Sometimes, history is our best teacher. Perhaps that is why the left want to stop it being taught?
Babies born in the late 1950's and early 1960's suffered the effects of the drug thalidomide that their mothers had taken for morning sickness, depression or anxiety.
Back then, it was a mother's choice. Today, having the covid " vaccination " is not only encouraged - it is increasingly mandatory if you wish to travel or continue to work whilst expecting your little one. One woman saved America's children from thalidomide. That woman was Frances Oldham Kelsey.
More than 10,000 little ones were born throughout the world with missing or poorly formed limbs. The severity was determined, it seems , by how far advanced the pregnancy was at the time the mother took the drug.
In the first 3 weeks it would affect the development of the brain; one more day and the eyes would be affected; day 22 the ears and face; day 24 the arms and by day 28 the development of the legs would be affected. By 42 days into the pregnancy, the baby would develop normally.
Once the babies were born, countries throughout the world started realizing what a terrible and tragic situation had occurred - too late, of course, for those children who had been born, and too late for their guilt ridden mothers who would find it difficult to ever forgive themselves for having innocently swallowed a tablet that would have such long and far-reaching consequences.
In 1960, America had a stroke of luck. That was when the application to begin mass-marketing the drug thalidomide in the United States landed on the desk of Frances Oldham Kelsey, a reviewer at the Food and Drug Administration.
As a medical reviewer, Kelsey had the power to prevent a drug from going to market if she found the application to be lacking sufficient evidence for safety. After a thorough review, Kelsey rejected the application for thalidomide on the grounds that it lacked sufficient evidence of safety through rigorous clinical trials.
Kelsey was first introduced to the dangers of mass marketed unsafe pharmaceuticals in 1937, when the FDA enlisted Geiling to solve the mystery of Elixir of Sulfanilamide. Sulfanilamide effectively combated infections, but it came in a large and bitter pill that needed to be taken in large dosages. To make the drug more appealing, especially to children, manufacturers added it to a solvent with artificial raspberry flavor.
The problem was that the solvent they chose was diethylene glycol—commonly known as antifreeze. Between September and October, the drug killed 107 people.
Geiling and his lab of graduate students, including Kelsey, set out to determine what exactly in the elixir was killing people: the solvent, the flavor or the sulfanilamide. Through a series of animal studies—which at the time were not required by federal law for a drug to go to market—Geiling and his lab were able to determine that it was the diethylene glycol that was the cause of death.
The public outcry to this tragedy prompted Congress to pass the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which added a New Drug section requiring manufacturers to present evidence that a drug was safe before going to market. Though this new law “provided for distribution of a new drug for testing purposes,” FDA historian John Swann says “the law did not provide in any explicit or detailed way how oversight of that testing should be conducted.” In other words, clinical trials continued to undergo little to no oversight.
By November of 1961, physicians in Germany and Australia had independently discovered birth defects in infants whose mothers had taken thalidomide during early pregnancy. In embryos, thalidomide could cause critical damage to organ development—even just one pill could result in infant deformities. And since many doctors prescribed thalidomide for the off-label treatment of morning sickness, 10,000 infants all over the world were affected, and countless others died in utero.
Merrell eventually withdrew the application on their own in April of 1962. But the drug had already been distributed to “more than 1200 physicians, about 15,000-20,000 patients—of whom over 600 were pregnant,” according to Swan. In the U.S., 17 cases of congenital deformities were reported, but as Swan says via email, “that could have been thousands had the FDA not insisted on the evidence of safety required under the law (despite ongoing pressure from the drug’s sponsor).”
In 1962, soon after Merrell withdrew their application and the dangers of the drug became internationally known, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Amendment. This key amendment required more oversight for clinical studies, including informed consent by patients in the studies and scientific evidence of the drug’s effectiveness, not just its safety. In the wake of its passage, President Kennedy awarded Kelsey the President’s Award for Distinguished Federal Civilian Service, making her the second woman to receive such a high civilian honor.
So what the hell happened? When did the Kefauver-Harris Amendment get ignored?
The Kefauver–Harris Amendment strengthened the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's control of experimentation on humans and changed the way new drugs are approved and regulated. Before the Thalidomide scandal in Europe, and Canada,[5] U.S. drug companies only had to show their new products were safe. After the passage of the Amendment, an FDA New Drug Application (NDA) would have to show that a new drug was both safe and effective (previously the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was the main law that regulated drug safety). Informed consent was required of patients participating in clinical trials, and adverse drug reactions were required to be reported to the FDA. source
{pdf=https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/F51281F0-00AF-E25A-5BF632E8D4A243C7/kefauver-harris_amendments.fda.thalidomide.pdf|100%|900|native}
As our future mothers are coerced into thinking that having the vaccine for Covid will protect them and their unborn child, one has to wonder if any of them have ever heard of thalidomide?
If they have, WHY would they inject something so untested? Why would they jeopordise their own health and that of their unborn baby? Because someone told them to do it?
What happened to our RIGHT to protection from untested drugs and so called vaccines?
I could not help but think that this is almost a 21st Century thalidomide, only, instead of a mother feeling guilt for taking a tablet, there will be guilt for having allowed someone to take a " vaccine."
The same could be said for the treatment of gender dysphoria.
On an emotional and moral level, what is happening is repugnant to me.
On a legal level, it is litigation waiting to happen on a scale we have never seen before. Who will they sue? The parents? The Government? The Doctors? The Big Pharma's?
What right did our governments have to grant the pharmaceutical companies indemnity? What spurred them on to knock back ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and zinc - other than to gain " emergency authorization" for a drug that was largely untested and would never have seen the light of day without banning the use of approved and tested medications?
At the end of the day, will it even matter? It will not give them their lives back just as financial compensation does not allow thalidomide victims to grow back their missing limbs.
It may give financial assistance to ease the pain of the loss of what might have been… but oh, how the guilt will weigh heavy on those that allowed this to happen.
Where, with thalidomide, it was an innocent expectant mother ( who may not even know she was pregnant) swallowing a tablet to alleviate nausea, this, in my opinion, is a far greater potential tragedy.
And we have yet to discover just how tragic it will be.
In my opinion, the worst is yet to come.
BLOG COMMENTS POWERED BY DISQUS
