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.