Talk:Thalidomide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Thalidomide is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale

	Chemistry Portal Thalidomide is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents 1 American slant? 2 Citations needed for unsupported claims 3 Effects in all animals tested 4 Use of phrase "non-animal" 5 Notes and queries 6 General 7 Merge? 8 BBC article about use of Thalidomide for brain tumours in children 9 "flids" 10 Thalidomide and HIV/AIDS 11 FDA Approval and Thalidomide Today 12 Ambiguous use of phrase "in vivo" 13 newly diagnosed 14 Possible copyvio 15 Minor rephrasing suggestion 16 Follow-up Research 17 Don't Have Babies If You Have to Take This Medicine 18 Inaccurate Dates? 19 Photos 20 Pregnancy category X 21 Mutagen 22 10 years in myeloma

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Effects in all animals tested

it did cause effects in all animals tested according to:

• 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)

[edit] Use of phrase "non-animal"

I tp://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.?

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] newly diagnosed

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Photos

I want to see more pictures of flipper babies! 68.0.119.181 (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's so sad to see them like it, we can't have them here, since it might upset any children viewing this site.--Ms Hanna A. Jones (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

We should delete the page Death because it might make kids sad, too! BAWWWW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.62.86 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 10 years in myeloma

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