The Bush nominee to take over as head of the FDA faced a hostile Senate hearing over the issue of making the morning after pill more widely available.
The morning after pill is known as Plan B. It is consists of two pills made up of both estrogen and progesterone but in a very high dose, so that it is designed to ensure that unplanned pregnancies fail. The FDA leadership is determined to limit the availability to women over the age of 18.
However, I question the very idea that this product should even be available over the counter. Once again the various questions about what is best for the health of a woman is ignored. Instead, of caring about what is best for a woman, Hilary Clinton and her cohort seek to ensure that the number of Americans are limited due to the widespread availability of the morning after pill. No thought is given to the possibility that such a high dose of either estrogen of progestrone could be harmful to the woman concerned.
I write here as a mature woman who has had three children and has now gone through the menopause. Any disruption to the delicate balance of a woman's hormonal system can throw her body out of whack. Many of the diseases that are now quite common, not just in the USA, but elsewhere in the world, occur because of some form of hormonal imbalance. At this point in time we still do not understand how our hormonal receptors function so that we are constantly in a good state of health. When a woman becomes pregnant, as her hormonal levels change, she is subject to morning sickness or in some cases, all day nausea. The pregnancy causes several changes in hormonal levels, including that of prolactin. Interference with these levels could, for all we know be responsible for the number of women who have thyroid problems.
The issue here happens to be that the pharmaceutical company, Barr, who is responsible for the manufacture of Plan B, wants this product to be sold OTC. Already, there is one woman who resigned from the FDA as a protest because Plan B is not widely available. It seems to me that this woman misses the point regarding the issue of sexual intimacy outside of marriage. There would be no unplanned pregnancies of women were not behaving in a promiscuous way. Should this promiscuity be rewarded by making available a product that will either ensure that she does not become pregnant or will do harm to the child that is forming in the womb, so that any pregnancy that continues will end up with a child with disabilities.
These women are not concerned about the health of other women. They are only concerned about their own selfish agendas.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Lack of independence of Australian TGA
The collective known as Australians against RU486 have questioned the independence of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in their new found role regarding the administration of approvals for the use of RU486.
On the disgraceful day in which the politicians lost their minds and showed their true colours by overturning good social policy, the AARU486 issued a press release questioning the very independence of the TGA. Few Australians recognize that the Therapeutic Goods Administration receives no funding from the Government, and rely entirely upon industry sources for their funding. How can the TGA be proved to be independent with regard to its approval decisions if the pharmaceutical industry is providing the funding?
The Australian Parliament voted to abrogate its responsibility with regard to social responsibility, and there are other implications to consider:
- by allowing the TGA, the authority (without Ministerial oversight) to approve without restriction the use of RU486 and other abortifacients the politicians have moved to prevent the general public the right to participate in such approvals. There will be no opportunity for doctors, scientists and members of the public to make submissions. All proceedings will be conducted behind closed doors and this is not good news.
- the TGA is not concerned about the right or otherwise of teenagers to access a drug such as RU486. As already discussed elsewhere, RU486 should not be offered to girls under the age of 18 because of the greater chance of dying as a result of a chemically induced abortion.
- there is no room for assessing the social impact that will result from the approval of this drug.
On the disgraceful day in which the politicians lost their minds and showed their true colours by overturning good social policy, the AARU486 issued a press release questioning the very independence of the TGA. Few Australians recognize that the Therapeutic Goods Administration receives no funding from the Government, and rely entirely upon industry sources for their funding. How can the TGA be proved to be independent with regard to its approval decisions if the pharmaceutical industry is providing the funding?
The Australian Parliament voted to abrogate its responsibility with regard to social responsibility, and there are other implications to consider:
- by allowing the TGA, the authority (without Ministerial oversight) to approve without restriction the use of RU486 and other abortifacients the politicians have moved to prevent the general public the right to participate in such approvals. There will be no opportunity for doctors, scientists and members of the public to make submissions. All proceedings will be conducted behind closed doors and this is not good news.
- the TGA is not concerned about the right or otherwise of teenagers to access a drug such as RU486. As already discussed elsewhere, RU486 should not be offered to girls under the age of 18 because of the greater chance of dying as a result of a chemically induced abortion.
- there is no room for assessing the social impact that will result from the approval of this drug.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Clostridium sordelli - how RU486 allows its growth
The FDA, through its faulty investigation into the causes of maternal deaths because of medical abortion, has failed to protect women all over the world. Its incompetence relating to the investigation of the deaths of six Californian women is an indicator that it is working not for the protection of individual citizens but for the protection of vested interests. The absurdity has come about because the FDA attempted to discover if the batch of medications were infected, thus coming to the erroneous conclusion that there is in fact no link between Clostridium sordellii and Mifepristone/Misoprostone. Those conclusions are very misleading and there are other doctors outside of the FDA who have been leading the way in investigating these deaths and making a positive link to RU486. This is further evidence of the sloppy way in which there has been a rush to push RU486 as the medical abortion alternative.
Dr. Paul Miech, Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biotechnology, Brown Medical School, Brown University, 174 Meeting St., Providence, RI 02912-9107, has reported on the pathophysiology of the association between clostridium sordellii and the administration of RU486. The bacteria clostridium sordellii has been found in the endometrium of the 5 of the 6 women who died as a result of the administration of RU486 at Planned Parenthood clinics in California. Professor Miech has noted that :
Dr. Balieu, in a letter to the New England Journal has defended the use of RU486, yet he, and the people who have signed his letter, have glossed over the number of women who have reported adverse events associated with the administration of RU486. Roberta Klein, in her most comprehensive report focused on the initial research into chemical abortion that occurred prior to the discovery of RU486, and what seemed to be clear is that the women who reported adverse events were somehow excluded from the trial data so that the results looked better than they really were. In this particular case, Dr. Balieu has rejected the link between the administration of RU486 and maternal deaths as a result of infection with C. sordellii on the grounds that the numbers are insignificant. What he, and his colleagues have failed to address, in their response, is that the toxic shock that has killed these women has been quite insidious and unless they were able to get immediate medical attention there was very little that could be done to save their lives.
The link between RU486 and toxic shock syndrome is not tenuous because Mifepristone works by suppressing the immune system. A compromised immune system will normally leave a person susceptible to infection, especially from the streptococcus bacteria. In the case of the women who have died as a result of toxic shock due to the invasion of C. sordellii in the endometrium lining, their immune response was severely compromised as a result of the ingestion of Mifepristone.
What the FDA and the CDC need to resolve, therefore, is how the infection occurs in the first place. For example, what is the probability that when the products of the womb were expelled, something was left behind within the womb. If this is the case, then the investigators would need to find out what was left behind, and how quickly this material was infested with C. sordellii. They need to investigate further the way in which the immune response to infection has been compromised within an otherwise healthy individual after the administration of Mifepristone/Misoprostone. They need to investigate the other episodes, especially the episodes of diarrhea to see if there is any link between toxic shock and the administration of RU486. This is not an issue that stems from a faulty batch, rather it is something that gets an impetus due to the delicate balance of the human immune system. To ignore the disruption of this balance is to treat all healthy women who just happen to be pregnant with contempt.
Dr. Paul Miech, Associate Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biotechnology, Brown Medical School, Brown University, 174 Meeting St., Providence, RI 02912-9107, has reported on the pathophysiology of the association between clostridium sordellii and the administration of RU486. The bacteria clostridium sordellii has been found in the endometrium of the 5 of the 6 women who died as a result of the administration of RU486 at Planned Parenthood clinics in California. Professor Miech has noted that :
DATA SYNTHESIS: The mechanisms of action of mifepristone were incorporated into the pathophysiology of septic shock due to C. sordellii. Mifepristone, by blocking both progesterone and glucocorticoid receptors, interferes with the controlled release and functioning of cortisol and cytokines. Failure of physiologically controlled cortisol and cytokine responses results in an impaired innate immune system that results in disintegration of the body's defense system necessary to prevent the endometrial spread of C. sordellii infection. The abnormal cortisol and cytokine responses due to mifepristone coupled to the release of potent exotoxins and an endotoxin from C. sordellii are the major contributors to the rapid development of lethal septic shock.In more simple language what this report is saying is that the way in which Mifepristone has contributed to the death of these women is through the blocking of the progesterone and glucocoricoid receptors in otherwise healthy women, the controlled release and functioning of cortisol and cytokines has been impaired. This has led to an impaired immune system, and in this case the women did not have the necessary immune defense mechanism to fight off the infection of the endometrial lining thus preventing the spread of the C. sordellii infection.
CONCLUSIONS: Theoretically, it appears that the mechanisms of mifepristone action favor the development of infection that leads to septic shock and intensifies the actions of multiple inflammatory cytokines, resulting in fulminant, lethal septic shock.
Dr. Balieu, in a letter to the New England Journal has defended the use of RU486, yet he, and the people who have signed his letter, have glossed over the number of women who have reported adverse events associated with the administration of RU486. Roberta Klein, in her most comprehensive report focused on the initial research into chemical abortion that occurred prior to the discovery of RU486, and what seemed to be clear is that the women who reported adverse events were somehow excluded from the trial data so that the results looked better than they really were. In this particular case, Dr. Balieu has rejected the link between the administration of RU486 and maternal deaths as a result of infection with C. sordellii on the grounds that the numbers are insignificant. What he, and his colleagues have failed to address, in their response, is that the toxic shock that has killed these women has been quite insidious and unless they were able to get immediate medical attention there was very little that could be done to save their lives.
