DES - Page 3

My Journey from DES Advocate to Author

2512 views

My name is Judith Barrow and I am an author. I have been connected with DES Action UK and USA since I heard a programme about Stilboestrol (Diethylstilbestrol in the USA) (DES) on the radio many years ago. I learned several years ago that a relative was affected by this drug.

The damage DES causes is very personal and as private person, she didn’t want anyone to know that she had been exposed to DES. So I became her front person. I did the research for her. I contacted the DES organizations on her behalf. What I found changed my life and led me to write a book. Here is my story.

DES and Endometriosis

I’d known for many years that my relative suffered with chronic endometriosis, and that she had anatomical deformities. Ultimately, it was discovered that she had a narrowing of the cervical canal which resulted in increasingly painful menstruation. Then I heard a Radio Four programme called ‘You and Yours’ which included an article on DES. I realized that a lot of the content applied to my relative.

I made the inquires for her. First to DES Action UK, which was still extant then (they folded last year due to lack of funds and support). I sent for their newsletter and went online. The more we read, the more we were convinced that she had been exposed in utero to Stilboestrol. Like many private families, her mother initially denied it. This caused family problems, so she didn’t pursue the issue any further.

The information she gained from the DES groups made her aware that she needed to have the annual cervical smear (the only specialists for this test for DES Daughters is in Ireland). The more research I carried out, the more aware I became of the damages DES had caused.

After a year of communicating with DES Action UK, I was asked to write an article appealing for DES Daughters and Mothers to come forward and tell their stories. It was hoped that the group would get more members and that, if more voices were heard, then perhaps the British Government would listen.

The stance of the Government is twofold; that those pregnant women who were prescribed the drug were given it so far in the past that to raise it as an issue now would only cause ”unnecessary concern.”  They believed it was a problem to be discussed privately between the mothers and the drug companies. I disagreed.

Following the article, many women contacted me to tell their stories. Some were heartbreaking; one daughter had six miscarriages before giving up the struggle to conceive (she then, happily, adopted a lovely little girl). Another Daughter had too many health problems to list but amongst them she suffered from endometriosis, uterine fibroids, paraovarian cysts. It was no wonder she was depressed. Her mother wrote many letters to the Government. Ultimately the reply came back – “Thank you for your letter, future correspondence will be noted and filed but not responded to…” The mother cried when she told me. I was so angry for her.

But the DES Daughter story; the one I first came across when I knew of Stilboestrol and DES Action UK, that really affected me was from one of the initial members. I enclose part of the interview, and further comment, from the article in The Sunday Independent: Sunday 22 January 2012 (this decided me to self-publish the book; it gave credence and veracity to the story. It reads as follows:

Thousands of women could be at risk from ‘silent Thalidomide’

A drug intended to prevent miscarriage is blamed for causing cancer in the daughters – and possibly even granddaughters – of women who took it decades ago. By Sarah Morrison and Jaymi McCann

The first recorded “DES daughter” in Britain, Heather Justice, 59, from Jarrow, was 25 when she found out she had vaginal cancer and would have to undergo a hysterectomy and partial vaginectomy. Although she found records showing her mother had been given DES in the 1950’s, she was unable to bring a case to court – (in the UK, because she could not identify which manufacturer had produced the drug. However, a US lawyer did help her get some compensation there.

Also, she says –“it is impossible for anyone to find the manufacturer of the drug in this country, not just me, as it was never patented. It was the surgeon who performed my hysterectomy who asked my mother if she knew what she had taken. He knew it must have been DES because of the rare type of cancer I had. He was also the one who found her medical records with the generic name of the drug”:- added after this interview)

After years of fighting the legal system, she says she feels disillusioned. “One of the problems is that unlike Thalidomide, where you see the problem the minute the baby was born, women who took DES had healthy babies,” she says. “Problems were hidden until the teens and twenties, by which point we were forgotten about. When I asked my mum what she had taken, she didn’t even remember the name of the stuff. It is a complete and utter minefield.”…

It took almost nine years to research, to contact women from different countries and piece together a story. Although I am not a DES Daughter – and like many others in the UK still are – I was totally unaware of this drug, until that one radio show on DES. The more I discovered the angrier I became. That these women are still fighting for recognition, acknowledgement from the pharmaceutical companies after so long is a disgrace.

What is DES?

