'New evidence links 1970s pregnancy test drug to life-changing birth defects
There may have been a 'cover-up' of the effect of the drug on pregnant mothers, say campaigners
Ms Lyon, chair of the campaign group Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, said: “It’s unthinkable that more than 40 years after our children were born, neither the sufferers nor their mothers have had justice.”
Schering-Plough has now been taken over by Bayer. The company has said the use of Primodos in the 1970s was “in compliance with prevailing laws”.
The pharmaceutical giant maintains the “evidence for a causal association between the use of hormonal pregnancy tests and an increased incidence of congenital malformations was extremely weak”.
Bayer “rejects any suggestion” that anything has been concealed by Schering-Plough, other than privileged documents.
A spokesperson for Bayer said:
“Bayer denies that Primodos was responsible for causing any deformities in children.
UK litigation in respect of Primodos, against Schering (which is now owned by Bayer), ended in 1982 when the claimants’ legal team, with the approval of the court, decided to discontinue the litigation on the grounds that there was no realistic possibility of showing that Primodos caused the congenital abnormalities alleged.
Since the discontinuation of the legal action in 1982, no new scientific knowledge has been produced which would call into question the validity of the previous assessment of there being no link between the use of Primodos and the occurrence of such congenital abnormalities.”
A spokesperson for Bayer said: "Bayer denies that Primodos was responsible for causing any deformities in children.
"UK litigation in respect of Primodos, against Schering (which is now owned by Bayer), ended in 1982 when the claimants’ legal team, with the approval of the court, decided to discontinue the litigation on the grounds that there was no realistic possibility of showing that Primodos caused the congenital abnormalities alleged.
"Since the discontinuation of the legal action in 1982, no new scientific knowledge has been produced which would call into question the validity of the previous assessment of there being no link between the use of Primodos and the occurrence of such congenital abnormalities.” '
No comments:
Post a Comment