More than six decades after one federal official famously blocked a notorious German drug, American survivors of that drug's effects are pushing back against the official story that the tragedy never touched this country. The U.S. has more thalidomide survivors than the federal government acknowledges, and those survivors — now adults in their 60s and beyond — say they want the government to formally acknowledge they exist.
The episode begins in 1960, when the Cincinnati-based pharmaceutical company William S. Merrell applied to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of a German-made sedative. The company expected a routine review and hoped to have the drug on American store shelves in time for that Christmas. What it got instead was silence, then refusal. Thalidomide was not approved that year, and it was not approved the following year, either.
The person responsible was Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, a persistent medical reviewer at the FDA who became a lasting figure in drug regulation. Kelsey dug into the drug's safety data and concluded the application did not stand up to scrutiny. Her work stopped the drug from reaching general use in the United States, and it fundamentally reshaped how the agency evaluated new medicines — helping produce the rigorous testing and approval standards that exist today. An archival photograph shows Kelsey, then a pharmacologist, holding three packages of Contergan, the German brand name for thalidomide, on Oct. 15, 1962. (Photo credit: William J. Smith/AP.)
Kelsey's actions drew national attention. President John F. Kennedy publicly praised her for sparing the country "this terrible human tragedy which has been visited on families in Germany," a line that became shorthand for the idea that Kelsey had kept the catastrophe at bay. That version of the story has been repeated for decades, in congressional accounts, historical retrospectives and public memory.
But the record is more complicated. Kelsey stopped the drug from being approved for general use; she could not stop doctors from prescribing it. According to reporting, physicians in the United States were already handing out thalidomide in the 1950s and 1960s to thousands of American patients, including pregnant women, often without telling their patients what the drug was or what its risks might be, and in some cases without any FDA approval behind its use. Some of the children of those women were born with severely deformed limbs.
Those children are adults now. And rather than being erased by the official narrative, they are organized, articulate and increasingly visible in Washington, asking not for sympathy but for recognition — an acknowledgment on the record that what happened to their families happened here.
"We go to doctors today who say it didn't happen here in the United States. Oh yeah, it did," said Gwen Riechmann, who was born with phocomelia, the signature shortened-limb deformity associated with thalidomide. Riechmann is a Cincinnati-area survivor, connected to the Merrell story that launched the FDA application in the first place.
Phocomelia is a rare condition, but it is somewhat more common outside the United States, in countries such as Britain and Germany, where thalidomide was far more widely sold and its birth-defect link was documented earlier. That distribution itself is a kind of evidence: the pattern of damage abroad is well established, and American survivors carry the same injuries.
Riechmann's own case is an echo of the era's quiet prescribing. When her mother was pregnant with her in the early 1960s, the doctor gave her a new sedative, and the family was not told what it was or what it might do. Decades later, the diagnosis follows Riechmann everywhere — through doctors' offices, medical records and conversations with people who assume such a birth defect could only have come from somewhere else.
That is the heart of the dispute over the numbers. Officials have long operated from the premise that American exposure was minimal, in some cases a handful of compassionate or experimental prescriptions. Survivors argue that the real count is far higher, and that the gap is not biological but administrative — the product of unprescribed, undocumented and unapproved use during a period when records were kept inconsistently and patients rarely questioned what they were given.
Recognition could mean more than a line in a report. It could mean updated federal records, acknowledgment for the medical and rehabilitation needs of an aging survivor population, and a formal correction of a decades-old public narrative that credited a single regulator with preventing a national tragedy.
Kelsey's legacy is not erased by this. The regulations she helped provoke are widely credited with making American medicines safer. But the survivors' account points to a limit in that heroic story: an approval system can stop a drug, and it cannot control what a physician does with one.
The question now is whether the government will say plainly that the legacy is both true and incomplete — that America did escape the commercial-scale disaster seen in Europe, while also producing, quietly and without consent, a community of survivors who have lived for more than half a century in a country that insisted it had never happened.
(0)