3 ms·
This article is very one-sided. It's simply an interview with the author of the paper. I would very much like to see what other experts in the field are saying,
by ksenzee 11y ago
This article is very one-sided. It's simply an interview with the author of the paper. I would very much like to see what other experts in the field are saying, especially because I think the causation claims here are pretty bold for a register-based study.
Also, this: "Our study is not out to scare women" in the same interview as "We have to remember that thalidomide was labeled as 'safe' for use during pregnancy." If you're bringing up thalidomide, you're absolutely out to scare women. It's like Godwin's Law for discussions about drugs in pregnancy.
- danieltillett 11y agoThalidomide was never labelled as safe during pregnancy - I don’t think there is a single drug on the market that has ever been tested for safety in pregnancy. The best you will get is category A which just says that studies have failed to demonstrate risk [1]. 1. http://www.drugs.com/pregnancy-categories.html http://www.drugs.com/pregnancy-categories.html
- DanBC 11y agoThalidomide was used to treat morning sickness in pregnancy. That's as close to calling it safe for pregnancy as you can get.
- danieltillett 11y agoNo it is not. At the time there was no regulatory requirement to test in pregnancy. The only reason it never effected the USA is the FDA were (and are) so slow that the problem was found out before they got around to approving it. If the drug company had launched in the USA first the FDA would have allowed it to be sold. Interestingly it was tested in pregnant mice, but in mice it doesn't have the same effect as in humans.