Showing posts with label RU-486. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RU-486. Show all posts

Thursday, January 27, 2022

Linepharma, Mifegymiso, adverse reactions, and profit

This is my final post in this five part series on Linepharma, who markets, distributes, sells and profits from abortion in over 25 countries, including Canada. 

I've only documented a few of the adverse reaction cases from the 195 page ATIP package I received. You can view the other cases here from my Health Canada ATIP.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/improving-womens-health-one-abortion-at.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-17-year-old-serious-and.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-37-year-old-life.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/01/mifegymiso-case-36-year-old.html

I cross referenced the 195 page report to the Canada Vigilance Summary of Reported Adverse  (43 records for MIFEGYMISO). Notice this from the first page of the summary report

"CAVEAT (from the report): This summary is based on information from adverse reaction reports submitted by health professionals and laypersons either directly to Health Canada or via market authorization holders. Each report represents the suspicion, opinion or observation of the individual reporter. The Canada Vigilance Program is a spontaneous reporting system that is suitable to detect signals of potential health product safety issues during the post-market period. The data has been collected primarily by a spontaneous surveillance system in which adverse reactions to health products are reported on a voluntary basis. Under reporting of adverse reactions is seen with both voluntary and mandatory spontaneous surveillance systems. Accumulated case reports should not be used as a basis for determining the incidence of a reaction or estimating risk for a particular product as neither the total number of reactions occurring, nor the number of patients exposed to the health product is known. Because of the multiple factors that influence reporting, quantitative comparisons of health product safety cannot be made from the data. Some of these factors include the length of time a drug is marketed, the market share, size and sophistication of the sales force, publicity about an adverse reaction and regulatory actions. In some cases, the reported clinical data is incomplete and there is not certainty that these health products caused the reported reactions. A given reaction may be due to an underlying disease process or to another coincidental factor. This information is provided with the understanding that the data will be appropriately referenced and used in conjunction with this caveat statement."

Lots of wiggle room there. Notice this statement: 

"Under reporting of adverse reactions is seen with both voluntary and mandatory spontaneous surveillance systems." (emphasis added)

Presumably there are many adverse reactions that are never reported to Health Canada. How many? We will probably never know. But women who take this deadly pill are really on their own. They go home, take the pills, and who knows what consequences these women will suffer? And will they be reported?

Medical abortions really just add another whole level of evil to the already abhorrent reality of abortion.

Wednesday, January 26, 2022

Mifegymiso case 36 year old, hospitilization, sepsis, missing information

This report for a 36 year old woman who suffered from sepsis after a Mifegymiso abortion, bears a strong similarity to some of the other reports.

It contains a lot of unknown information about her case.

A 36-year old female patient, unspecified weight and height, with unknown medical history, was administered Mifegymiso...unspecified dosage for induced abortion. Time frame was unknown. Time of gestation was not provided.

Concomitant treatment was not reported.

Corrective treatment, if any, was not reported.

The patient recovered from the event on unspecified date.

The health authority evaluated the case as serious (Hospitalization), coded sepsis as adverse reaction, suspected Mifegymiso and did not assess the causal relationship between Mifegymiso and the adverse reaction. (but I think we know the answer to this one)

Seriousness: -sepsis: yes (hospitalization) 

Causality assessment: Very poorly documented case, time frames and dosage of mifepristone administration were not provided. Chronology was unassessable.

Missing information: Confirmation of misoprostol administration.

More than one of these reports contain this lack of information. Why is that? Why isn't Health Canada following up with the person who reports the adverse reaction, to obtain this information? Isn't that a kind of crucial aspect of this reporting system?

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Mifegymiso case 37 year old, life threatening and involved or prolonged inpatient hospitalization

In 2017 a 37 year old woman suffered "life threatening and involved or prolonged inpatient hospitalization".

From her Adverse Reaction Report:

"Report received [date]. 37 year old woman with unknown medical history. Received Mifegymiso. Patient was 45 days gestation.