The link between RU486 and toxic shock syndrome is not tenuous because Mifepristone works by suppressing the immune system. A compromised immune system will normally leave a person susceptible to infection, especially from the streptococcus bacteria. In the case of the women who have died as a result of toxic shock due to the invasion of C. sordellii in the endometrium lining, their immune response was severely compromised as a result of the ingestion of Mifepristone.
What the FDA and the CDC need to resolve, therefore, is how the infection occurs in the first place. For example, what is the probability that when the products of the womb were expelled, something was left behind within the womb. If this is the case, then the investigators would need to find out what was left behind, and how quickly this material was infested with C. sordellii. They need to investigate further the way in which the immune response to infection has been compromised within an otherwise healthy individual after the administration of Mifepristone/Misoprostone. They need to investigate the other episodes, especially the episodes of diarrhea to see if there is any link between toxic shock and the administration of RU486. This is not an issue that stems from a faulty batch, rather it is something that gets an impetus due to the delicate balance of the human immune system. To ignore the disruption of this balance is to treat all healthy women who just happen to be pregnant with contempt.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
How the FDA tries to cover up involvement of RU486 in deaths of 6 women in California
According to the latest report on the further deaths of two women from the taking of the drug RU486 the FDA claims that there is no link between the drug and the death of one woman, but that the death of the other woman is under further investigation.
In the second case there is evidence that the bacteria Clostridium sordellii is involved in her death. Now comes the crunch as to how the FDA have investigated these deaths in order to preserve their own decision-making process that has allowed this procedure in the United States of America. They have tested the abortion pills for the bacteria. In this way they can say that there is no link because the tests proved negative. This type of testing, in order to exhonerate RU486 is at best extremely shonky. It would seem that the premise for the investigation is that the bacteria (which normally exists in our bodies) has been introduced by the ingestion of RU486. Such an investigation into those deaths is deficient if there is no study on how the drugs that have been taken interact with the human body.
Owing to the lack of research prior to the introduction of chemical abortion, very little is known about the long term consequences of taking Mifepristone/Misoprostone in order to induce abortion. Since the bacteria Clostridium sordellii already lives within the body, there needs to be an investigation into how this bacteria has managed to migrate from the gut into the lining of the womb so that it causes toxic shock, followed by death for those not treated in time. The FDA study has not even addressed an understanding of how Clostridium sordellii becomes active, instead it has falsely worked on the premise that it was introduced into the body via the off label use of inserting the pill into the vagina.
Is there a cover-up going on in order to protect the intests of Planned Parenthood? After all it is Planned Parenthood clinics that are using Mifepristone/Misoprostone as a means of abortion. Is there an underlying issue of kickbacks involved in the increased recommendation of Mifepristone/Misoprostone? Why else would the FDA be seeking to protect Planned Parenthood in these cases where deaths have occurred? If the FDA can state that there is no link between the taking of Mifepristone/ Misoprostone in the deaths of these 6 California women, then Planned Parenthood is protected from lawsuits by the families of the victims of their irresponsible advocacy of chemical abortion.
The doctors who have investigated these cases have indicated that the bacteria Clostridium sordellii was responsible for the toxic shock that killed these women. It seems that the bacteria travelled to the lining of the womb, where it became active, causing intense pain and other vital symptoms relating to toxic shock syndrome. In the case of Holly Patterson, who was only 18 years of age, she had to travel a bit of a distance to get medical help, and she died because she was not able to get help in time. It would have been doubtful that the bacteria was introduced as a faulty batch of drugs, and that means that there has to be another reason for those deaths, but that does not mean that there is no link between the administration of RU486 and the deaths of these women.
If the available data to date is gathered and analysed by professional people who do not have any self-interest in the matter, one might discover that the warning signs that have been so blithely ignored in the rush to get this drug into the market, have been strong indicators as to why this form of abortion should be abandoned. Mifepristone by itself is virtually useless as an abortion drug. It only becomes more effective when Misoprostone is introduced two days later. However, the combination of these two drugs increases the risk of things going wrong.
Most women are unaware of the normal uses of Misoprostone, that is, the drug is used as an anti-rejection agent for transplant patients. The drug is also used for other therapeutic purposes, and in the case of women, the fact that the drug could have severe consequences for pregnant women is a reason for the issuing of cautions against being pregnant or becoming pregnant during treatment.
If the FDA wants to investigate the link between Misoprostone and the deaths of the six women in California, then they need to study more closely the side effects for women who have been given RU486/PG as a form of abortion. There is an increase in the number of women, who after having this method administered require emergency hospital treatment. Some of the women have required blood transfusions. These side effects must be investigated. As far as the bacteria Clostridium sordellii is concerned, the FDA needs to find the link between that bacteria, the immunosuppression that takes place after the administration of Misoprostone, the severe cramping, diarrhea, and the other severe symptoms that are experienced by these women. The most likely link is that of immunosuppression, which would help in allowing the bacteria to travel to the womb.
It is obvious to me, (and I am not a professional, just an ordinary woman) that the FDA is trying to cover itself because the approval for the use of RU486/PG in the USA was too swift. Will the Australian doctors who have advocated to see this harmful drug introduced into Australia learn anything from these deaths? If they close their eyes and refuse to check into the details, whilst they continue to be proponents of this form of abortion, then they will remain irresponsible in their advocacy, having little or no regard for their female patients.
In the second case there is evidence that the bacteria Clostridium sordellii is involved in her death. Now comes the crunch as to how the FDA have investigated these deaths in order to preserve their own decision-making process that has allowed this procedure in the United States of America. They have tested the abortion pills for the bacteria. In this way they can say that there is no link because the tests proved negative. This type of testing, in order to exhonerate RU486 is at best extremely shonky. It would seem that the premise for the investigation is that the bacteria (which normally exists in our bodies) has been introduced by the ingestion of RU486. Such an investigation into those deaths is deficient if there is no study on how the drugs that have been taken interact with the human body.
Owing to the lack of research prior to the introduction of chemical abortion, very little is known about the long term consequences of taking Mifepristone/Misoprostone in order to induce abortion. Since the bacteria Clostridium sordellii already lives within the body, there needs to be an investigation into how this bacteria has managed to migrate from the gut into the lining of the womb so that it causes toxic shock, followed by death for those not treated in time. The FDA study has not even addressed an understanding of how Clostridium sordellii becomes active, instead it has falsely worked on the premise that it was introduced into the body via the off label use of inserting the pill into the vagina.
Is there a cover-up going on in order to protect the intests of Planned Parenthood? After all it is Planned Parenthood clinics that are using Mifepristone/Misoprostone as a means of abortion. Is there an underlying issue of kickbacks involved in the increased recommendation of Mifepristone/Misoprostone? Why else would the FDA be seeking to protect Planned Parenthood in these cases where deaths have occurred? If the FDA can state that there is no link between the taking of Mifepristone/ Misoprostone in the deaths of these 6 California women, then Planned Parenthood is protected from lawsuits by the families of the victims of their irresponsible advocacy of chemical abortion.
The doctors who have investigated these cases have indicated that the bacteria Clostridium sordellii was responsible for the toxic shock that killed these women. It seems that the bacteria travelled to the lining of the womb, where it became active, causing intense pain and other vital symptoms relating to toxic shock syndrome. In the case of Holly Patterson, who was only 18 years of age, she had to travel a bit of a distance to get medical help, and she died because she was not able to get help in time. It would have been doubtful that the bacteria was introduced as a faulty batch of drugs, and that means that there has to be another reason for those deaths, but that does not mean that there is no link between the administration of RU486 and the deaths of these women.
If the available data to date is gathered and analysed by professional people who do not have any self-interest in the matter, one might discover that the warning signs that have been so blithely ignored in the rush to get this drug into the market, have been strong indicators as to why this form of abortion should be abandoned. Mifepristone by itself is virtually useless as an abortion drug. It only becomes more effective when Misoprostone is introduced two days later. However, the combination of these two drugs increases the risk of things going wrong.
Most women are unaware of the normal uses of Misoprostone, that is, the drug is used as an anti-rejection agent for transplant patients. The drug is also used for other therapeutic purposes, and in the case of women, the fact that the drug could have severe consequences for pregnant women is a reason for the issuing of cautions against being pregnant or becoming pregnant during treatment.
If the FDA wants to investigate the link between Misoprostone and the deaths of the six women in California, then they need to study more closely the side effects for women who have been given RU486/PG as a form of abortion. There is an increase in the number of women, who after having this method administered require emergency hospital treatment. Some of the women have required blood transfusions. These side effects must be investigated. As far as the bacteria Clostridium sordellii is concerned, the FDA needs to find the link between that bacteria, the immunosuppression that takes place after the administration of Misoprostone, the severe cramping, diarrhea, and the other severe symptoms that are experienced by these women. The most likely link is that of immunosuppression, which would help in allowing the bacteria to travel to the womb.
It is obvious to me, (and I am not a professional, just an ordinary woman) that the FDA is trying to cover itself because the approval for the use of RU486/PG in the USA was too swift. Will the Australian doctors who have advocated to see this harmful drug introduced into Australia learn anything from these deaths? If they close their eyes and refuse to check into the details, whilst they continue to be proponents of this form of abortion, then they will remain irresponsible in their advocacy, having little or no regard for their female patients.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Beware: Mifepristone is ingredient in latest new "pill" to be hawked to women
SocietyGuardian.co.uk Health New pill promises to reduce breast cancer risk
The Guardian reports that there could be a new pill on the way that will take the place of the current progesterone/estrogen pill that is used as a contraceptive for women. The report in part says:
The Guardian reports that there could be a new pill on the way that will take the place of the current progesterone/estrogen pill that is used as a contraceptive for women. The report in part says:
"Scientists are working on a new generation of chemical
contraceptives which could hugely reduce side-effects, including the risk of
breast cancer and blood clots, 50 years after the first trial of the pill.
