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:

• 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.

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:

• 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?

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.