Patient presented for follow-up appointment with heavy bleeding and vasovagal (See below). Ultrasound scan detected retained product of conception in and around cervix that physician attempted to remove. An assessment of stat hemoglobin was ordered, then patient called at home to [be] given results at 130. A date for dilation and curettage was booked by clinic. Patient reported passed large clot size of an orange on way home and felt much better. 

On [date], nurse called in the morning and patient said bleeding was only spotting and she felt better and cancelled dilation and curettage.

On [date], patient reported being admitted to hospital with hemorrhage and loss of consciousness on date with low hemoglobin and iron. She underwent emergency dilation and curettage and blood transfusion."

Reactions:

"Loss of consciousness, Low hemoglobin, Low iron, Hemorrhage, Transfusion, D&C, Syncope vasovagal, Retained product of conception, Heavy bleeding"

Notice the use of Retained product of conception. A human being by any other name.

"Vasovagal syncope (vay-zoh-VAY-gul SING-kuh-pee) occurs when you faint because your body overreacts to certain triggers, such as the sight of blood or extreme emotional distress. It may also be called neurocardiogenic syncope.

The vasovagal syncope trigger causes your heart rate and blood pressure to drop suddenly. That leads to reduced blood flow to your brain, causing you to briefly lose consciousness."

Monday, January 24, 2022

Mifegymiso case 17 year old, serious and life threatening

"Linepharma is a pharmaceutical company committed to improving sexual and reproductive health through expanding access to safe medication abortion."

Further to my last post about the company whose only product kills babies, I did an ATIP to Health Canada on the abortion drug Mifegymiso. My request:

"I would like to obtain the total number of medical abortions (mifepristone and misoprostol) dispensed in Canada since the drug became legal in 2017. I would also like to see any reports of adverse affects  attributed to these medical abortions in Canada since the drug became legal in 2017."

I am still waiting for the first part of my request, and received info back on the second part about adverse effects.

The first woman I will discuss who suffered from this dangerous drug was 17 years old. There are records for her from 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the system. I have no idea how long she suffered from her abortion, but there was a lot of paper work done on her.

Her case was classified as serious, life threatening.

This woman suffered the following horrible reactions to this drug.

Loss of consciousness, Hemoglobin low, Iron low, Hemorrage,Transfusion, Dilation and curettage, Retained products of conception, Heavy bleeding, Large clot, Toxic shock syndrome, Off label use, Escherichia sepsis (E. coli), Septic abortion, Abortion infected, Cardiovascular collapse, Circulatory collapse, Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support, Lung assist device therapy

Case Narrative: "Septic shock secondary to septic aabortion from incomplete medical abortion - was provided mifegymiso at 11-2 GA (well out of recommended gestational age); E.coli identified in blood cultures and from uterine contents; patient presented in cardiovascular collapse to local hospital, was transferred to other hospital level 2 center, urgent D&C carried out and ICU admission required with respiratory/cardiovascular support required, developed septic cardiomyopathy; recovered with extensive antibiotic coverage and intensive care; ultimately was discharged home with close followup."

This case was flagged as off-label use because:

"She had unknown relevant medical history. 11 Weeks 2 days gestation (79 days) patient received Mifegymiso beyond 63 days gestation." (emphasis added)

Interesting that 63 days number. Because from this Canadian Medical Abortion Dispensing Guide it says up to 70 days. So what is it Linepharma, 63 days or 70 days? And how do you make sure that women don't take it past this time like this girl did?

On one of the reports was the following comment.

"The case was reported by a physician to Health Canada on 22-Mar-2018 and retrieved by Linepharma on 16-Dec-2019."

Linepharma took a 21 full months to retrieve the information about this poor girl. You'd think that they would be a tad more interested in knowing about this horror story. And the other horror stories of women taking this dangerous drug. That they produce, market, make money from, and send around the world. 

How many people in countries not as advanced as Canada suffer from similar reactions? And what will happen if we start sending Mifegymiso to Africa? God only knows.

Sunday, January 23, 2022

Improving women's health one abortion at a time

"Linepharma is dedicated to improving women’s health and safe reproductive care."

Linepharma makes the medical abortion drug Mifegymiso. It is distributed in Canada by Celopharma.

