substituent. The racemization process can occur in vivo so that any plan to administer a purified single enantiomer to avoid the teratogenic effects will most likely be in vain.

Please reply here, only. Also, would note, many of the citations in the History and other sections are beginning to die. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thalidomide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104184440/http://oncozine.com/profiles/blogs/how-a-vilified-drug-became-a-life-saving-agent-against-cancer to http://oncozine.com/profiles/blogs/how-a-vilified-drug-became-a-life-saving-agent-against-cancer
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8428838.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306201745/https://www.portlandphoenix.com/archive/music/02/04/19/classical_Orpheus.html to http://www.portlandphoenix.com/archive/music/02/04/19/classical_Orpheus.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thalidomide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028204857/http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Defect/page5i.htm to http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Defect/page5i.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203020225/http://www.crncc.nihr.ac.uk/workforce_development/learning_and_development/gcp/gcp_resource/research_standards/history/thalidomide to http://www.crncc.nihr.ac.uk/workforce_development/learning_and_development/gcp/gcp_resource/research_standards/history/thalidomide

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Contributing to this page

Hello. I am a student at the University of Rochester who will be editing this page for a class project. Being such an extensive page, I would like to make this known such that my work is not flagged by moderators throughout the process. Thank you. Mpagan2 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpagan2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

NPR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On June 11, 2017 on RadioLab on NPR radio, in a program on symmetry, it was claimed that the 'original' thalidomide was harmless, but somehow the manufacturing unknowingly began using a "left-handed molecule" (a mirror image of the orighinal molecule) of thalidomide that was destructive. This is not in any of the histories of the scandal/disaster that I have read and seems improbable. Anyone know anything of this?? Sussmanbern (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not a chatboard for general discussion of the topic. Perhaps ask at the reference desk. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

enatiomers, birth defects

User:Zaslav, about the content you have added:

• here at 18 June 2017
• here on 26 June 2017, and
• here on 26 June 2017.

The source you are using, this and this, deal with this only via some comment, that some anonymous user added to the CHEBI site. Anonymous comments are never reliable for anything per WP:USERGENERATED and such a source does not comply with WP:MEDRS in any case.

The content was also discussed elsewhere already. Even so, to address your concern before the 3rd time you added this, I did this, which added content about the enantiomers and birth defects, sourced to MEDRS refs. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog: (1) Thank you for filling in sources. I don't have the expertise to find good sources. (2) I did not mean to start a war. I wasn't thinking of the talk-page alternative; mea culpa. (3) I like your current edits. You addressed my concern that birth defects are an "Adverse effect" and should be mentioned under that heading. I think you've made that whole section more accessible to readers. (4) I appreciate your putting in work on this and explaining the situation and appropriate action. I thank you again (and apologize)! (5) I didn't realize the comments I was using were not canonical, but I can now see you're right. Zaslav (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusing information

"Despite the side effects, thalidomide was sold in pharmacies in Canada until 1962; Canada was the last country to end sales of the drug.[43][73]" This sentence leads me to believe that sales were discontinued in 1962: "In Spain, thalidomide was widely available throughout the 1970s, perhaps even into the 1980s." Huh? If Canada pulled the drug in 1962, and was the last country to do so, how was it still available in Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.143.228.162 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that some parts of this article seem to be confusing. This appears to be because the drug has had different lives in different countries and served different purposes.

Perhaps it might be easier to follow if some of the information in this article, such as date submitted/date approved/date withdrawn (for nausea treatment) were presented in a table - with explanations below?Ambiguosity (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It's indeed incorrect. The Spanish government only recently acknowledged the drug was ever distributed there, and never did anything about it directly. BBC: "(In Spain, )Thalidomide was on the state register of official drugs until 1975. It was not made illegal to prescribe until 1985, when a law was passed meaning the doctor had to sign that he accepted responsibility for the effects." But it wasn't Spain that was last either: BBC: "After 1961, the drug didn't disappear - medical researchers discovered it can be extremely effective in certain treatments. ... But sadly, in Brazil, where the drug has been widely used in treating certain leprosy symptoms, there is now another, younger generation of disabled Thalidomide survivors." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research for thalidomide

Near the end of the book Operation Paperclip: The secret intelligence program that brought Nazi scientists to America, the author implicates Nazi research in the development of thalidomide. She states that the drug's 'human trials' were 'lost', and also indicates that the wife of one of the pharmacologists that eventually patented the drug gave birth to a deformed baby shortly before (?) the patent application. (No link was made at the time.)