Laboratory studies suggest that, aside from stopping women getting pregnant,
the new pill could reduce breast cancers, thrombosis, and heart disease
associated with the existing pill. It also stops women having periods altogether
- suggesting it could offer relief for the hundreds of thousands suffering from
PMT.
But it will be controversial because the new group of compounds include
a drug known as mifepristone, which is licensed in the UK for use in chemical
abortions."It looks as if the people who brought us RU486 are not content with the number of women who have already died as a result of taking the Mifepristone/Misoprostone combination, so now they want to try and convince women that a pill that has Mifepristone as one of the ingredients is going to be the panacea for a whole range of women's problems - including a reduction of cases involving thrombosis, and the best one of all, is that it will stop periods and thus end PMT.It is difficult for me to comprehend how a woman health reporter can be so naive to think that women who get PMT are going to benefit by taking Mifepristone and seeing their periods stop. Since we still do not have sufficient information on Mifepristone, it is irresponsible for a health writer to suggest that a "pill" with this ingredient is going to be the panacea of all panaceas and that all of the women's problems in one hit.Premenstrual Syndrome is caused not from having a menstrual bleed, but from the imbalance in a woman's hormones. The problem needs to be solved on a very individual basis, possibly through the use of an endocrinologist who is specialised in the study of the hormones of the body. It will not be solved by taking a chemical that has Mifepristone as an ingredient.It seems that nothing has been learned from the lack of success as far as effectiveness is concerned with Mifepristone on its own as a drug for use as an abortifacient. In fact it has a lousy success rate. The pill in the normal combination of progesterone/estrogen is by far a safer alternative for women than anything containing Mifepristone. My comments are not about being anti-abortion as far as this matter is concerned, rather I am concerned about the fact that when Mifepristone was offered to a French woman who was no more than 35 years old, she died as a result of taking that drug. This is a red flag issue. It is not one that should be taken lightly.Women of all creeds and political affiliations need to re-examine this issue and the younger women need to be aware that these new drugs are not the panacea to their problems. Most of the gynaecological problems can be resolved without resort to something that is as dangerous to one's health as Mifepristone.As a woman who has borne three children, I appreciate the need for some women to want to regulate their fertility. However, using a pill that has Mifepristone as an ingredient is not what I would consider a safe alternative. Where is the proof that it can do any of these suggested things? Is this going to be yet another attempt to get Mifepristone into the marketplace without ensuring that it is safe for women to use it on a regular basis? What, if any research has been done regarding to the known and possible side effects from taking this drug?All women need to think very carefully about allowing their bodies to be used for these experiements that are taking us into the unknown. Do we really want to go to these places? Do we want to see thousands, if not millions of women dying mysteriously, only to discover that the women were told that a pill containing Mifepristone is safe for consumption? This is how they tried to hawk the "Pill" in the first place. It was being hawked as something that was safe to use, yet it caused some women to die of a stroke after being taken down by thrombosis. It has been linked in some cases to breast cancer, and there are some other ill effects. However, are those now controlable contraindications a good enough reason to introduce Mifepristone as a contraceptive?I hope that all women will take the time to think long and hard about this situation and that they weill say no to the introduction of this new pill. We do not need it and we do not want it. The time has come to say "No, I am not going to be a human experiment for you".
Monday, March 20, 2006
Planned Parenthood clinics responsible for 4 maternal RU486 deaths
CNN.com - Two more women die after taking 'abortion pill' - Mar 20, 2006
CNN reports on the two further deaths of women who made the decision to opt for RU486 instead of surgical abortion. The drugs relating to RU486 had been administered in Planned Parenthood clinics through the off label method of vaginally inserting the misoprostone (the second part of the abortion).
It is becoming increasingly clear that Planned Parenthood is behind the reluctance of the FDA to take the abortion drug RU486 off the market despite the fact that there has been an further increase in the number of reported events from its use. These events now include at least 4 maternal deaths in California alone where Planned Parenthood had advised inserting the anti-prostaglandin vaginally. It appears that this method had increased the risk of infection and blood sepsis in women who had been administered with this abortifacient.
It makes no sense that the FDA has remained blind to the dangers of RU486 whilst it continues to crack down on the use of other medications that have also had increased risks of death due to off label uses. Instead of making the decision to pull RU486 pending an extensive investigation into the reported events including the latest deaths, the body has stated that the number of deaths is consistent with other forms of abortion and risks of giving birth.
It is my view the reaction from the FDA is not good enough. Even if Planned Parenthood state that they will no longer recommend the off-label use of misoprostone, there is no guarantee that there will be no further deaths and reported adverse events. There needs to be a tougher stance over the use of RU486. It has a very poor record but that record is being suppressed by the promoters of this particular regimen. It is definitely not safer than having an abortion via the suction method. A curette during the very early stages of a pregnancy is a far safer alternative than turning to RU486. The FDA needs to think twice about the risks and benefits. Do the benefits, if there are any, outweigh the risks of taking RU486?
What I do not understand is why a certain group of feminists continue to advocate a method of abortion that is in fact far more excruciating to the woman than a surgical abortion that is over and done with on the same day. When RU486 is administered the woman can end up in agony for anything up to 9 days after the administration of the two lots of drugs. On top of this is the very real and increased risk of secondary infection, expecially the insidious infection that has claimed anywhere up to 10 lives.
The administration of RU486 remains risky when clinics such as Planned Parenthood have not introduced sufficient procedures to assure that there are no further deaths from ectopic pregnancies, or because the women are either too young for its use, or that they are over the age of 35 and therefore too old to be using that form of abortion.
Once again the report mentions nothing about these increased risks to women that come from the use of chemicals to induce abortion.
Women need to stop and think before going ahead with something that is such a danger to their health. They need to be made aware of all of the facts. They also need to be aware that in the case of RU486 the rush to bring it onto the market meant that there was a compromise in the time taken for related trials, not just on women but also on laboratory animals.
Are the risks of ending up with an infection that causes so much pain and possible death worth it? Surely it would be far better to give birth to a live infant than face such pain and agaony that come come from something as risky as RU486.
CNN reports on the two further deaths of women who made the decision to opt for RU486 instead of surgical abortion. The drugs relating to RU486 had been administered in Planned Parenthood clinics through the off label method of vaginally inserting the misoprostone (the second part of the abortion).
It is becoming increasingly clear that Planned Parenthood is behind the reluctance of the FDA to take the abortion drug RU486 off the market despite the fact that there has been an further increase in the number of reported events from its use. These events now include at least 4 maternal deaths in California alone where Planned Parenthood had advised inserting the anti-prostaglandin vaginally. It appears that this method had increased the risk of infection and blood sepsis in women who had been administered with this abortifacient.
It makes no sense that the FDA has remained blind to the dangers of RU486 whilst it continues to crack down on the use of other medications that have also had increased risks of death due to off label uses. Instead of making the decision to pull RU486 pending an extensive investigation into the reported events including the latest deaths, the body has stated that the number of deaths is consistent with other forms of abortion and risks of giving birth.
It is my view the reaction from the FDA is not good enough. Even if Planned Parenthood state that they will no longer recommend the off-label use of misoprostone, there is no guarantee that there will be no further deaths and reported adverse events. There needs to be a tougher stance over the use of RU486. It has a very poor record but that record is being suppressed by the promoters of this particular regimen. It is definitely not safer than having an abortion via the suction method. A curette during the very early stages of a pregnancy is a far safer alternative than turning to RU486. The FDA needs to think twice about the risks and benefits. Do the benefits, if there are any, outweigh the risks of taking RU486?
What I do not understand is why a certain group of feminists continue to advocate a method of abortion that is in fact far more excruciating to the woman than a surgical abortion that is over and done with on the same day. When RU486 is administered the woman can end up in agony for anything up to 9 days after the administration of the two lots of drugs. On top of this is the very real and increased risk of secondary infection, expecially the insidious infection that has claimed anywhere up to 10 lives.
The administration of RU486 remains risky when clinics such as Planned Parenthood have not introduced sufficient procedures to assure that there are no further deaths from ectopic pregnancies, or because the women are either too young for its use, or that they are over the age of 35 and therefore too old to be using that form of abortion.
Once again the report mentions nothing about these increased risks to women that come from the use of chemicals to induce abortion.
Women need to stop and think before going ahead with something that is such a danger to their health. They need to be made aware of all of the facts. They also need to be aware that in the case of RU486 the rush to bring it onto the market meant that there was a compromise in the time taken for related trials, not just on women but also on laboratory animals.
Are the risks of ending up with an infection that causes so much pain and possible death worth it? Surely it would be far better to give birth to a live infant than face such pain and agaony that come come from something as risky as RU486.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Two more RU486 deaths have been reported in the USA
Just as Australia has foolishly taken the decision for importing Mifepristone out of the hands of the Minister for Health, the United States has reported that two more women have died as a result of making the decision to take RU486 instead of opting for a safer form of abortion.
There are now over 10 maternal deaths associated with the taking of RU486, and this is 10 deaths too many. What will it take before all feminists take a second look at what is happening, and how long before they will come to their senses to see that they are being duped into believing that this is some form of miracle drug - not!!
There are now over 10 maternal deaths associated with the taking of RU486, and this is 10 deaths too many. What will it take before all feminists take a second look at what is happening, and how long before they will come to their senses to see that they are being duped into believing that this is some form of miracle drug - not!!