Linepharma seems to be owned by a holding company AMRING HOLDING SA.

"There are currently 2 people with significant control at LINEPHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. One of of major shareholders of LINEPHARMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED is AMRING HOLDING SA, which owns 1008 ORDINARY shares, with a total value of 1,008 GBP and AMRING HOLDING SA, which owns 404 ORDINARY B shares, with a total value of 404 GBP."

I couldn't find much about these companies, besides some basic information about their registrations etc, and their own very non informative websites. In fact Amring Holding SA doesn't seem to have a website of its own. Interesting.

Linepharma makes one product. The abortion pill Mifegymiso. Cellopharma distributes one product. The abortion pill Mifegymiso.

Linepharma distributes this product through the usual suspects, International Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, and United Nations Population Fund, and other stalwart organizations devoted to the killing of young fetuses.

Currently Linepharma sells their fatal fetal drug to women in Canada, Latin America, Asia, and Australia. And coming soon it will be in Japan, Chile, Bolivia, and South Korea.

We can only imagine how much money they make in their monopoly of medically killing children in the womb all over the world. If this isn't evil I have no idea what is.

Wednesday, March 4, 2020

The never ending story of abortion statistics in Canada

Further to my post on Canada's abortion statistics, I have done a four year comparison between CIHI's and Ontario's abortion numbers. As you can see the spread between CIHI's and MOHLTC's numbers increase every year between (2014 and 2014/2015), to (2017 and 2017/2018). So while overall the numbers are decreasing, the spread is getting larger. In 2014 and 2014/2015, the difference was 8.4%. In 2017 and 2017/2018 the difference was 20.42%. 

Adding 20.42% (to CIHI's reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada) would mean a total of at least 102,592 abortions for all of Canada. 

See above link for my notes from CIHI and MOHLTC.

Monday, February 24, 2020

UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada

(UPDATE March 22, 2010. Quebec Health (RAMQ) has confirmed that their abortion numbers do not include medical abortions.)

The media has it wrong: New data suggests Canadian clinics and hospitals performing fewer abortionsSo does Joyce Arthur.

Why? Because what people always report are CIHI's numbers. And CIHI is missing a lot of data based on freedom of information requests I've done.

It is a well known fact CIHI under reports abortion numbers because they do not collect data based on fee for service records (i.e. OHIP billings in Ontario).
"CIHI captures administrative, clinical and demographic data on induced abortions performed in Canadian hospitals. Data is supplied by provincial and territorial ministries of health, hospitals and independent abortion clinics in Canada. Clinic data is submitted voluntarily to CIHI. Counts in the following tables include induced abortions performed in a hospital or clinic setting in Canada. Due to variations in use of fee-for-service (FFS) payments for induced abortions across the country, these figures are not based on pan-Canadian FFS data."
What we do know about CIHI's data:
  • abortions performed in physician's office are not reported (only hospitals and clinics are reported). (UPDATE March 2, 2020 Correction: CIHI apparently does a calculation to increase their accuracy  *** However they are still under reporting see below)
  • clinic abortion data is under reported because of its voluntary nature
  • medical abortions (the abortion pill RU-486) are not reported (for the most part they are prescribed through physician offices)
  • CIHI hospital abortion data is accurate
  • the only accurate data available for all abortions comes from FFS or doctor's billing records (OHIP in Ontario RAMQ in Quebec)
I have received data from Ontario billing records over the years. Recently I received Quebec billing recordsBoth of these sources are fairly accurate because they are based on FFS records.

Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2018 CIHI reported 29,513 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 13,340 unreported abortions.

(UPDATE March 2, 2020): in 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 and in 2017 CIHI reported 35,587. In the calculation above I used CIHI's 2018 numbers instead of 2017 numbers. The confusion comes from the fact that CIHI reports a calendar year, and MOHLTC reports a fiscal year of April 1, 2017- March 31, 2018. So it makes more sense to compare MOHLTC numbers to CIHI's calendar year. Therefore Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2017 CIHI who reported 35,587 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 7,266 unreported abortionsThis means CIHI under reported Ontario's abortions by 20.42%. I will be doing more comparisons in a later post.)

