Noseynose - Anyone In Contact With Him?
ChatterBank0 min ago
Primodos Pregnancy Drug With Horrible Side Effects, Whats Your Opinion?
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by piggynose. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
why have an opinion when you can read the report?
here
https:/
Not used now - last used 40 y ago
but if it damages - then you know the people who took it should be - well er - damaged
that is - there should be more X Y and Z than in the normal pop at that time
you cant show it - really this is almost game over
Thalidomide was 25 % - Lenz Lancet 1962
Gal's report was scraped up but her original case notes ( hem hem from 1970) are now destroyed and had been anonymised before hand anyway.
Cover up? no this prevents / prevented what happened at the GMC last year when an investigator one Dr Gent of the now dissolved PHE squealed telephonically ( he wdnt appear in person) - "do you realise that if you use my information to strike off a doctor, no one is ever going to tell the truth to contact-and-trace confidential investigators ever again?"
and the GMC screamed ( they always scream ) Guilty Guilty Guilty. [ebola cack up]
Dr Isobel Gal seems to have anticipated that by 40 y.
But wait !
what happened to the gran-daddy of them all? One Wm McBride - the Oz doctor 1961 who warned of it all just before Lenz 1962? - McBride said "oops it occurs"
and Lenz said 6 months later - "er it looks like 25%"
McBride tired of the lack of public applause and tried it with another sedative and the drug company raided his lab and got his results
The results were not happy
a/c to the BMJ obit
"But a later chapter of McBride’s life was not so pleasant. In 1993, at the age of 65, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud by a medical tribunal for knowingly publishing false and misleading research. He was removed from the medical register."
oops oops
that explains isabel gals actions with the shredder
and so reader you can see it is a mess
I have no idea what the right answer is
a bad drug shouldnt take 40 y to be identified as a baby killer
(someone asked - honestly I heard someone ask .....)
o a tip top investigator like Sqad is now obliged to keep his results available for scrutiny for seven years after publication.
here
https:/
Not used now - last used 40 y ago
but if it damages - then you know the people who took it should be - well er - damaged
that is - there should be more X Y and Z than in the normal pop at that time
you cant show it - really this is almost game over
Thalidomide was 25 % - Lenz Lancet 1962
Gal's report was scraped up but her original case notes ( hem hem from 1970) are now destroyed and had been anonymised before hand anyway.
Cover up? no this prevents / prevented what happened at the GMC last year when an investigator one Dr Gent of the now dissolved PHE squealed telephonically ( he wdnt appear in person) - "do you realise that if you use my information to strike off a doctor, no one is ever going to tell the truth to contact-and-trace confidential investigators ever again?"
and the GMC screamed ( they always scream ) Guilty Guilty Guilty. [ebola cack up]
Dr Isobel Gal seems to have anticipated that by 40 y.
But wait !
what happened to the gran-daddy of them all? One Wm McBride - the Oz doctor 1961 who warned of it all just before Lenz 1962? - McBride said "oops it occurs"
and Lenz said 6 months later - "er it looks like 25%"
McBride tired of the lack of public applause and tried it with another sedative and the drug company raided his lab and got his results
The results were not happy
a/c to the BMJ obit
"But a later chapter of McBride’s life was not so pleasant. In 1993, at the age of 65, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud by a medical tribunal for knowingly publishing false and misleading research. He was removed from the medical register."
oops oops
that explains isabel gals actions with the shredder
and so reader you can see it is a mess
I have no idea what the right answer is
a bad drug shouldnt take 40 y to be identified as a baby killer
(someone asked - honestly I heard someone ask .....)
o a tip top investigator like Sqad is now obliged to keep his results available for scrutiny for seven years after publication.
1 to 6 of 6
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.