Renate Klein and her feminist associates wrote their book on this subject well before RU486 was allowed to be used in the USA. Their work is no doubt very unpopular with other feminists. In fact Renate Klein has been the butt of some very unkind comments from Australian feminists who have themselves been too stupid to see that they are the ones clinging to a false notion that to use this dangerous drug is their right. Instead of using a scholarly process the feminists have jumped onto the bandwagon of using the religious card - they used Tony Abbott because it allowed them to hit out at the Catholic Church because of her opposition to abortion on demand. Renate Klein, and right thinking feminists have been able to see past the religion card, and they have tried to remove all of the emotive hype from this very charged issue. By doing this, they have shown that the world has rushed into using RU486 without being consistent and thorough in checking all safety concerns.
The FDA needs to tighten its standards in reporting adverse events associated with the use of RU486. It should be mandatory to report all adverse events such as near death caused by heavy bleeding, including the need for a follow-up surgical procedure, as well as the need for a blood transfusion brought about because of the potentially deadly effects of using this particular method of abortion on demand. The FDA also needs to conduct a long term study on women who have undergone this procedure because not enough is known about the long term harmful effects of disrupting a pregnancy through the use of these drugs.
Young women of today need to wake up to the fact that they are being used as guinea pigs by the pharmaceutical companies. They also need to learn how to think for themselves and stop being the slaves to the feminist movement that cares nothing for their physical well-being.
There has already been too many deaths attributed to the use of Mifepristone and the off-label use of Misoprostone. When will somebody say enough?
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Hands Off Our Ovaries
Hands Off Our Ovaries
Feminists and pro-life activists have joined together to protest the direction that is being taken by bio-technologists in their push to introduce the cloning of stem cells.
I have provided a link to the site named "Hands Off Our Ovaries" so that like minded men and women can join together to protest the manner in which women are being used to harvest eggs.
In part, this coalition is a response to the Hwang scandal in South Korea, where thousands of eggs were harvested for corrupt research, including the eggs from laboratory workers. This is unethical. It is also a reaction in part to the deaths of two women as they were having eggs harvested for the IVF program.
Scientific research into matters relating to fertility, cloning, and yes even something like Mifepristone, needs to be paused and the bioethics committees need to take stock about where all of this is heading.
So yes, it is time to tell researchers: "hands off our ovaries."
Feminists and pro-life activists have joined together to protest the direction that is being taken by bio-technologists in their push to introduce the cloning of stem cells.
I have provided a link to the site named "Hands Off Our Ovaries" so that like minded men and women can join together to protest the manner in which women are being used to harvest eggs.
In part, this coalition is a response to the Hwang scandal in South Korea, where thousands of eggs were harvested for corrupt research, including the eggs from laboratory workers. This is unethical. It is also a reaction in part to the deaths of two women as they were having eggs harvested for the IVF program.
Scientific research into matters relating to fertility, cloning, and yes even something like Mifepristone, needs to be paused and the bioethics committees need to take stock about where all of this is heading.
So yes, it is time to tell researchers: "hands off our ovaries."
Sunday, March 05, 2006
News of the Day #261 - Mechanism of abortion pill toxicity explained
News of the Day #261 - Mechanism of abortion pill toxicity explained
The use of Mifepristone and Misoprostone, that is RU486 can lead to toxic shock syndrome. It is important to understand that Mifepristone was originally developed to treat Cushing's syndrome. However, once it was discovered to be useful as an abortifacient, the French scientists who developed the drug worked on making it available to women as a form of abortion. It must be remembered that the drug was placed on the market in Europe after an inadequate period of testing.
Mifepristone, when taken as an abortifacient increases the risk of post pregnancy toxic shock. This presents as an allergic reaction to the drug.
Patient perception seems to be that the alternative of using Mifepristone and Misoprostone is safe and effective. However, the manufacturer of Misoprostone warns against using the product as an abortifacient. Why does Planned Parenthood, as well as a variety of abortion clinics persist in presenting this perception to their clients? Why do feminists continue to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the safety of RU486? Do these women want their daughters to use this form of abortion and risk dying?
It must be noted again that there have been 637 reports of adverse events. Of these events, 237 have been for heavy bleeding - 168 were serious, 42 life threatening, and one fatal.
The use of Mifepristone and Misoprostone, that is RU486 can lead to toxic shock syndrome. It is important to understand that Mifepristone was originally developed to treat Cushing's syndrome. However, once it was discovered to be useful as an abortifacient, the French scientists who developed the drug worked on making it available to women as a form of abortion. It must be remembered that the drug was placed on the market in Europe after an inadequate period of testing.
Mifepristone, when taken as an abortifacient increases the risk of post pregnancy toxic shock. This presents as an allergic reaction to the drug.
Patient perception seems to be that the alternative of using Mifepristone and Misoprostone is safe and effective. However, the manufacturer of Misoprostone warns against using the product as an abortifacient. Why does Planned Parenthood, as well as a variety of abortion clinics persist in presenting this perception to their clients? Why do feminists continue to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the safety of RU486? Do these women want their daughters to use this form of abortion and risk dying?
It must be noted again that there have been 637 reports of adverse events. Of these events, 237 have been for heavy bleeding - 168 were serious, 42 life threatening, and one fatal.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Advisory issued by FDA on RU486
The FDA have issued an advisory against RU486 in July 2005.
On July 19, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public health advisory regarding the deaths of four women in the United States after medical abortions with Mifeprex® (mifepristone, formerly RU-486; Danco Laboratories, New York, New York) and intravaginal misoprostol (1). Two of these deaths occurred in 2003, one in 2004, and one in 2005. Two of these U.S. cases had clinical illness consistent with toxic shock and had evidence of endometrial infection with Clostridium sordellii, a gram-positive, toxin-forming anaerobic bacteria. In addition, a fatal case of C. sordellii toxic shock syndrome after medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol was reported in 2001, in Canada (2). All three cases of C. sordellii infection were notable for lack of fever, and all had refractory hypotension, multiple effusions, hemoconcentration, and a profound leukocytosis. C. sordellii previously has been described as a cause of pregnancy-associated toxic shock syndrome (3).
On July 19, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public health advisory regarding the deaths of four women in the United States after medical abortions with Mifeprex® (mifepristone, formerly RU-486; Danco Laboratories, New York, New York) and intravaginal misoprostol (1). Two of these deaths occurred in 2003, one in 2004, and one in 2005. Two of these U.S. cases had clinical illness consistent with toxic shock and had evidence of endometrial infection with Clostridium sordellii, a gram-positive, toxin-forming anaerobic bacteria. In addition, a fatal case of C. sordellii toxic shock syndrome after medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol was reported in 2001, in Canada (2). All three cases of C. sordellii infection were notable for lack of fever, and all had refractory hypotension, multiple effusions, hemoconcentration, and a profound leukocytosis. C. sordellii previously has been described as a cause of pregnancy-associated toxic shock syndrome (3).
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Continuing to fight to get the truth out to all women
I am not going to give up my fight to make sure that Australian women know the truth about Mifepristone and Misoprostone (RU486). Just imagine what a woman has to go through by taking the Mifepristone alone. There are the strong period pains that are so strong that they are unbearable. There is the possibility of seeing the form of the little fetus as it is being flushed down the toilet. Imagine going two days and discovering that the fetus has not been expelled from the womb, so that it is necessary to take Misoprostone. Taking this drug increases the risk of getting a deadly infection that is related to toxic shock syndrome. The pain that the woman experiences is not something that is slight, but it is excruciating. Then there is the heavy bleeding and all of the risks associated with heavy bleeding. How many of the women for whom these doctors, such as Dr. Da Costa will end up on the theatre table for a surgical abortion because of the failure of those two drugs? How many will need emergency treatment because of heavy blood loss?
Dr. Da Costa seems to be living under the illusion that there will be no side effects when RU486 is given to aboriginal women in remote locations in Australia. She seems to be oblivious of the extra risks that are associated with age and with the colour of a woman's skin. There is an increased risk for black women, and so I question whether or not Aboriginal women will fall into the same category.
Has Dr. Da Costa considered the fact that the woman might have an ectopic pregnancy? Will her practice provide the women with an ultra sound prior to the administration of this dangerous drug? Is she aware that the manufacturer of Misoprostone has clearly stated that there is a contraindication for pregnant women and warns against its use in these circumstances? Does she ever talk about the women having their babies and then adopting them out? It seems to me that Dr. Da Costa seems a bit too keen to introduce this dangerous drug into Australia.
Dr. Da Costa seems to be living under the illusion that there will be no side effects when RU486 is given to aboriginal women in remote locations in Australia. She seems to be oblivious of the extra risks that are associated with age and with the colour of a woman's skin. There is an increased risk for black women, and so I question whether or not Aboriginal women will fall into the same category.
Has Dr. Da Costa considered the fact that the woman might have an ectopic pregnancy? Will her practice provide the women with an ultra sound prior to the administration of this dangerous drug? Is she aware that the manufacturer of Misoprostone has clearly stated that there is a contraindication for pregnant women and warns against its use in these circumstances? Does she ever talk about the women having their babies and then adopting them out? It seems to me that Dr. Da Costa seems a bit too keen to introduce this dangerous drug into Australia.
As usual women are not being informed the truth about something that can affect their future well-being. There are dangers attached to aborting an infant, and I am not talking about the damage to their souls as they move further away from God as a result of their actions. Australian women should be demanding to know the truth, and they need to stop blindly accepting everything that the leadership of the Australian feminists believe. They need to stand up for themselves and be truly independent in thought, spirit and in body.
