The Financial Consequences of Sodium Valproate

Sodium Valproate is a demonstration that our medical system is failing. It has given pregnant women a drug that has caused an estimated 20,000 children born with serious birth defects, that is, 20,000 people who will require medical intervention and support for the rest of their lives. Compensation and damages will add to the cost of the NHS, the demand on taxpayers money, in a health service, and a national economy that is already under serious pressure.

I have written about these "secondary costs" of a failed medical system (pharmaceutical medicine) before, see these links. They explain why conventional medicine has always demanded more and more resources, and why it will always do so.

• The Secondary Costs of Conventional Medicine (October 2018)
• The Secondary Costs of a Failing Medical System (January 2019)
• The Economic Crisis. A self-inflicted wound resulting from a failed medical system. The secondary cost of a failed medical system (November 2020)

The scandal of Sodium Valproate starts, but does not end, with the damaged lives of young children, their families, or even the compensation/damages claims that will be forthcoming. It is the ongoing, or secondary costs that will stretch long into the future. Parents cannot work because they have to care for their children. Children lose their potential to develop into full citizens who can contribute to society as otherwise they would have done. As they grow older many will depend on benefits and other support. And, of course, the ongoing medical treatment needed to deal with the consequences of the harm done by Sodium Valproate.

The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review’s (IMMDSR) report, ‘First do no harm’, referred to in yesterday's blog, outlined some of the harm caused by this dangerous drug. The report makes it clear that the babies are born with birth defects that include spina bifida, autism, malformations of the brain, heart, and kidneys, and in severe cases, death.

Yet when conventional medicine talks about what has caused these diseases they rarely mention that they might be cause by prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.

• Spina Bifida. The NHS says that "It's not known what causes spina bifida but a number of things can increase the risk of a baby developing the condition". They mention lack of folic acid, family history, genetics, obesity and diabetes; and they mention epileptic drugs, including Valproate; but discount this by emphasising that doctors will not prescribe them "if there's a chance you could get pregnant while taking them, but they may be needed if the alternatives are not effective".
• Autism. The NHS says that "nobody knows what causes autism, or if it has a cause". It does know, however, that it is "not caused by vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine". However, although it is clear from the IMMDSR report that they do know it is caused by Sodium Valproate they fail to mention it!

Conventional medicine never admits culpability, even when they know they are culpable!

The cost of Conventional Medicine around the world is rising exponentially, and it has been for the last 80 to 100 years. The UK's NHS has always demanded, year by year, resources, to cope with more and more sickness and disease.  

Why does it need more more money? Why is there epidemic levels of sickness and disease, regardless of how much is spent on treatment?

The Sodium Valproate scandal suggests that iotragenic (or doctor-induced) disease plays a very large part in this increased demand.

People get sick, and they are given pharmaceutical drugs that make them sicker. And then they are given more drugs to treat increased levels of sickness, leading to chronic disease, and the need for more medical care. It is these 'secondary' costs of medical failure, rarely if ever mentioned, that are fundamental to the funding of the conventional medicine. 

The problem of NHS funding not "an ageing population"; nor is it the increased sophistication (or even the increased cost) of medical treatment; or any of the other reasons routinely trotted out for medical failure. 

The problem is iatrogenic. 

It is the result of a medical system that is inherently harmful, dangerous to our health.

Sodium Valproate: an anti-epileptic drug that has caused patient harm for 50+ years

This story demonstrates how the pharmaceutical industry makes huge profits from drugs that seriously harm patients, and how it uses it's allies, in government, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media, to make sure no-one realises that the drugs they are taking are harmful.

Sodium Valproate is an epilepsy drug, an anti-spasmodic. It was first approved in 1967, over 55 years ago. Conventional medicine has known it causes patient harm for most of that time; but despite restrictions of prescribing it, it is still being prescribed, and will continue to be so. Despite the fact that it is still causing serious harm.

Anyone who knows the history of pharmaceutical medicine should not be surprised to hear this. It has happened, and it continues to happen, with most prescribed drugs. Go to this link for other drugs that have gone through a similar process. Patients taking any of these drugs do not usually its history of harm, at least, not the full extent of the damage they can cause. Conventional medicine insists that they are "safe and effective" - for as long as they can.

I wrote about Sodium Valproate 13 years ago, here, "Epilim; a dangerous drug, but no legal redress for families". 

In January 2024 NICE (the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) introduced new restrictions.

        "From January 2024, valproate must not be started in new patients (male or female) younger than 55 years, unless two specialists independently consider and document that there is not other effective or tolerated treatment, or unless there are compelling reasons that the reproductive risks do not apply".

Powerful advice indeed! But should not this advice have been given over 55 years ago?

Conventional drug-based medicine might appear to be protecting patients against dangerous drugs like Sodium Valproate, but they have not been doing so, so stringently, for the last 55 years. What this means is that the drug has been harming patients throughout this time, that drug companies have been profiting from selling it; and they can still do so as the drug continues to be available for prescription!