DES, a synthetic oestrogen, was created by Charles Dodds in the UK in 1938. It was expected to help prevent miscarriages. Years later, he raised concerns about DES but by then very few in the medical field were listening. Doctors prescribed Stilboestrol to pregnant women between the nineteen forties and seventies, believing it was safe. The women had no reason to doubt but, too late, they learned the horrible truth. Not only was DES ultimately proved to be ineffectual, it caused drastic damage to their children: An increased risk for infertility, vaginal/cervical cancer in young women and breast cancer in later life are but the start. Scientific studies continue add to the growing list of serious medical problems caused by exposure before birth. Hormones Matter has covered DES here, here and here.

Now researchers are investigating whether DES health issues are extending into the next generation, the so-called DES Grandchildren. Millions around the world were exposed to DES, but this tragedy flies under the radar of general consciousness. I set out to change that. These women and men should not suffer in silence.

From that initial contact with DES UK, my life changed drastically. I have become an advocate for DES education, research and services. I wrote a book to publicize the depth of suffering women, their children and grandchildren exposed to DES experience, often silently. Ten percent of proceeds from the book sales go directly to DES research. I hope that my work will in some small way help change that.

To learn more about my book click: Silent Trauma.

To learn more about DES action groups: DES Action Groups Worldwide

What is DES and Why You Should Care

6765 views

Diethylstilbestrol or DES is synthetic estrogen developed in the late 1930s. It was initially approved by the FDA in 1941 for vaginitis and as an early hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women.  It was later approved a variety of low estrogen indications. In 1947, the FDA approved its use in pregnant women with a history of miscarriage. DES had been used off-label for miscarriage prevention since the early 1940s, despite the fact that little evidence supported its use and animal studies indicated clear carcinogenic and congenital reproductive abnormalities in the offspring.

After 10 years of widespread use and marketing, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of DES was finally conducted. As one might expect, it was found ineffective in preventing miscarriage. In fact, women on DES had a higher risk of miscarriage. Later studies in the 1960s began detailing the adverse events associated with this drug. Despite mounting evidence of the dangers of diethylstilbestrol, it remained on the market and widely used through the early 1970s in the US and into the 1980s in some European countries.  In the US alone, it is estimated that between 5-10 million women and their children were exposed to DES.  Because the compound was never patented, 287 drug companies sold DES under a multitude of brands  and for an array of low-estrogen conditions.

In addition to diethylstilbestrol use in humans, it was used widely in farm animals to fatten up the chickens and cattle, beginning in the early 1950s and through the 1970s. DES was found to cause cancer and interestingly enough, cause gynecomastia (man boobs) and sterility in the poultry workers. Well before DES was banned in humans, the FDA banned it in poultry under the newly enacted Delaney Clause to the FDA 1958.  It seems man boobs and sterility was all it took to ban the product in chicken farms.  Miscarriage, congenital abnormalities and cross-generation cancer risks, on the other hand, were not sufficient to initiate its ban in large cattle or humans. It was another 20 years before diethylstilbestrol was banned in cattle or humans and many years after before it was removed from the food chain (if it even is now).  “In 1980, half a million cattle from one hundred and fifty-six feedlots in eighteen states were found with illegal DES implants.”  Even upon FDA’s decision to withdraw its approval of DES in cattle and feed, it did so on grounds of the procedural non-compliance of the manufacturers, erstwhile maintaining the safety of diethylstilbestrol, “because there is no evidence of a public health hazard.”  Despite its clear carcinogenic and teratogenic risks, it is still used in veterinary care.

Diethylstilbestrol Risk for Humans

Amongst those suffering the most from DES exposure are men and women who were exposed in utero as developing fetuses.  DES was given to pregnant women from the 1940 through 1971 in the US and into the 1980s in some European countries. If you were born anytime between 1940 and 1980, ask your mom if she was given DES to prevent miscarriage. It was sold under dozens of brand names (click here for brand names).

Sons and Daughters of DES

The range of depth of reproductive abnormalities, endocrine and health issues found in the children and grandchildren of DES moms, is expanding regularly. If your mom or grandmother was given DES, here is a list of health issues to look for:

DES Daughters

In a large cohort study comparing the reproductive health of the daughters of women prescribed DES during pregnancy to the health of women whose mothers had not been given DES, researchers found a 2-8 times higher incidence of the following conditions:

  • Infertility
  • Spontaneous abortion
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Second trimester pregnancy loss,
  • Preterm delivery
  • Preeclampsia
  • Stillbirth
  • Neonatal death
  • Early menopause
  • Breast cancer
  • Cervical neoplasia
  • Clear cell adenocarcinoma

The increased risk of miscarriage and adverse pregnancy outcome in DES daughters is overwhelmingly linked to structural abnormalities with uterus. Fully 69% of DES daughters who have had difficult with infertility and miscarriage have an abnormally shaped uterine cavity or structural changes to the cervix (44%).