I am not finished with this topic and if Julie da Costa thinks that she will have an easy ride for the introduction of RU486 then she could be wrong if those people who are in the know continue their work in opposition to its introduction. This form of abortion is not more convenient for the woman. Fancy having to return to the office of the doctor for at least two more visits to accomplish the abortion!!! Women should steer clear of this option.
I am not finished with this topic and if Julie da Costa thinks that she will have an easy ride for the introduction of RU486 then she could be wrong if those people who are in the know continue their work in opposition to its introduction. This form of abortion is not more convenient for the woman. Fancy having to return to the office of the doctor for at least two more visits to accomplish the abortion!!! Women should steer clear of this option.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Disappointment and a vow to keep informing women about RU486
I feel so disapoointed because the House of Representatives of the Australian parliament followed the bad example of the Senate and voted in favour of what has to be an amendment of shame and a curse for all fecund women.
I am disappointed because the politicians on both sides of politics failed to do the research into RU486 and discover the truth about a drug that is neither safe nor effective when used as an abortifacient. I am alarmed because now there is talk of putting RU486 into pharmacies. Such talk is totally irresponsible.
I have not finished reading the material provided by Renate Klein. Although this material is relatively old, the data is extremely accurate. Women who find themselves in a situation where they would contemplate an abortion need to be made aware of the risks associated with RU486. They are not being told that for a large number of pregnant women the drug failed to do the task. They are not being told that they could end up having a surgical procedure anyway. They are not being informed about the length of time it can take before Mifepristone appears to have worked.
I am writing from the point of view of what is best for pregnant women, not just from a right to life perspective. I believe that pregnant women are not being properly informed about the obvious risks that stem from using RU486, and they are not being informed about the possibility of heavy bleeding. Neither are they being told about the fact that they risk their own lives by making the decision to take this lethal drug.
I feel disappointed because the debate that took place in the parliament was overshadowed by the belief that this was a Right to Life issue, and that it was all about being anti-abortion, or pro-abortion. However, the people who threw up the smokescreen regarding the real issues will have to face up to what they have done in the future.
I feel very let down by the female senators and house of representatives who voted in favour of making the change. I find that their reasoning at best was hysterical and that they were overreacting to the campaign that was in fact waged by both pro-choice and pro-lfe parties. This issue had united these two groups together in order to fight the amendment. The Therapeutic Goods Administration now has control over the importation of this poison.
I promise that I will keep the fight against RU486 going. I intend to keep scouring the Internet for stories. The fight is not over, for it is just beginning.
I am disappointed because the politicians on both sides of politics failed to do the research into RU486 and discover the truth about a drug that is neither safe nor effective when used as an abortifacient. I am alarmed because now there is talk of putting RU486 into pharmacies. Such talk is totally irresponsible.
I have not finished reading the material provided by Renate Klein. Although this material is relatively old, the data is extremely accurate. Women who find themselves in a situation where they would contemplate an abortion need to be made aware of the risks associated with RU486. They are not being told that for a large number of pregnant women the drug failed to do the task. They are not being told that they could end up having a surgical procedure anyway. They are not being informed about the length of time it can take before Mifepristone appears to have worked.
I am writing from the point of view of what is best for pregnant women, not just from a right to life perspective. I believe that pregnant women are not being properly informed about the obvious risks that stem from using RU486, and they are not being informed about the possibility of heavy bleeding. Neither are they being told about the fact that they risk their own lives by making the decision to take this lethal drug.
I feel disappointed because the debate that took place in the parliament was overshadowed by the belief that this was a Right to Life issue, and that it was all about being anti-abortion, or pro-abortion. However, the people who threw up the smokescreen regarding the real issues will have to face up to what they have done in the future.
I feel very let down by the female senators and house of representatives who voted in favour of making the change. I find that their reasoning at best was hysterical and that they were overreacting to the campaign that was in fact waged by both pro-choice and pro-lfe parties. This issue had united these two groups together in order to fight the amendment. The Therapeutic Goods Administration now has control over the importation of this poison.
I promise that I will keep the fight against RU486 going. I intend to keep scouring the Internet for stories. The fight is not over, for it is just beginning.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Senate vote is in
I must admit that I am disappointed that the women who sit as senators in the Australian Senate do not have the brains to do the necessary research regarding the safety hazards concerning RU486. They voted solidly in favour of stripping the Minister for Health of the responsibility of letting this drug into Australia.
My gravest concern regarding this action is that they have pushed this as an abortion/anti-abortion issue. However, this is not the case. The issue is the level of safety for people who are given RU486 is not guaranteed because there has been insufficient research prior to its introduction. There are pro-choice people who are very much against the introduction of RU486 as a means of procuring abortion. However, their voices are being drowned out by the hysteria of women such as Lynne Allyson who has proudly announced that she had an abortion. Ms. Allyson has failed in a duty of care because she has not taken the time to learn about the deaths and other injuries associated with chemical abortions. She should take the time to read the book written by Renate Klein and her associates regarding the alarming dangers of RU486.
The hysteria during this week reached an all time low in the history of Australian politics. The issue has been hijacked by women who claim that they have the right to control their ovaries, and so they were heard to chant at Tony Abbott that he should keep his hands on his rosaries and "off my ovaries". It was an effort to drown out those who are seeking to put the truth out into the community. Australian women are not being informed about the truth concerning RU486.
Now that the Senate vote has been made, the amendment must go to the lower house of the parliament, and another vote must be taken. The fight is not over, and it means that we must continue to seek to inform our parliamentarians that this is not about abortion on demand, but about keeping out of Australia, a drug that will take women back to the dark days when the rate of maternal deaths from complications of procured miscarriage were a lot higher than the present time.
Our fight must now move towards informing women in remote areas that chemical abortion is neither safe nor effective, and that if they live in a very remote area of Australia they have a higher risk of dying because of the possible complications associated with taking Mifepristone and the progesterine. If a woman living in a remote region of Australia were to suffer from heavy bleeding, which is a widely discussed side effect of this form of abortion, then she is in a higher risk category of dying as a result of those complications. I cannot envisage that the doctors who are pushing for the use of RU486 are going to be responsible enough to closely monitor their patients. They see RU486 as a means giving the pills to the women and then just sending them on their way.
I continue to question the wisdom of the women parliamentarians who seem so willing to cause harm to other Australian women through their attempt to get access to RU486. They do not want to hear the truth. They prefer to listen to the lie that RU486 is safe and effective.
My gravest concern regarding this action is that they have pushed this as an abortion/anti-abortion issue. However, this is not the case. The issue is the level of safety for people who are given RU486 is not guaranteed because there has been insufficient research prior to its introduction. There are pro-choice people who are very much against the introduction of RU486 as a means of procuring abortion. However, their voices are being drowned out by the hysteria of women such as Lynne Allyson who has proudly announced that she had an abortion. Ms. Allyson has failed in a duty of care because she has not taken the time to learn about the deaths and other injuries associated with chemical abortions. She should take the time to read the book written by Renate Klein and her associates regarding the alarming dangers of RU486.
The hysteria during this week reached an all time low in the history of Australian politics. The issue has been hijacked by women who claim that they have the right to control their ovaries, and so they were heard to chant at Tony Abbott that he should keep his hands on his rosaries and "off my ovaries". It was an effort to drown out those who are seeking to put the truth out into the community. Australian women are not being informed about the truth concerning RU486.
Now that the Senate vote has been made, the amendment must go to the lower house of the parliament, and another vote must be taken. The fight is not over, and it means that we must continue to seek to inform our parliamentarians that this is not about abortion on demand, but about keeping out of Australia, a drug that will take women back to the dark days when the rate of maternal deaths from complications of procured miscarriage were a lot higher than the present time.
Our fight must now move towards informing women in remote areas that chemical abortion is neither safe nor effective, and that if they live in a very remote area of Australia they have a higher risk of dying because of the possible complications associated with taking Mifepristone and the progesterine. If a woman living in a remote region of Australia were to suffer from heavy bleeding, which is a widely discussed side effect of this form of abortion, then she is in a higher risk category of dying as a result of those complications. I cannot envisage that the doctors who are pushing for the use of RU486 are going to be responsible enough to closely monitor their patients. They see RU486 as a means giving the pills to the women and then just sending them on their way.
I continue to question the wisdom of the women parliamentarians who seem so willing to cause harm to other Australian women through their attempt to get access to RU486. They do not want to hear the truth. They prefer to listen to the lie that RU486 is safe and effective.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Contraindications of RU486 - where are the MSM reports? pt 1
The Paris newspaper Liberation was the first to raise the alarm over the use of RU486 when the drug was still in the trial phase:
Liberation also reported that RU 486 is not only an anti-progesterone but an anti-glucocorticosteroid which can take the place of cortisone in the adrenal glands, and that contraindications emanating from this double action of the drug could be a problem (Lépiney, 1982: 2). This suspicion was confirmed in the first RU 486 toxicological study in monkeys, which led to adverse reactions affecting the adrenal glands (see Chapter Three for details).Spinifex Press - RU 486 - Misconceptions, Myths and Morals
In other words, the way in which RU486 worked it could have an adverse affect on the adrenal glands of pregnant women who decided to have a chemical abortion. Yet, we do not hear about this particular risk because we are being told that Mifepristone is a safe and effective means of having an abortion.
Despite the poor results of the Geneva trials, and the lack of sufficient animal research, trials were commenced in the U.K., Australia, France, Sweden, Holland, USA, Finland and China. The number of “successful” terminations in these trials varied from as low as 54% to around 90%, which is well below the 99% success rate of a surgical procedure for abortion. Despite these low level of results the researchers concluded that RU486 was a promising alternative to surgical abortion for a woman, and the next phase, that of experimenting with interaction with the prostaglandins was commenced.