Quebec: Recently I reported numbers for the first time from Quebec

In 2018 RAMQ reported 26,979 compared to 22,093 from CIHI = 4,886 unreported abortions

This means CIHI under reported Quebec's abortions by 22%.

Quebec and Ontario are the largest provinces in Canada. Therefore they perform the most abortions. So total numbers of abortions reported by CIHI are probably somewhere between 22% and 45% lower than the actual totals.

CIHI reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada. Quebec and Ontario abortions make up 65% of that number. If we assume all provinces have similar under reported abortion numbers, it's fair to say that the percentages would be somewhere between 22% or 45% higher than CIHI reports.

This means the total number of abortions done in Canada in 2018 can reasonably be expected to be somewhere between 103,937 to 123,532. Not 85,195.

UPDATE March 2, 2020 from CIHI: "The report you shared (42,853) includes seven fee codes, however CIHI reports only using two fee codes. If you limit your comparison to the 2 surgical fee codes (S752 and S785), the total numbers presented in the MOH report are very close to CIHI’s reported numbers (32,795 vs 29,513 respectively). In addition, CIHI reported for calendar year 2018 while the other report appears to be based on fiscal year 2017/18 data."

To which I responded: "So why doesn't CIHI use all the fee codes used by Ontario, since those are abortions as well? There is a big 45% difference between CIHI's numbers and Ontario's numbers. Ontario reported 42,853 and CIHI only reported 29,513. I realize there is a difference in the two reporting periods, because MOHLTC reports using a fiscal year, CIHI uses a calendar year, but there is no way to get a completely equivalent time frame, so I must compare the two years in this manner."


*** This is included on CIHI's annual reports on abortion ***

The methodology to estimate induced abortion volumes for Ontario is consistent with the enhanced methodology that was introduced in the 2015 report. Total volumes were derived by using the total abortion volumes reported to the National Physician Database (NPDB) at CIHI and adding both hospital-based abortions for non-Ontario residents and hospital-based medical-method-only abortions for Ontario residents (as reported to the Discharge Abstract Database and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System). For Ontario, volumes reported in the column Number of induced abortions reported by clinics include services from non-hospital settings. Volumes for non-hospital settings (clinics/surgical facilities/physician offices) were estimated using the total abortion volumes as described above and subtracting hospital-based abortions. This methodology results in induced abortions occurring in physician offices and in clinics being included in non-hospital settings volumes. This estimation approach for non-hospital volumes was required because information on the location where the service is rendered (e.g., clinic, hospital, physician’s office) may not be included in the NPDB data.

Update March 3, 2020 from OMHLTC: 

"Health Services Branch has confirmed that medical abortions would be captured under A920A." This means that medical abortions are being captured under A920. But so are missed abortions. As well, there are other methods to deal with missed abortions which do not include RU486What a dog's breakfast abortion statistics are.

UPDATE March 4, 2020, comparison of Ontario and CIHI's data for the past four years.

Friday, January 24, 2020

2018 abortion numbers - are they going up or down?

CIHI has released 2018 abortion statistics. The numbers look like they're down from 2017, which is a good thing. But considering that CIHI doesn't report any abortions performed in doctor's offices; considering that not all clinic abortions are reported; together with the fact that an increasing number of abortions come from the easy availability of the abortion pill RU-486, we have no idea if abortions are really going down, or up.


NOTE: CIHI only reports the gestational ages of abortions for those done in hospitals, and not for those done in clinics, and not for those done in Quebec. This means that for the bulk of the abortions performed in Canada, we have no gestational ages.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Health Canada ATIP on RU-486

Here is the information for an ATIP I made to Health Canada for the abortion drug RU-486.

There was one document for pages 345-2544. It is too large to be able to access from the Google drive. It appears to be 2000 pages of data, but impossible to decipher what the data means. It also seems to contain data other than misoprostol and mifepristone.

