Australian baby born deaf and blind after mother took Botox-like drug

Chevy57

Sherlock Hound
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
11,353
Reaction score
5
AN anti-wrinkle treatment virtually identical to the booming Botox has been linked to serious birth defects.

An Australian baby was born deaf and blind in November 2005 after the mother was given facial cosmetic injections of the drug Dysport in the first week of pregnancy.

Documents from the Federal Health and Ageing Department, released under Freedom of Information, have revealed the "serious and unexpected pregnancy outcome".

Dysport and Botox are both botulinum type A toxin drugs rapidly growing in popularity as muscle-relaxant cosmetic treatments.

The birth defect link was among 46 different adverse reactions to botulinum type A toxin reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration since July 1, 1994.

The most common are temporary facial paralysis, visual disturbances, fatigue, dizziness, difficulty swallowing, hallucinations and anxiety.

Has your baby had an adverse reaction? Tell us below.

The European Medicines Agency has recorded more than 600 negative effects from the use of drugs made from botulinum type A toxin, including 28 deaths. And in the US, the Food and Drug Administration has warned of side-effects including death, but stopped short of a ban.

A 2006 report on the Australian birth defect case, written by the medical services manager for Dysport manufacturer Ipsen, admits a "possible" link with the drug's use.

"A female subject was injected with Dysport at about one week of gestation. The infant was born deaf and blind," the report states.

Another report, however, claimed there was no such link.

A Health and Ageing Department spokeswoman said she was unaware if there were any further findings.

"It absolutely would have been investigated, but it does not appear it warranted further action," she said.

Both Botox and Dysport are schedule three drugs that can only be used on prescription. Consumer information for both recommends against treatment when pregnant.

An Ipsen spokesman said Dysport, unlike Botox, was more commonly used for purposes other than smoothing treatments, such as by neurologists for movement disorders.

"When the drug is administered according to specifications, it's one of the safest drugs out there," he said.

A spokeswoman for Australian Botox distributor Allergan said its safety had been established over 40 years. "More than 2000 clinical studies and review articles have been published on the effectiveness and safety of Botox," she said.

Cosmetic Physicians of Australia spokeswoman Dr Mary Dingley said she administered up to 10 treatments a day using either Botox or Dysport without serious reactions.

She said most adverse reactions she experienced were trauma around the injection site, while in other cases the problems related to the drug affecting nearby muscles.

Babty born deaf and blind after mother took Botox-like drug | The Courier-Mail

I think that US Food and Drug Administration has warned of side-effects including death, but stopped short of a ban.
 
I'm sorry, that's silly.

I can take tylenol and get run over by the bus the next day. Maybe seven people a year have a history of consuming tylenol before getting run over by buses. Do we need to list ' getting run over by a bus' as an adverse effect?

Plenty of women eat apples during pregnancy- if one of their children is born with a disability, does that mean that apples cause birth defects?

ONE incidence is not significant.
 
Nodding in agreement, to the above post.

Someone always have to look for something or someone to blame for their childs defects.

Couldn't it just be genes?
 
Fifth'd. This is why I view statistical math important.
 
I'm sorry, that's silly.

I can take tylenol and get run over by the bus the next day. Maybe seven people a year have a history of consuming tylenol before getting run over by buses. Do we need to list ' getting run over by a bus' as an adverse effect?

Plenty of women eat apples during pregnancy- if one of their children is born with a disability, does that mean that apples cause birth defects?

ONE incidence is not significant.
I agree.

I was just telling my roommate about how people in today's society are quick to jump to conclusions before doing further analysis of what could have really happened.

For instance, this woman goes out to Chili's and has their chicken pita sandwich. She also has iced water. After dinner, she goes out to a bar that's full of smokers. While at the bar, she has a glass of beer and a glass of champagne. After the bar, she throws up.

What was her first conclusion? It was the bad chicken pita sandwich she had at Chili's. So, she doesn't order that chicken pita sandwich again.

What about the glass of water? Maybe, the glass was dirty? What about the second-hand smoke? She was there for several hours. That's a long time to be exposed to cigarette smoke. What about the beer and the champagne she had as well? What if her body doesn't respond to chicken and beer in the same setting? Anything could be a factor to her getting sick.

I remember a topic we had in a data analysis class in college. A group of people surveyed a large number of victims of heat stroke at a local beach and asked them what they all ate before they had their heat stroke. Almost all of them had ice cream. So, the conclusion was... ice cream leads to heat strokes. Hello... maybe, they didn't have enough water... maybe, they were out there too long... maybe, they were sick from something else... it could have been anything. :roll:
 
The cause-and-effect research on this one seems pretty sketchy so far.
 
Back
Top