With such low results from the use of straight Mifepristone, it is hard to reconcile the statements of those who dogmatically claim that this is a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortions. These results should be studied further, and in light of the mix of populations, as well as the variables that exist within each pregnancy. There are serious questions that these studies have failed to answer:
These issues, if they are inadequately addressed are cause for concern, because a hasty introduction of Mifepristone for the purpose of being an abortifacient could cause a medical disaster. I am against abortion on the grounds that it is neither morally nor medically necessary for the number of abortions that are carried out here in Australia. I am against abortion on moral grounds because it is the taking of a life that is forming inside of the womb. Abortion treats the foetus as though it is some form of disposable commodity. A woman who desires termination of her pregnancy needs to have at her fingertips all of the necessary information about abortion. If some facts are being hidden, in order to make chemical abortion more acceptable then those who are responsible for hiding the facts of the case are reminded that they are to blame if something goes wrong.
However, when it becomes necessary for three professional feminists to speak out against RU486/PG in response to the mantra-like monotone that comes from the official organ of feminism, we who are against abortion anyway need to sit up and take notice of what the professionals are saying. It is worth noting, that by speaking out in 2006, Renate Klein has incurred the ire of those who have simply not done the research and who believe that RU486/PG is a safe and effective abortion alternative. I have noticed that in some feminist forums, Renate Klein has been pilloried because she is an opponent of RU486. I doubt very much that the people who have taken to criticizing Ms. Klein have done any of the necessary research into the hidden dangers of RU486/PG, yet Ms Klein and her colleagues conducted their research as early as 1991 and they provided a very strong case against the introduction of RU486 as a method of procuring abortion.
Australian women need to be aware that the researchers and promoters of RU486 are only telling us half the story. There is a lot that is being hidden about the alleged effectiveness of this drug. When Klein and her colleagues initially did their research, it was claimed that 60,000 abortions had been performed via RU486, yet they were struggling to reach that figure when they researched information on the various trials. This begs the question: Was the figure of 60,000 by 1991 exaggerated? If that figure was exaggerated, then what about the present claims regarding the number of alleged abortions that are being performed via RU486? Why should Australia be considered behind the times because she has a policy that restricts the use of RU486 to uses that are for other reasons?
Last week the ABC ran a story about a woman who claimed that she needed to use RU486 to treat her cancer. She did get permission from the Minister for Health to import the drug for this use, but she has not been able to find a doctor who is willing to administer it to her. Now, the ABC ran the story in a way that seemed to indicate that she was being totally prevented from obtaining the drug for this use. Even so, a question must be asked, even in her case, has their been any trials in other countries that have used RU486 to treat her particular form of cancer? If the answer is no, then is she being used as a guinea pig in the propaganda war that is currently raging to promote the idea that the legislation that is before the Senate, to remove the authority from the Minister of Health to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, must be passed?
If she is being used by the media then, I think that there is a deliberate campaign in place that is designed to obfuscate the facts so that women will be so stirred up that they will push for the introduction of RU486/PG on the grounds that it gives them freedom of choice in a method of abortion.
Liberation also reported that RU 486 is not only an anti-progesterone but an anti-glucocorticosteroid which can take the place of cortisone in the adrenal glands, and that contraindications emanating from this double action of the drug could be a problem (Lépiney, 1982: 2). This suspicion was confirmed in the first RU 486 toxicological study in monkeys, which led to adverse reactions affecting the adrenal glands (see Chapter Three for details).Spinifex Press - RU 486 - Misconceptions, Myths and Morals
In other words, the way in which RU486 worked it could have an adverse affect on the adrenal glands of pregnant women who decided to have a chemical abortion. Yet, we do not hear about this particular risk because we are being told that Mifepristone is a safe and effective means of having an abortion.
Despite the poor results of the Geneva trials, and the lack of sufficient animal research, trials were commenced in the U.K., Australia, France, Sweden, Holland, USA, Finland and China. The number of “successful” terminations in these trials varied from as low as 54% to around 90%, which is well below the 99% success rate of a surgical procedure for abortion. Despite these low level of results the researchers concluded that RU486 was a promising alternative to surgical abortion for a woman, and the next phase, that of experimenting with interaction with the prostaglandins was commenced.
With such low results from the use of straight Mifepristone, it is hard to reconcile the statements of those who dogmatically claim that this is a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortions. These results should be studied further, and in light of the mix of populations, as well as the variables that exist within each pregnancy. There are serious questions that these studies have failed to answer:
- What is the effect upon the embryo after a failed chemical abortion? In other words, since the chemicals involved in RU486 cross the placenta they can have a powerful and disabling effect upon the developing foetus, why have we not been told about the possible birth defects if the abortion fails?
- How does the use of Mifepristone impact a woman’s fertility cycle?
- How does it impact upon other parts of a woman’s body? What are the risks of ending up with auto-immune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis?
- Have any of these side-effects been properly discussed in the medical literature, or have they remained hidden so that an unsuspecting population remains ill-informed about the consequences of introducing Mifepristone for the purpose of procuring an abortion?
- Why have serious side effects such as pain and excessive bleeding been downplayed or minimized? How then can this be considered safe and effective?
- Why do the proponents of the introduction of RU486 fail to acknowledge the failures of the treatment of RU486 as an abortifacient, such as the number of women who require a surgical procedure to complete the job of expelling the foetus? Why do they never mention the number of women who have required transfusions as a result of taking RU486?
These issues, if they are inadequately addressed are cause for concern, because a hasty introduction of Mifepristone for the purpose of being an abortifacient could cause a medical disaster. I am against abortion on the grounds that it is neither morally nor medically necessary for the number of abortions that are carried out here in Australia. I am against abortion on moral grounds because it is the taking of a life that is forming inside of the womb. Abortion treats the foetus as though it is some form of disposable commodity. A woman who desires termination of her pregnancy needs to have at her fingertips all of the necessary information about abortion. If some facts are being hidden, in order to make chemical abortion more acceptable then those who are responsible for hiding the facts of the case are reminded that they are to blame if something goes wrong.
However, when it becomes necessary for three professional feminists to speak out against RU486/PG in response to the mantra-like monotone that comes from the official organ of feminism, we who are against abortion anyway need to sit up and take notice of what the professionals are saying. It is worth noting, that by speaking out in 2006, Renate Klein has incurred the ire of those who have simply not done the research and who believe that RU486/PG is a safe and effective abortion alternative. I have noticed that in some feminist forums, Renate Klein has been pilloried because she is an opponent of RU486. I doubt very much that the people who have taken to criticizing Ms. Klein have done any of the necessary research into the hidden dangers of RU486/PG, yet Ms Klein and her colleagues conducted their research as early as 1991 and they provided a very strong case against the introduction of RU486 as a method of procuring abortion.
Australian women need to be aware that the researchers and promoters of RU486 are only telling us half the story. There is a lot that is being hidden about the alleged effectiveness of this drug. When Klein and her colleagues initially did their research, it was claimed that 60,000 abortions had been performed via RU486, yet they were struggling to reach that figure when they researched information on the various trials. This begs the question: Was the figure of 60,000 by 1991 exaggerated? If that figure was exaggerated, then what about the present claims regarding the number of alleged abortions that are being performed via RU486? Why should Australia be considered behind the times because she has a policy that restricts the use of RU486 to uses that are for other reasons?
Last week the ABC ran a story about a woman who claimed that she needed to use RU486 to treat her cancer. She did get permission from the Minister for Health to import the drug for this use, but she has not been able to find a doctor who is willing to administer it to her. Now, the ABC ran the story in a way that seemed to indicate that she was being totally prevented from obtaining the drug for this use. Even so, a question must be asked, even in her case, has their been any trials in other countries that have used RU486 to treat her particular form of cancer? If the answer is no, then is she being used as a guinea pig in the propaganda war that is currently raging to promote the idea that the legislation that is before the Senate, to remove the authority from the Minister of Health to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, must be passed?
If she is being used by the media then, I think that there is a deliberate campaign in place that is designed to obfuscate the facts so that women will be so stirred up that they will push for the introduction of RU486/PG on the grounds that it gives them freedom of choice in a method of abortion.
A brief history on the development of RU486
Have enough precautions for the safety of women’s health been observed in the push to have RU486 placed into the market place? A brief outline of the history of the development of this drug will show the extraordinary speed with which it was developed, tested and then placed into the open market. The speed with which the drug has been marketed is cause for concern. Not enough time has been used in trials, and not enough data has been collected relating to the adverse events associated with RU486/PG.
The speed with which the drug Mifepristone has reached the consumer market for the purpose of chemical abortion has been too rapid. Insufficient data concerning contraindications was collected prior to its introduction in Europe and elsewhere. The lack of data is sufficient reason for proceeding with caution with regards to the uses of Mifepristone. There are some legitimate uses of Mifepristone, just as there are some legitimate uses of the prostaglandin. What is of concern is the use of the combined drugs for the purpose of carrying out a chemical abortion. If the documented contraindications have been ignored, what about the contraindications for its use by poor women in India, Bangladesh and elsewhere? These are drugs that should not be used without proper supervision, yet here in Australia, the people pushing for changes in the legislation to take control of the importation of Mifepristone out of the hands of the Minister for Health, totally ignore the facts surrounding health and safety issues.