Pages 1-336
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6d1lWbDI3MXNNeVU/view?usp=sharing

Pages 337-344
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6MlItSm9Yd2lOeG8/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2545-2547
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6WDlielFDXzlQLTA/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2548-2968
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6azB5SnZqR2tIMU0/view?usp=sharing

Pages 2969-3050
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6U19VSzRIWkJpdnc/view?usp=sharing

Monday, December 5, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 3

(Part 1)
(Part 2)
"I cannot understand the need for that. There isn't a medical reason we would need that." Dr. Wendy Norman
So let's look at these strict accessibility guidelines for RU-486 (mifepristone), based on the US example, a country ten times the size of Canada.

Is there a "medical reason" for these guidelines or isn't there?

The CBC has interviewed Dr. Norman at least six times, and each time she questions why Canada has chosen to only allow doctors to dispense this drug, and not pharmacists. Dr. Norman calls this behaviour "strange and bizarre", "highly unusual", an "absolutely inexplicable regulation" and "demeaning".

Decide for yourself.

All the information and links below are from the US's Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). (All emphasis in red added)

I. GOAL

The goal of the Mifeprex REMS is to mitigate the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex by:
a) Requiring healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex to be certified in the Mifeprex REMS Program.
b) Ensuring that Mifeprex is only dispensed in certain healthcare settings by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.
c) Informing patients about the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex 

II. REMS ELEMENTS

A. Elements to Assure Safe Use

1. Healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex must be specially certified.
  a. To become specially certified to prescribe Mifeprex, healthcare providers must:
  i. Review the Prescribing Information for Mifeprex.
  ii. Complete the Prescriber Agreement Form. By signing the Prescriber agreement Form, prescribers agree that:
    1) They have the following qualifications:
      a) Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately
      b) Ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies
      c) Ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or to have made plans to provide such care through others, and ability to assure patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary.
    2) They will follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex (see b.i-v below).
  
b. As a condition of certification, healthcare providers must follow the guidelines for use of Mifeprex described below:

  i. Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen. Answer any questions the patient may have prior to receiving Mifeprex.
  ii. Sign the Patient Agreement Form and obtain the Patient’s signature on the Form
  iii. Provide the patient with a copy of the Patient Agreement Form and Medication Guide.
  iv. Place the signed Patient Agreement Form in the patient's medical record.
  v. Record the serial number from each package of Mifeprex in each patient’s record.
  vi. Report any deaths to Danco Laboratories, identifying the patient by a nonidentifiable reference and the serial number from each package of Mifeprex.

c. Danco Laboratories must:

  i. Ensure that healthcare providers who prescribe Mifeprex are specially certified in accordance with the requirements described above and de-certify healthcare providers who do not maintain compliance with certification requirements 
  ii. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who inquire about how to become certified. 

The following materials are part of the REMS and are appended:
• Prescriber Agreement Form
• Patient Agreement Form

2. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients only in certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices, and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.

  a. Danco Laboratories must:

    i. Ensure that Mifeprex is available to be dispensed to patients only in clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber.
    ii. Ensure that Mifeprex is not distributed to or dispensed through retail pharmacies or other settings not described above.

3. Mifeprex must be dispensed to patients with evidence or other documentation of safe use conditions.
  a. The patient must sign a Patient Agreement Form indicating that she has:
    i. Received, read and been provided a copy of the Patient Agreement Form.
    ii. Received counseling from the prescriber regarding the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex.

B. Implementation System

1. Danco Laboratories must ensure that Mifeprex is only distributed to clinics, medical offices and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber by:
  a. Ensuring that distributors who distribute Mifeprex comply with the program requirements for distributors. The distributors must:
    i. Put processes and procedures in place to:
      a. Complete the healthcare provider certification process upon receipt of the Prescriber Agreement form.
      b. Notify healthcare providers when they have been certified by the Mifeprex REMS Program.
      c. Ship Mifeprex only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified prescribers in the signed Prescriber Agreement Form.
      d. Not ship Mifeprex to prescribers who become de-certified from the Mifeprex Program.
      e. Provide the Prescribing Information and Prescriber Agreement Form to healthcare providers who (1) attempt to order Mifeprex and are not yet certified, or (2) inquire about how to become certified.
    ii. Put processes and procedures in place to maintain a distribution system that is secure, confidential and follows all processes and procedures, including those for storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
    iii. Train all relevant staff on the Mifeprex REMS Program requirements.
    iv. Comply with audits by Danco Laboratories, FDA or a third party acting on behalf of Danco Laboratories or FDA to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed for the Mifeprex REMS Program. In addition, distributors must maintain appropriate documentation and make it available for audits.
    b. Ensuring that distributors maintain secure and confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.