Except, of course, that conventional medicine has known (or should have known) about how dangerous this drug was for a very long time.

• My 2010 blog on Sodium Valproate (Epilim) concerned a group of parents whose children had been harmed by this drug who were seeking legal redress. They were opposed by the drug company, the NHS, and the government - who presumably maintained that the drug was "safe and effective".

So a drug like Sodium Valproate can be (i) tested by medical science and pronounced "safe and effective"; (ii) national drug regulators (whose sole task is to protect patients from dangerous pharmaceutical drugs) can examine and approve it; (iii) the drug company can sell it to medical authorities; and (iv) doctors can prescribe it to patients. And vast profits can be made, especially when the drug is protected by the conventional medical establishment, including both government and the mainstream media. 

In 2020 the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review’s (IMMDSR) report, ‘First do no harm’, picked out Sodium Valproate as a particularly dangerous drug. It explored the harm it caused. There is actually a disease named after the drug - foetal valproate spectrum disorder (FVSD), which is the blanket diagnosis for the wide variety of disorders and development issues known to be caused when the foetus is exposed to the drug in the womb​​. The babies are born with birth defects that include spina bifida, autism, malformations of the brain, heart, and kidneys, and in severe cases, death.

A Patient Safety Commissioner, Henrietta Hughes, described the ongoing use of Sodium Valproate as  “a far bigger scandal than thalidomide”.

​The IMMDSR report made headline news, unusual for such negative news about pharmaceutical drugs. Even the mainstream media could not ignore it at the time. But eventually the publicity was effectively ignored. The fact that conventional medicine can continue to use the drug is testimony to this. Once, harmful pharmaceutical drugs were banned by drug regulators. This is what should happen but it appears that this is no longer the case - regardless of the horrendous publicity. There has been much more, as these few examples demonstrate.

• In January 2018 this BBC News video talked about "the sodium valproate scandal", exposing "the scandal of sodium valproate and pregnancy, and how devastatingly it could affect family for generations".

• In April 2022 the MHRA (UK's drug regulator) looked into cases of unsafe epilepsy drug being given to pregnant women as it was "associated with birth defects", and without proper warnings being given to patients.
  

•  In December 2022 the MHRA recommended that no one should take the drug "without advice from their healthcare professional".
  

• In February 2023 BBC News reported that a woman, who three children were born with disabilities after she was prescribed an epilepsy drug during pregnancy has "welcomed new GP guidance". (Note, after 55 years during which time the damage had been done, but the guidance was "new"). This article comments, sagely, that "it is thought thousands of UK children have been harmed by foetal exposure to sodium valproate since the 1970's".

One of the findings of the IMMDSR report was that the voice of the patient has been dismissed over the years, that conventional medicine (the NHS) just did not listen to them. Remember my 2010 blog? The large group of parents, with damaged children, who went to court to argue that what they were being told (that the drug was "safe and effective") was not correct? They lost! And as a result of this, so did many more parents whose children were born, damaged, during the next 12 years. 

So perhaps the new guidelines will protect potential parents now - if doctors follow the guidelines. But no-one should believe that Sodium Valproate's only adverse drug reaction is to cause serious birth defects. It is now thought that male infertility can be damaged. The drug is also known to cause of other serious conditions, such as nausea, confusion, delusions, feeling of unreality, mental depression, difficult/laboured breathing, vomiting, weakness, bleeding, encephalopathy, suicidal thoughts behaviour, and many more. It's all in official medical literature! To see a more complete list of adverse reactions visit this link. 

Except, of course, that for an entirely complete list of adverse drug reactions to Sodium Valproate we might have to wait another 55 years! The pharmaceutical industry is a slow learner, especially when big drug profits are being made.

Nor should anyone believe that Sodium Valproate is prescribed only for epilepsy. It is also used for people with Bipolar Disease, and Schizophrenia, Migraine - and several other illnesses.

And many people will not know that they are taking Sodium Valporate, as like most pharmaceutical drugs, it is branded under many different names. These include Absenor, Convulex, Depakene, Depakin, Depakine, Depakine, Depalept, Deprakine, Encorate, Epival, Epilim, Stavzor, Valcote, Valpakine, Orfiril, and no doubt many others. The branding of drugs seems to be done to deflect attention, and create confusion! One drug, with a multiplicity of names!

The conclusion is easy to relate. Sodium valproate has been associated with birth defects for many years. The medical profession has denied this for 55 years, during which time thousands of patients, around the world, have been damaged. Patients were not properly informed about the dangers - not least because the medical profession were denying these dangers until recently. Conventional medicine invariably does so, and many of the drugs they say are "safe and effective" today are nothing of the sort. But we will not know, or be told, for many years, if not decades.

 

The fact is that most pharmaceutical drugs are harmful to patients; the medical establishment is quite aware of the harm they cause (it is in the medical literature) but it continue to allow doctors to prescribe them. Moreover, patients continue to take them because they are not adequately informed about their dangers.