THE HISTORY OF RU486
RU486 was discovered in April 1980, by Georges Teutsch and Daniel Philibert of Roussel Uclaf, with French scientist Etienne-Emile Baulieu, a consultant to the company, when they succeeded in synthesizing RU 486, a steroid now with the trade name Mifégyne (mifepristone). The researchers claimed that they were not deliberately setting out to develop an abortifacient, and that RU486 was “a by-product of the company's active search for a molecule which would bind strongly with the glucocorticoid receptor. “ Spinifex Press - RU 486 - Misconceptions, Myths and Morals
After only 17 months of animal testing, the first human tests on this drug were carried out in a trial at Geneva hospital on 11 pregnant women who were prepared to accept a chemical abortion. The women in the trial were given 200 mg of RU486 over 3 consecutive days. Of the women who participated in the trials, nine pregnancies were allegedly successfully terminated. Of these 9, eight of the women took 5 days before the termination was successful, and one woman took eight days. However, of these “successful” terminations, one woman had to undergo an emergency evacuation of her uterus, and another had to receive emergency surgery plus a blood transfusion because of heavy blood loss. It was, as the newspaper Paris Liberation stated “no abortion miracle”.
With such an early history that indicated that there were problems with the use of RU486, why is Senator Allyson so adamant that it is safe and effective? Why is the current head of the AMA prepared to state that RU486 is safe? This is an extremely risky statement for someone in a position of responsibility to make about a drug such as RU486? By endorsing this form of chemical abortion, this doctor has stuck his neck out to the point that he risks a lawsuit when something goes drastically wrong through any unchecked use of Mifepristone. Should Australia follow other countries that have chosen to introduce this procedure for the purpose of inducing abortion? This is an issue that needs careful consideration.
I maintain that Australian women need to be fully informed about the dangers and risks, and the contraindications on the use of RU486. This is not something that should be taken lightly, and it is not something that it is so safe to give to aboriginal women in remote regions of Australia. In fact to give it to an aboriginal woman could be gross negligence on the part of the doctor.
The speed with which the drug Mifepristone has reached the consumer market for the purpose of chemical abortion has been too rapid. Insufficient data concerning contraindications was collected prior to its introduction in Europe and elsewhere. The lack of data is sufficient reason for proceeding with caution with regards to the uses of Mifepristone. There are some legitimate uses of Mifepristone, just as there are some legitimate uses of the prostaglandin. What is of concern is the use of the combined drugs for the purpose of carrying out a chemical abortion. If the documented contraindications have been ignored, what about the contraindications for its use by poor women in India, Bangladesh and elsewhere? These are drugs that should not be used without proper supervision, yet here in Australia, the people pushing for changes in the legislation to take control of the importation of Mifepristone out of the hands of the Minister for Health, totally ignore the facts surrounding health and safety issues.
THE HISTORY OF RU486
RU486 was discovered in April 1980, by Georges Teutsch and Daniel Philibert of Roussel Uclaf, with French scientist Etienne-Emile Baulieu, a consultant to the company, when they succeeded in synthesizing RU 486, a steroid now with the trade name Mifégyne (mifepristone). The researchers claimed that they were not deliberately setting out to develop an abortifacient, and that RU486 was “a by-product of the company's active search for a molecule which would bind strongly with the glucocorticoid receptor. “ Spinifex Press - RU 486 - Misconceptions, Myths and Morals
After only 17 months of animal testing, the first human tests on this drug were carried out in a trial at Geneva hospital on 11 pregnant women who were prepared to accept a chemical abortion. The women in the trial were given 200 mg of RU486 over 3 consecutive days. Of the women who participated in the trials, nine pregnancies were allegedly successfully terminated. Of these 9, eight of the women took 5 days before the termination was successful, and one woman took eight days. However, of these “successful” terminations, one woman had to undergo an emergency evacuation of her uterus, and another had to receive emergency surgery plus a blood transfusion because of heavy blood loss. It was, as the newspaper Paris Liberation stated “no abortion miracle”.
With such an early history that indicated that there were problems with the use of RU486, why is Senator Allyson so adamant that it is safe and effective? Why is the current head of the AMA prepared to state that RU486 is safe? This is an extremely risky statement for someone in a position of responsibility to make about a drug such as RU486? By endorsing this form of chemical abortion, this doctor has stuck his neck out to the point that he risks a lawsuit when something goes drastically wrong through any unchecked use of Mifepristone. Should Australia follow other countries that have chosen to introduce this procedure for the purpose of inducing abortion? This is an issue that needs careful consideration.
I maintain that Australian women need to be fully informed about the dangers and risks, and the contraindications on the use of RU486. This is not something that should be taken lightly, and it is not something that it is so safe to give to aboriginal women in remote regions of Australia. In fact to give it to an aboriginal woman could be gross negligence on the part of the doctor.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
RU486 - wonder drug? Or are we being conned big time?
In the past, the feminist Renate Klein has argued quite strongly against the introduction of RU486 into this country. In her work that discusses many of the hidden dangers of this drug she says:
“The promotional coverage of RU 486 in the media has been designed to raise public expectations of the drug. Much of the press coverage - mainstream and feminist has treated it as the revolutionary reproductive drug of the century. Moreover, the promise of research and treatment with RU 486/PG has capitalized on a common enemy of women's rights and scientific research.”
Well nothing has changed since Renate first wrote those words in her publication: RU486 – Myths and Misconceptions (1991) was first published. The feminists here in Australia, including their propaganda machine, the ABC, has been busy trying to convince the general public that the power to control the importation of Mifepristone should be removed from the Minister for Health and returned to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The Australian Democrat and Green Senators, plus a number of prominent women from the other major political parties have banded together in their push to allow the importation of what must be one of the deadliest drugs available, where the health of women is concerned. Over the past week the ABC has been on a propaganda spree as it has been spruiking the views of the feminists who have set about misleading the general public about the efficacy of the drugs involved. What Renate said in 1991 remains true in 2006, and the feminists are selling out the rights of women for the sake of what they term “choice” over reproduction.
Is this really an issue for the right to choose? Or is it nothing more than encouragement for women to become or to continue as consumers for new technologies and drugs? Women are seen as consumers for such things as: botox treatments, cellulite treatments, weight loss centres, as well as the modern technology of ultrasound. Some of these things are not bad, for example the ultrasound technology is proving very useful for detecting the possibility of cancer growth within the uterus. It is also useful for detecting a pregnancy and whether or not there is a multiple pregnancy. However, ultrasounds are being overused by the general public. Not every woman needs to have an ultrasound and unless it is strictly necessary then doctors should limit its use to those special cases. The same can be said for the rise in caesarean deliveries because this method of delivery is being used for the sake of convenience and it is not strictly necessary. Yet, the idea is being sold to women as though it is essential.
The point here is whether or not women are being adequately informed about the potential risks of the treatment. Take the example of a caesarean section: there is a very small chance that the mother’s life could be placed in danger because of the anaesthetic. A woman has to sign an informed consent form before proceeding with any of these procedures. This is also true about the possible use of the “medical” abortion method known as RU486. However, how can we be sure that it is informed consent? What if the pregnant woman who has been told that this is a safe way to have an abortion is not in fact told about the known risks to one’s health? What does informed consent in such circumstances actually mean? The associated risks involved are so great that informed consent in this case is absolutely meaningless.
Last week the ABC highlighted a case of a woman who claimed that she wanted to import Mifepristone because it was the only drug that could treat her cancer. My reaction to such a claim is “balderdash”. In an effort to have Mifepristone accepted by stealth, there is an attempt to hawk it as being a treatment for the following:
However, there is little in the way of research statistics that in fact support the use of Mifepristone under most of these conditions. It might help in the case of breast cancer, but there are other effective drugs that are available for use. This means that someone claiming that it is the only thing that would work for her is speaking about something that has no record of safety and effectiveness.
In the past, women have been sold on similar lies about prospective treatments – for example oestrogen (HRT) therapy and DES. The long term use of HRT is in fact proving harmful to the health of women, and there is a rising concern about the increase of cancer amongst women who are on various forms of hormonal replacement therapy. Are women ever given the opportunity to question these forms of treatment? They are treatments that are being hawked to women who are going through menopause, but without the long term studies women are being constantly placed at risk of dying because they have been encouraged to participate in these new therapies.
So, in promoting the right to choose a method of abortion, the feminists are selling out their sisters that they profess to represent with their activism. However, they are not truly representing the women of Australia when they insist upon promoting the introduction of a therapy that will cause hundreds of women to die unnecessarily, because they have been allowed to bleed to death. Do we want to see an increase in the morbidity of fecund women?
“The promotional coverage of RU 486 in the media has been designed to raise public expectations of the drug. Much of the press coverage - mainstream and feminist has treated it as the revolutionary reproductive drug of the century. Moreover, the promise of research and treatment with RU 486/PG has capitalized on a common enemy of women's rights and scientific research.”
Well nothing has changed since Renate first wrote those words in her publication: RU486 – Myths and Misconceptions (1991) was first published. The feminists here in Australia, including their propaganda machine, the ABC, has been busy trying to convince the general public that the power to control the importation of Mifepristone should be removed from the Minister for Health and returned to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The Australian Democrat and Green Senators, plus a number of prominent women from the other major political parties have banded together in their push to allow the importation of what must be one of the deadliest drugs available, where the health of women is concerned. Over the past week the ABC has been on a propaganda spree as it has been spruiking the views of the feminists who have set about misleading the general public about the efficacy of the drugs involved. What Renate said in 1991 remains true in 2006, and the feminists are selling out the rights of women for the sake of what they term “choice” over reproduction.