Is anyone able to shed more light on this? I have the audiobook, so cannot simply look up the references.Ambiguosity (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

don't know about nazis. an MD who had worked from the German army antiviral group headed the discovery program, per this edit Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

This story has been around for some time see:[10] and [11] Richerman (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

hm. both of those articles say "The firm, Rhone-Poulenc, registered 14 drugs from 1942, all ending with 'ergan'. No other company used the suffix and the drugs often had distinct similarities with thalidomide." They also say the patent (which appears to be this one) has human data in it; there is a very brief discussion in it of in vivo effects (Die Produkte verursachen eine stark ausgeprägte Minderung der Motilität, d. h. des Bewegungstriebes, bei sehr geringer Toxizität; sie können allgemein zur l>Zentraldämpfung«,z .B. zur Behandlung von vegetativen Dystonien, eingesetzt 25 werden. Die Substanzen besitzen keine peripher lähmenden, curareartigen Wirkungen. Die Verbindungen sind sowohl parenteral wie oral voll wirksam." -- via google translate: The products cause a marked reduction in motility, i.e. the motional drive, with very low toxicity; They can be used in general for the "central damping", eg. for the treatment of vegetative dystonia. The substances have no peripheral paralyzing, curare-like effects. The compounds areboth parenterally and orally fully effective") but that discussion can come from work in animals. Seems like a lot of huffing and puffing. Even the advocate interviewed says: "It is now appearing increasingly likely that thalidomide was the last war crime of the Nazis." (in other words, no smoking gun). Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There's still a lot to consider. Just nothing conclusive yet. See here:

• The German brand-name - Contergan - was owned by the French pharma-company, Rhone-Poulenc, during the early 1940s, when it was effectively under Nazi control.
• Immediately after the war, Gruenthingy employed a Nazi doctor who had experimented on camp prisoners and may have killed up to hundreds of them.
• There is "overwhelming circumstantial evidence that it was tested as part of their search for an antidote to nerve gas."

Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Anti-emetic effect?

I watched a documentary about this drug and the case against Distillers just last night (produced for the BBC, so it's likely reasonably accurate) and it made specific mention that Thalidomide was NOT an effective anti-emetic but was rather described as a tranquilizer (similar to Valium) and that's why Distillers got involved with the market; the argument was that they were worried it would affect sales. The view at the time was that morning sickness was psycho-somatic and not caused by hormonal adjustments. Not really a surprise given what we knew about the endocrine systems then. I'm not qualified to say either way but someone who is should probbly give this a look. Smidoid (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Brand name: Immunoprin?

Article says Immunoprin is the brand name. Apparently, Immunoprin is a brand for azathioprine, an immune system suppressant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.23.6 (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Added in [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.23.6 (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 1B Goals

• Edit the article, it currently lists Immunoprin as one of thalidomide's brand names; however, thalidomide only has one brand name which is Thalomid, and add the appropriate citation

Source: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/thalidomide-marketed-thalomid-information

• Add information about the quality of life for individuals who were affected by thalidomide together with appropriate citations
• Add additional information about thalidomide embryopathy (TE) together with appropriate citations

Sleeshs (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please make sure other group members assign themselves to this article before making their individual contributions. I suggest practicing with the citation tool to make sure that the references are being footnoted correctly. Health policy (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Concerns"

What kind of weasle-mouth would claim that the ENORMOUS number of severe birth defects (and DEATHS!!!) caused by this drug were simply a "concern"? One of my child-hood neighbors was a thalidomide baby, watching her struggle with the tasks of everyday life was sad. Consider murder, torture, and genocide; who would characterize them simply as "concerns"? The drug was the cause of many deaths and permanent injuries. That's not accurately characterized as a "concern", although of course it is that too. The offending and offensive sentence in the lead is:"While initially deemed to be safe in pregnancy, concerns regarding birth defects were noted in 1961 and the medication was removed from the market in Europe that year." I suggest it be changed to "While initially believed to be safe in pregnancy, the alarming increase in birth defects associated with its use resulted in its removal from the market in Europe in 1961." Note that I don't make the ridiculous claim that implies that 1961 was the first year that the drug was suspected of causing harm in-utero, because that is just not true. I'm also not going to make the change myself, I'm too angry right now.40.142.191.32 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Intercalation

