Biggest Medical Tragedy of Modern Times

When we think of the current statistics for autism and other types of related diagnoses, I can't help but think of drugs and medications that were prescribed and used at a particular time only later to find that there was a problem associated with them. With two drugs in particular, the effects weren't known until the women who took the medication had children then the problems began to be exposed with those children. Of course, with the women who took these drugs, they too, had medical complications that showed up but it took several decades before the full effect was realized.
There are two drugs that were prescribed/sold and used during the 1950's. One was Thalidomide and the other was DES. Both of these were approved and accepted as safe at the time.

Thalidomide was marketed in Europe, especially in West Germany and Britain, from 1957 to 1961, and was thought to be so safe that it was sold without prescription. In 1961 an extremely high incidence of European babies born with malformed, shortened limbs was correlated with use of Thalidomide by women in their first trimester of pregnancy. Before it was recalled from use, the drug had caused the malformation of about 8,000 children throughout the world. Thalidomide was withdrawn from the market after being found to be the cause of what has been called "the biggest medical tragedy of modern times". It is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.

DES (diethylstilbestrol), a synthetic estrogen, was prescribed to millions of pregnant women in the United States from 1938 to 1971. Although DES is no longer prescribed to pregnant women in the United States due to its health effects, DES exposure continues to affect many lives.
In 1971, DES was linked to clear cell adenocarcinoma in a small number of daughters of women who had used DES during pregnancy. This uncommon cancer of the vagina or cervix is usually diagnosed between age 15 and 25 in DES-exposed daughters. Some cases have been reported in women in their thirties and forties. The risk to women older than age 40 is still unknown, because the women first exposed to DES in utero are just reaching their fifties, and information about their risk has not been gathered.

One other drug that was used and widely debated as to the clinical effectiveness was Bendectin. Bendectin (known as Debendox in the UK and Diclectin in Canada) is a mixture of pyridoxine (Vitamin B6) and doxylamine prescribed to treat nausea and vomiting associated with morning sickness. It was voluntarily removed from the market in 1983 by its manufacturer, Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, following numerous lawsuits alleging that it caused birth defects, although an FDA panel concluded that no association between Bendectin and birth defects had been demonstrated.
The drug continues to be used in Europe under the same name, and no subsequent epidemiological studies have found any teratogenic effect.
(Teratology is the study of abnormalities of physiological development. It is often thought of as the study of birth defects, but it much broader than that, taking in other developmental stages, such as puberty.)

When we consider just these two drugs, Thalidomide and DES, and the problems they caused, known only many years after they were ingested, is it not possible that the current schedule of vaccines OR other drugs or vaccines that the parents of these children have had might play some part in the dramatic rise in numbers of diagnosed children with Autism, Aspergers and other related conditions?

I, for one, cannot accept the rise in shear numbers of vaccines on the schedule now for children and not feel that there is undoubtedly some correlation.
The question is posed and I feel needs a responsible answer: If all children cannot take all medications, why would we presume that all children can have ALL the vaccines with no incident? Whenever there is 'question' about a child's health or condition, pediatricians will hold off on giving vaccines until they know what the child is dealing with. Isn't it possible, that some children will 'present' with symptoms after these toxins are given triggering some possible underlying, previously undiagnosed condition that is now brought to light? How do you know that a child is allergic to bees unless he/she either gets stung by a bee or has specific testing to test for such allergies? How do you know your child has food allergies until he/she is exposed to certain foods either by mouth or testing? How do we know that there is a penicillin reaction until we give the penicillin? If this one size fits all prescription for vaccines is not continued to be challenged, we will continue on this path we're on using this generation for guinea pigs to find out which kids have adverse reactions and which ones don't. The problem with this mindset is that all too often, these children are so 'damaged' that recovering them is near impossible. Aren't the numbers of 1 in 150 alarming to you?

I am not saying that all vaccines should be halted. I am saying that there does need to be more consideration to at least use the alternative vaccine schedule where each family decides with their doctor which vaccines are necessary and at what time. Giving multiple vaccines is another topic of huge debate. It seems reasonable to me, once again, that vaccines should not be given in multiples, they should be spaced out and never containing thermerosil. It seems basic to consider that when toxins are introduced in the form of vaccines, we need to give these babies all the help we can like being older with more brain development when some of these vaccines are offered.
So many of these vaccines are for illnesses that are not life threatening, not life altering, or at least not age appropriate. In the case of one vaccine, Hepatitis B, the following comment was taken from Dr. Sears website on Vaccine Schedules:
Don’t give the Hepatitis B vaccine to newborns in the hospital. Because this shot can cause fever, lethargy, and poor feeding (problems you don’t want to see in a newborn), it’s better to delay this shot for the first two months of life, especially since the disease doesn’t even occur in newborns (it’s a sexually-transmitted disease).
Now, when I read this, I have to ask - Why in the world are infants at any age given a shot for sexually transmitted disease these days?? Is this not just one example of an unnecessary shot for a newborn or infant? Doesn't it make more sense to give a shot for sexually transmitted diseases when the person is nearing the age of becoming sexually active? Just asking.
There are countless other vaccines that should be evaluated and questioned in the same way.

Back in the day (23-34 yrs. ago) when my children were receiving their shots, they got; DPT, polio, and MMR. That's it. The MMR wasn't given until 18 months of age. Now MMR is recommended at 12 months and even a second dose is now suggested. Measles, mumps and rubella are all serious diseases but I had all three diseases as a child, as did many others of my generation, and we suffer no ill effect or problems because of it. This one certainly could be postponed a few months and possibly be given individually rather then as a grouped vaccine.
Could it be that something we did to this generation with relation to drugs and medications is now affecting their children in the same way the drugs of the 1950's affected the offspring of those women? The correlation of drugs and medications on men and their offspring is still being studied. It seems unreasonable to think that with such serious side effects on the children of the women and the women themselves, that there wouldn't be some increased risk for some types of health related problems down the road when we have more data and research on this study group.

We'll continue to explore, research, evaluate, and learn all that we can so we can be the best advocates we can for our children and their children.

I welcome your comments or stories about how your life has been touched or affected in some way by the topics we have discussed.