Honest Money

Gold is Wealth Hiding in Oil

  • Subscribe

  • Alert

    Inventor of Thalidomide Frances Oldham Kelsey Dies – August 2005

    Inventor of Thalidomide Frances Oldham Kelsey Dies

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 9th, 2015

    Inventor of Thalidomide Frances Oldham Kelsey Dies

    Frances Kelsey, doctor who kept thalidomide out of US, dies aged 101
    Canadian doctor refused to bow to pressure from makers of drug when she worked for the US Food and Drug Administration in the early 1960s
    Associated Press
    Sunday 9 August 2015 02.07 BST

    Thalidomide was definitely known in the year 1938 and [its] defects were noted in Phoenix, AZ (USA) in a medical journal that year. It was known as a cure for Hanson’s Disease and made by [Richardson]-Merrill Co. in [Cincinnati], OH (USA). I don’t know what action was taken, but a young female doctor named Frances Oldham Kersey (or Kelsey) recognized its dangers.
    [by] Theodore, Princeton, WV/USA
    (reaction under From The Times April 4, 2008 Thalidomide: 50 years on victims unite to seek more compensation Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

    Kelsey was the lady who in 1960 only joined the USofA Food and Drugs Administration (FDA).

    Once there, she further delayed thalidomide’s approval (thalidomide was marketed since 1957)
    and was given a Presidential award by USofA president Kennedy for that delay.

    Wikipedia says
    that Kelsey is credited SINCE NINETEEN THIRTY-EIGHT with her interest in teratogens – that is, drugs that cause congenital malformations,
    that 1938 was the date of the creation of the FDA,
    and that Kelsey managed to be appointed there in 1960

    Frances Oldham Kelsey invented thalidomide and was given a Presidential award for this invention by USofA president John F. Kennedy.

    Thalidomide was marketed since 1957.

    Kelsey was only appointed in the FDA in 1960.

    How can she get (all) the credit for having ‘saved’ the US of A from it?

    Legal tabloids tell us that thalidomide is an example of the development-risk defence which allows producers to escape liability if they prove that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time when they put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of a defect to be discovered, as defined at present “a contrario” (“argument based on the contrary” – denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not disproven by a certain case, says Wikipedia) in article 15(1)(b) of the 1985 EEC Product Liability Directive, formally Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products.

    Dr. Herman Cousy, professor emeritus from the law department of the K.U. Leuven,
    has demonstrated in 1996 that the thalidomide scandal cannot be considered to be an example of the development-risk defence
    by saying on p. 163, in note 28,
    of his paper “The Precautionary Principle: A Status Questionis” published in the “Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice”, also available on the website of the “Geneva Association”, l’”Association Internationale pour l’Etude de l’Economie de l’Assurance”, the leading international think tank of the insurance industry, that :
    “One often cites the Thalidomide (Contergan) case as an example of a development risk situation, although it appears that when thalidomide was brought onto the German market, the product had been banned in France. Can it be readily upheld, under such circumstances, that the conditions for a development risk situation were fulfilled?”

    This means that the primary cause of the thalidomide scandal is the fact that after the French Leviathan had banned thalidomide, other Leviathans, whose main reason for existence would be to “protect” their citizens, did not prevent the product being brought onto “their” markets nor did they immediately order the withdrawal of thalidomide from “their” markets, once the product appeared there after the French ban.

    The primary cause is opposed to the (Aristotelian) efficient of the thalidomide scandal, the tablet.

    For Aristotle, 25 centuries ago, the efficient cause is the being in act who brings about the change. And Aristotle went on to give the example of the sculptor who makes the … statue. Was this example devised 25 centuries ago with thalidomide monsters in mind?

    Kelsey was Canadian, wasn’t she?

    Why are there victims of thalidomide in Canada?

    Ivo Cerckel