DES and Endometriosis

Of particular interest to Hormones Matter followers, DES exposure in utero is linked to an 80% increase in endometriosis. We will be digging deeper into the DES – endometriosis connection in the coming weeks.

DES Sons

Sons of women given DES during pregnancy are three times more likely to have structural abnormalities of the genitals including:

  • epididymal cysts
  • undescended testes
  • extremely small testes
  • hypospadias (misplaced urethral opening)
  • micropenis (some, but not all)
  • increased risk of infertility
  • increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer (although the research has just begun)

In the animal research, offspring of DES exposed mothers shows a vast array of structural and morphological changes across multiple physiological systems ranging from sex reversal in male fish to structural and functional changes in pancreatic cells. The full scope of damage from DES is yet to be determined.

DES Grandchildren

Yes, there are third generation effects from this drug. Researchers are just beginning to untangle the third generation effects. In women, menstrual irregularities appear more common as do the various forms of cancer, but the data are unclear. In men, hypospodias may be more frequent, but again the data are mixed.

Endocrine disruptors like diethylstilbestrol impact human health in ways we are only just beginning to understand. The current methods for measuring and calculating risk for endocrine disruptors is out-dated and based on standard, linear, dose-response curves that not only fail to account for how hormone systems work, but also fail to address possible transgenerational effects. Hormones matter and sooner or later we must address the broader endocrine system in pharmaceutical and environmental regulation. As women, we ought to be fighting for sooner.

Are We Marks? The Greed and Chicanery of 21st Century Corporate Culture

2493 views

Corporate Culture has Run Afoul

By now everyone is aware of Bank of America’s latest in a long stream of fee gouging practices- the $5 debit card fee. This is on top of an endless array transaction fees charged to customers that generate billions in profits annually, and of course, the billions from the bailouts and the foreclosure crisis. Although blatantly evident on Wall Street, the shift in corporate ideology that rewards chicanery pervades every aspect of American life, especially healthcare and most especially women’s and children’s healthcare.

We’re at a place in time where corporations would rather spend billions lobbying favorable regulations and billions more fighting and paying out consumer or patient lawsuits for faulty products than build a quality product or provide a quality service in the first place. How else does one explain the medical marketing of dangerous drugs to otherwise healthy women– think HRT, Yaz and Yasmin, Prozac, Wellbutrin and other anti-depressants to pregnant women (and to rest of the un-depressed population for that matter)? How else does one explain why incredibly dangerous products like Yaz/Yasmin are still on the market despite having more serious adverse events than drugs already off the market because of safety issues (VIOXX) (see  comparison of Yaz side effects below, from www.adverseevents.com  or click on the graphic below).  How else do we explain why it took so many years to remove DES from the market place despite evidence of both teratogenic and carcinogenic effects from the onset or why HRT, was allowed to be marketed as the magic pill that cured all, without any evidence whatsoever? How else do we explain why we not only bought these drugs but demanded them (besides the fact that many are addictive)? How else does one explain that in the 21st century only 30% of practice guidelines for obstetricians and gynecologists are evidence based? Thirty-percent!!!


I guess one really doesn’t need evidence if the treatment choices are limited to bad and worse. Indeed, it’s probably a good thing that more people, patients and doctors alike, don’t question the prescribing practices, the medical efficacy or the very real risk some of these meds pose. Maybe we are marks.

Where did this racket of corporate miscreance come from? I would argue it came from us, or rather because of us. For some reason, we the consumer, the citizen, the patient, the physician, the politician, checked our common sense and personal responsibility at the door of mega-marketing. Somehow we convinced ourselves that we deserved everything, but had to pay for nothing. We abdicated our personal responsibility for our own health, happiness and financial stability to others. And now we are facing the consequences: ill-health, physical and economical, personal and global.

The economic crash exposed the fealty of our financial system and is exposing the very real flaws in our corporate, insurance-based, medical system. The system has taken medical decision-making away from the physician and the patient and placed it squarely in the hands of pharma marketing engines and insurance companies. We’re at a juncture in time, where the sheer economic reality of buying pills to solve all medical problems, is contrasted by the fact that many simply cannot afford their meds anymore and must look to alternative solutions for health.

With all crises comes innovation and change, maybe with this one, we can get back to the “first do no harm” principle of medicine. Maybe we can get back to personal responsibility for health. I think Bill Maher said it best “We’ll stop being sick,when we stop making ourselves sick.”

For a laugh-out loud assessment of modern healthcare by Bill Maher click here.