Is this really an issue for the right to choose? Or is it nothing more than encouragement for women to become or to continue as consumers for new technologies and drugs? Women are seen as consumers for such things as: botox treatments, cellulite treatments, weight loss centres, as well as the modern technology of ultrasound. Some of these things are not bad, for example the ultrasound technology is proving very useful for detecting the possibility of cancer growth within the uterus. It is also useful for detecting a pregnancy and whether or not there is a multiple pregnancy. However, ultrasounds are being overused by the general public. Not every woman needs to have an ultrasound and unless it is strictly necessary then doctors should limit its use to those special cases. The same can be said for the rise in caesarean deliveries because this method of delivery is being used for the sake of convenience and it is not strictly necessary. Yet, the idea is being sold to women as though it is essential.
The point here is whether or not women are being adequately informed about the potential risks of the treatment. Take the example of a caesarean section: there is a very small chance that the mother’s life could be placed in danger because of the anaesthetic. A woman has to sign an informed consent form before proceeding with any of these procedures. This is also true about the possible use of the “medical” abortion method known as RU486. However, how can we be sure that it is informed consent? What if the pregnant woman who has been told that this is a safe way to have an abortion is not in fact told about the known risks to one’s health? What does informed consent in such circumstances actually mean? The associated risks involved are so great that informed consent in this case is absolutely meaningless.
Last week the ABC highlighted a case of a woman who claimed that she wanted to import Mifepristone because it was the only drug that could treat her cancer. My reaction to such a claim is “balderdash”. In an effort to have Mifepristone accepted by stealth, there is an attempt to hawk it as being a treatment for the following:
- Breast cancer;
- Meningioma;
- Glaucoma;
- Dilation of the cervix in labour (perish the thought);
- Prostate cancer.
However, there is little in the way of research statistics that in fact support the use of Mifepristone under most of these conditions. It might help in the case of breast cancer, but there are other effective drugs that are available for use. This means that someone claiming that it is the only thing that would work for her is speaking about something that has no record of safety and effectiveness.
In the past, women have been sold on similar lies about prospective treatments – for example oestrogen (HRT) therapy and DES. The long term use of HRT is in fact proving harmful to the health of women, and there is a rising concern about the increase of cancer amongst women who are on various forms of hormonal replacement therapy. Are women ever given the opportunity to question these forms of treatment? They are treatments that are being hawked to women who are going through menopause, but without the long term studies women are being constantly placed at risk of dying because they have been encouraged to participate in these new therapies.
So, in promoting the right to choose a method of abortion, the feminists are selling out their sisters that they profess to represent with their activism. However, they are not truly representing the women of Australia when they insist upon promoting the introduction of a therapy that will cause hundreds of women to die unnecessarily, because they have been allowed to bleed to death. Do we want to see an increase in the morbidity of fecund women?
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Are Australian women being hoodwinked over RU486?
As usual, the Australian Democrats and the Green Party are pushing for the change that would remove the approval powers of the Australian Minister for Health, to import Mifepristone, one of the drugs that is used in RU486. I believe that Senator Allyson and her cohorts are deliberately hoodwinking Australian women in order to get their agenda approved. Yes, that is right I think that there is an attempt to hoodwink the Australian population on this subject.
The MSM, especially the ABC has embarked upon a propaganda spree, where facts are being deliberately obsfucated with regard to the harmful effects of using Mifepristone as an abortifacient. The confusion that exists also extends to the combination of drugs that is known as the "morning after pill". For the record, the morning after pill is not Mifepristone, it is a combination of estradioil and norgesterel. Its use can make a woman nauseous, and there is no real guarantee that it was needed in the first place. It can also lead to an ectopic pregnancy, which is a very undesirable situation.
Mifepristone can only be used up to the 7th week of pregnancy. After that time, the risks to the woman are very high, and any thought of using Mifepristone for late stage abortion should be considered as well off the radar because of the extreme risk to the health of a pregnant woman. I would go as far as stating that any gynaecologist who would even contemplate using Mifepristone for late stage abortion should be thrown out as a doctor because of his or her lack of responsibility for the welfare of the patient. Such a notion is totally untenable as a suggestion.
One woman who is pro-Choice is Renate Klein. It is worth noting that Ms Klein is also very much against the introduction of RU486 as an alternative method of abortion. Some of Ms. Klein's reasons for opposing RU486 can be found at the following URL: www.spinifexpress.com.au/non-fict/ru486.htm. The reasons given by Ms. Klein and her colleagues are different from the reasons that are used by someone who is totally opposed to abortion under most circumstances. I do not accept all of the statements made by Klein and her colleagues, but I do think that she makes a good points from the feminist point of view and I believe that she deserves to be heard without being abused for not following the path of other feminists who are accepting an uncritical evaluation of the manufacturer's literature relating to RU486.
The first known death from the administration of Mifepristone/Sulprostone (the prostaglandin) was recorded in 1991 in France. The woman was in her 13th pregnancy and it was the result of taking the drug Nalador. (Even one death means that the claim that RU486/PG is not safe and effective. ) Ms Klein and her colleagues make a good case from the point of view that women are being constantly pushed to accept drugs without regard for their safety. I could go further and state that in third world countries there has been a push to get women to use IUDs that are banned in the USA and elsewhere, so I see this as an issue of women being hoodwinked into believing that something is safe when in fact it is dangerous to our health.
In recent days the ABC has been busy pumping out the propaganda with regard to the other possible uses for Mifepristone, and how there are allegedly people who want to use the drug for that other purpose - including as a treatment for breast cancer. However, I would question these uses unless there is strong empirical evidence that the drug has been used for that purpose and that it has led to successful treatment. I fear that the ABC has highlighted a story that falls into the category of a magic cure-all of the snake oil variety. If Mifepristone has a record of treating breast cancer then there is no reason for believing that trials for that purpose could not take place. Was this a case of pure propaganda designed to get public sympathy for the easing of the restrictions for RU486? In this respect I have to say that I accept the arguments of Renate Klein - that we are not being given the full picture.
My investigation into the administration of the drugs that make up RU486 have left me feeling quite horrified that there are women who would allow themselves to be used as guinea pigs by the abortion industry. I am horrified because of the way in which these young women have bee allowed to bleed to death. There is a percentage of women who have need to take the prostaglandin and they are not being properly supervised, neither are they being made aware of the hidden dangers of this technique for abortion. If either of these drugs do not work, then there is a very high risk that the baby will have some form of deformity, if it survives in the womb. There is also an extremely high risk to the mother that she will end up not being able to have any more children. There is a red flag risk that they could up up bleeding to death because of a rare infection.
The MSM, especially the ABC has embarked upon a propaganda spree, where facts are being deliberately obsfucated with regard to the harmful effects of using Mifepristone as an abortifacient. The confusion that exists also extends to the combination of drugs that is known as the "morning after pill". For the record, the morning after pill is not Mifepristone, it is a combination of estradioil and norgesterel. Its use can make a woman nauseous, and there is no real guarantee that it was needed in the first place. It can also lead to an ectopic pregnancy, which is a very undesirable situation.
Mifepristone can only be used up to the 7th week of pregnancy. After that time, the risks to the woman are very high, and any thought of using Mifepristone for late stage abortion should be considered as well off the radar because of the extreme risk to the health of a pregnant woman. I would go as far as stating that any gynaecologist who would even contemplate using Mifepristone for late stage abortion should be thrown out as a doctor because of his or her lack of responsibility for the welfare of the patient. Such a notion is totally untenable as a suggestion.
One woman who is pro-Choice is Renate Klein. It is worth noting that Ms Klein is also very much against the introduction of RU486 as an alternative method of abortion. Some of Ms. Klein's reasons for opposing RU486 can be found at the following URL: www.spinifexpress.com.au/non-fict/ru486.htm. The reasons given by Ms. Klein and her colleagues are different from the reasons that are used by someone who is totally opposed to abortion under most circumstances. I do not accept all of the statements made by Klein and her colleagues, but I do think that she makes a good points from the feminist point of view and I believe that she deserves to be heard without being abused for not following the path of other feminists who are accepting an uncritical evaluation of the manufacturer's literature relating to RU486.
The first known death from the administration of Mifepristone/Sulprostone (the prostaglandin) was recorded in 1991 in France. The woman was in her 13th pregnancy and it was the result of taking the drug Nalador. (Even one death means that the claim that RU486/PG is not safe and effective. ) Ms Klein and her colleagues make a good case from the point of view that women are being constantly pushed to accept drugs without regard for their safety. I could go further and state that in third world countries there has been a push to get women to use IUDs that are banned in the USA and elsewhere, so I see this as an issue of women being hoodwinked into believing that something is safe when in fact it is dangerous to our health.
In recent days the ABC has been busy pumping out the propaganda with regard to the other possible uses for Mifepristone, and how there are allegedly people who want to use the drug for that other purpose - including as a treatment for breast cancer. However, I would question these uses unless there is strong empirical evidence that the drug has been used for that purpose and that it has led to successful treatment. I fear that the ABC has highlighted a story that falls into the category of a magic cure-all of the snake oil variety. If Mifepristone has a record of treating breast cancer then there is no reason for believing that trials for that purpose could not take place. Was this a case of pure propaganda designed to get public sympathy for the easing of the restrictions for RU486? In this respect I have to say that I accept the arguments of Renate Klein - that we are not being given the full picture.
My investigation into the administration of the drugs that make up RU486 have left me feeling quite horrified that there are women who would allow themselves to be used as guinea pigs by the abortion industry. I am horrified because of the way in which these young women have bee allowed to bleed to death. There is a percentage of women who have need to take the prostaglandin and they are not being properly supervised, neither are they being made aware of the hidden dangers of this technique for abortion. If either of these drugs do not work, then there is a very high risk that the baby will have some form of deformity, if it survives in the womb. There is also an extremely high risk to the mother that she will end up not being able to have any more children. There is a red flag risk that they could up up bleeding to death because of a rare infection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