Maybe mention that this material intercalates with DNA. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercalation_(biochemistry) 2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:79A4:D207:F41E:90E2 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

We typically have the article follow the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require that articles slavishly follow a template. It does require that articles are written for general readers and not for specialists. I'm not interested in engaging in an edit war and therefore will split off the section of the article about the thalidomide crisis. --Atiru (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes having an article specifically about the crisis is perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Split Article

| from = Thalidomide | to = Thalidomide scandal | date = 30 March 2020 - 2:33 GMT

--Atiru (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The link to the crisis is here. It does not go as a hatnote at the top. Thalidomide#Birth_defect_crisis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

"In the United Kingdom it costs the NHS about £1,194 per month as of 2018.[4] This amount in the United States costs about US$9,236 as of 2019.[9]"

£1,194 per month seems an infeasibly small amount of money to spend on any drug across a whole country. Is this actually supposed to be the cost FOR EACH PERSON to whom it is prescribed? It is very unclear. The second sentence refers to "This amount", but no amount (of the drug) has been mentioned, so it doesn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:C8D6:8EE3:AAAB:A8ED (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Original Synthesis - Conflicting Sources

The English version of this site has a source stating that it was developed by CIBA in 1952, but the German site has a different source stating that it was first synthesised by the company Grünental in 1954.

"K17 war die 17.Verbindung, die Dr.W.Kunz im Forschungslabor der Firma Chemie-Grünenthal 1954 hergestellt hatte." http://www.k-faktor.com/contergan/files/unendliche_geschichte.pdf

I think the one source in the english site is wrong.

See also:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15m7ng5.23

and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.70.830.860

This seems to be the original paper of the synthesis but I can't get hold of the full text:

Kunz, W., Keller, H. & Mucher, N. N-Phtalyl-glutamisaureimid (N-phtalyl-glutamic imide). Arzneim Forsch Drug Res 1956, 6: 426-430.

Quoted in english:

During works in the field of derivates of glutamic acid, Doctor Kunz and I came across a new compound which was identified as N-Phthalylglutamic acid imide. Besides other pharmacodynamic effects I observed that the substance showed a, however not too impressive, sleep-inducing effect. [Cited after Kirk 1999, p. 52, my translation] In their paper from 1956, Kunz, Keller & Mückter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.96.79 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Original Synthesis - Conflicting Sources

The English version of this site has a source stating that it was developed by CIBA in 1952, but the German site has a different source stating that it was first synthesised by the company Grünental in 1954.

"K17 war die 17.Verbindung, die Dr.W.Kunz im Forschungslabor der Firma Chemie-Grünenthal 1954 hergestellt hatte." http://www.k-faktor.com/contergan/files/unendliche_geschichte.pdf

I think the one source in the english site is wrong.

See also:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15m7ng5.23

and

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.70.830.860

This seems to be the original paper of the synthesis but I can't get hold of the full text:

Kunz, W., Keller, H. & Mucher, N. N-Phtalyl-glutamisaureimid (N-phtalyl-glutamic imide). Arzneim Forsch Drug Res 1956, 6: 426-430.

Quoted in english:

During works in the field of derivates of glutamic acid, Doctor Kunz and I came across a new compound which was identified as N-Phthalylglutamic acid imide. Besides other pharmacodynamic effects I observed that the substance showed a, however not too impressive, sleep-inducing effect. [Cited after Kirk 1999, p. 52, my translation] In their paper from 1956, Kunz, Keller & Mückter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.96.79 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

anti Nerve Gas origin

There is evidence to show this drug was initially developed to counter nerve gas symptoms. This article is incomplete without discussions of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.225.250 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sleeshs, Asher1026, Megan.roberson, Catchen1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Contraindications: Shouldn't men be mentioned?

Male patients rarely consider which drugs might harm an unborn child, and the article already states in two places, with separate sources, that men using this particular drug while having sex (with a chance of pregnancy) is a contraindication -- in light of this, why should the Contraindications section, of all places, only mention women, making it seem as though men using it is harmless? --92.195.167.109 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Just went ahead and did that. Feel free to improve upon. --92.195.167.109 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)