To look up or report adverse reactions to common medications go to: www.adverseevents.com

Warning: This site does not offer medical advice. If you have questions about your medications or your health, please consult your physician. Do not attempt to discontinue any medication without physician approval and supervision.

Women’s Hormones: An Intellectual and Ethical Cul de Sac

5400 views

Menopause is barreling down with a ferocity that is difficult to ignore. Like many women my age, I’ve had my share of health challenges and, until recently, blindly trusted the pharmaceutical industry to fix all that ailed me. Health by chemistry was a great thing; oral contraceptives, a fabulous invention, allergy meds – ditto, pain killers – wonderful, and on, and on. Take a pill and feel better, isn’t that what we all want? But I, like so many women, have lost faith in pharmaceuticals. It’s not because the science isn’t cool, it is, in every area of pharmacology, except women’s hormone therapies. Here, intellectual curiosity and innovation have been replaced by status quo. Little has changed in this area of hormones and health in 60 years.

Hormones, Hormones, Everywhere and No Innovation in Sight

Since their inception, hormone replacement therapies (HRT) and oral contraceptives have dominated women’s health, immediately moving from seemingly narrow applications when first introduced to the almost mythical status as cure-alls for any female and many general health ailments. The history of both these pills is strikingly inglorious and utterly dumbfounding. Just on general principle, why would anyone believe any medication could be so widely beneficial for so many apparently disparate conditions? It is physiologically impossible.

For HRT especially, if one believes the marketing, the pills provide a veritable fountain of youth. Where is the science? But believe we did, and generations of women may now be paying the consequences.

From the very first estrogens synthesized and marketed to women everywhere (diethylstilbestrol- DES), through today’s HRTs and OCs, profit appears to override health concerns. Even in the 1930’s and 1940s before these drugs came to market, the carcinogenic risks were well known, and yet, they garnered FDA approval and were sold to millions, upon millions of women.

Synthetic Hormones

I have personal experience only with the often ignored side effects of oral contraceptives, as I have yet to reach the age of menopause. In my 20s, while on the presumable high estrogen dose of oral contraceptives that were common then, I had intense bouts of vertigo that would develop even when lying down and ever increasing blood pressure. After years of expensive testing could find no neurological cause for the vertigo and after repeated prescriptions to lower my blood pressure, I stopped taking the pill. I had enough. The vertigo stopped fairly soon thereafter and the blood pressure returned to normal. Over those several years, there was not a single physician that suggested I stop taking the pill, indeed I was prescribed more and more meds to counter the apparently unknown side effects of oral contraceptives and it was recommended I see a shrink because the vertigo had to be psychosomatic.

I look back at that time and I wonder how many other women suffered similar circumstances. What is this propensity to prescribe and continue prescribing medications in the face of apparent ill effects? Why are we ignoring, even at the patient level, the possibility that some meds may not work for some women (or men). The statistics bear this out, but there seems to be a natural inclination to minimize these risks. This is compounded of course, by intense marketing.

As I approach this menopausal stage, I again will be faced with yet another hormone-issue for which the choices are bad and worse. We know from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, that HRT is not the panacea it was marketed to be and the risks associated with this medication are not benign.

Over a one year period, for every 10,000 women taking and estrogen plus progestin, the risk of developing these conditions increases by:

• Heart disease: 7 additional cases
• Breast cancer: 8 additional cases
• Stroke: 8 additional cases
• Blood clots: 18 additional cases

For estrogen only:

• Stroke: 12 additional cases
• Blood Clots: 6 additional cases

Consider however, the millions of women who will take or have taken HRT for years. As of 2010, over eight million women in the US alone take HRT, and will likely do so for at least a couple years. In this light, the increased risk of disease looks a lot scarier.

• Heart disease: 5600 new cases per year; 28,000 in five years
• Breast cancer: 6,400 new cases per year; 32,000 in five years
• Stroke: 6,400 new cases per year; 32,000 in five years
• Blood clots: 14,400 new cases per year; 72,000 in five years

When the WHI was published, some 17 million women in the US had been taking HRT for many, many years, even decades. That’s 13,600 new cases of breast cancer per year, 68,000 in five years! Despite these data, and the thousands of lawsuits that followed, HRT is still one of the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide. I think we can do better.

Statistics from the Mayo Clinic

We Need Your Help

Hormones Matter needs funding now. Our research funding was cut recently and because of our commitment to independent health research and journalism unbiased by commercial interests we allow minimal advertising on the site. That means all funding must come from you, our readers. Don’t let Hormones Matter die.

Yes, I’d like to support Hormones Matter.