  2. Danco Laboratories must monitor distribution data to ensure compliance with the REMS Program.
  3. Danco Laboratories must audit new distributors within 90 calendar days after the distributor is authorized to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and functioning to support the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program. Danco Laboratories will take steps to address distributor compliance if noncompliance is identified.
  4. Danco Laboratories must take reasonable steps to improve implementation of and compliance with the requirements of the Mifeprex REMS Program based on monitoring and assessment of the Mifeprex REMS Program.
  5. Danco Laboratories must report to FDA any death associated with Mifeprex whether or not considered drug-related, as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar days from the initial receipt of the information by the applicant. This requirement does not affect the applicant's other reporting and follow-up requirements under FDA regulations.

C. Timetable for Submission of Assessments
Danco Laboratories must submit REMS assessments to FDA one year from the date of the initial approval of the REMS (06/08/2011) and every three years thereafter. To facilitate inclusion of as much information as possible while allowing reasonable time to prepare the submission, the reporting interval covered by each assessment should conclude no earlier than 60 days before the submission date for that assessment. Danco Laboratories must submit each assessment so that it will be received by the FDA on or before the due date.
_________________________________________________________________________

What do participants need to know?

Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex must To be able to prescribe:
  • Review the drug’s prescribing information.
  • Complete and submit the Prescriber Agreement Form.
Healthcare Providers who prescribe and dispense Mifeprex  must Before dispensing
  • Review the Patient Agreement Form with the patient and fully explain the risks of the Mifeprex treatment regimen.
  • Provide the patient with the Medication Guide.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the patient. Provide a completed copy of the form to the patient and retain a completed copy in the patient’s record.
Patients who are prescribed Mifeprex Before receiving
  • Review the Patient Agreement Form.
  • Complete the Patient Agreement Form with the prescriber.
  • Receive counseling from the prescriber on the risks associated with Mifeprex.
Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must To be able to distribute
  • Establish processes and procedures to ensure that the drug is distributed only to clinics, medical offices, and hospitals identified by certified healthcare providers.
  • Establish processes and procedures to maintain a distribution system that is secure and confidential.
  • Establish processes and procedures to maintain a system for proper storage, handling, shipping, tracking package serial numbers, proof of delivery and controlled returns of Mifeprex.
  • Train all relevant staff involved in distribution of Mifeprex on the REMS Program requirements.
Distributors that distribute Mifeprex must At all times
  • Maintain confidential distribution records of all shipments of Mifeprex.
  • Cooperate with audits carried out by the application holder to ensure that all processes and procedures are in place and are being followed.
Patient must fill out this form (1 page):

Doctor must fill out this form (2 page):

Medication guide for patient (4 pages) 

FDA warning:
"You should not buy Mifeprex over the Internet because you will bypass important safeguards designed to protect your health (and the health of others). 
Mifeprex has special safety restrictions on how it is distributed to the public. Also, drugs purchased from foreign Internet sources are not the FDA-approved versions of the drugs, and they are not subject to FDA-regulated manufacturing controls or FDA inspection of manufacturing facilities
To learn more about buying drugs safely, please see Buying Prescription Medicines Online: A Consumer Safety Guide"
Mifepristone U.S. Postmarketing Adverse Events Summary through 04/30/2011 (including deaths, hospitalizations, blood transfusions, ectopic pregnancies and infections):

Sunday, December 4, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 2

CBC can't see how biased they are. I have detailed their bias here in part 1 as it relates to the abortion pill RU-486.

The Ombudsman thinks that I am concerned about Health Canada's position on the drug:
"the CBC covered the introduction of Mifepristone into Canada over a period of time and on multiple platforms and programmes. Many of those did adequately represent the position of Health Canada and its reasons for the regime required for use of the drug in Canada."
My complaint made no mention of Health Canada. Yet the Ombudsman talks about their story being balanced as regards to Health Canada, which I never mentioned in my complaint. Rather my complaint was about the fact that the CBC chose only ever to ask an abortion doctor her opinion as to why the drug was being dispensed this way [by doctors and not pharmacists]. The CBC did not ask that question of a pro-life doctor. Why not? If the CBC had asked a pro-life doctor, I'm pretty sure they would have received quite a different answer.

The Ombudsman said my complaint was not about the safety about the drug but rather accessibility of the drug. My point was that you cannot properly discuss the accessibility of the drug, if you don't also discuss its safety. That is because accessibility is directly related to the fact that the drug is so dangerous. What part of this does the CBC not understand?

The person the CBC chose to interview on accessibility is an abortion doctor who naturally has a vested interest in abortions. And RU-486 is abortion. The CBC did not interview a pro-life doctor on accessibility, and I can guarantee if they had, that doctor would have brought up the important issue of the dangers of the drug. But the CBC did not do this. And as I already pointed out in the first installment on this, the CBC didn't do this over time either. Nearly all their reporting on this drug has been biased for abortion as they only ever interview people from the abortion industry.

Why doesn't the CBC interview someone not from the abortion industry and let the reader make up their own mind?

Let's look at another controversial issue which is currently being debated and a recent decision made this week by the government: pipelines. CBC interviews people on both sides of that debate, those who oppose the proposed pipelines and those who support them. The CBC would never think of interviewing only those people who support pipelines or only those who oppose pipelines when covering the government's decisions regarding the Kinder Morgan and the Northern Gateway pipelines. Like pipelines, RU486 is controversial. Both involve government's decision whether to approve or not and both involve regulations if/when they are approved,  Those who oppose pipelines will be more likely to focus on the negative things that result from allowing the pipelines to be built; those who support pipelines will be more likely to downplay the negative aspects of the pipelines and highlight the positive. Surely the CBC can see that if they interviewed only people who held the former position, or only those who held the latter, they would be biased. No different with RU-486: If someone supports RU-486 in the first place, their views on accessibility will be coloured by that, as will someone who opposes it.

The Ombudsman also seems to issue with my calling Dr. Norman an "abortion doctor":
"You describe her as an “abortion doctor”. As Ms. Hiscox mentioned in her introduction her qualifications are extensive in the field of public health as well as family planning. According to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the federal funding agency for health research) website, she is also the Applied Public Health Chair of that organization."
That's because:
"Dr. Norman has been a family physician since 1985 and has practiced exclusively in the area of abortion since 1997". (emphasis added)
More later...

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

CBC - big abortion's mouthpiece - Part 1

I complained (again) to the CBC Ombudsman that their coverage of the abortion drug RU-486 was biased. After waiting three months for a response; after three follow up emails; after a telephone call; I finally received a response this week.

Here is the result of that complaint to the CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin:

As expected, the decision was that the CBC is not biased.

(NOTE: the CBC Ombudsman's role is supposed to be independent ("The ombudsman acts as an appeal authority for complaints about journalistic standards and is independent of CBC program staff and management.) But the position is as a CBC employee, who also happens to be a career CBC employee. Why isn't this role given to someone who is at arm's length from outside of the CBC?)

Let's discuss the Ombudsman's conclusions.

Ombudsman:
"The Managing Editor for CBC News Network, Jennifer Harwood, replied to your complaint. She stated that the interview was not a debate about the safety of the drug. Rather it was about the issue of accessibility. She said that in “that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.”"
Jennifer Harwood said the interview was not about the safety of the drug, but accessibility. My point was that it is precisely because the safety of the drug is dangerous, is exactly why accessibility should be more difficult. This point is ignored by the Ombudsman. And since there are issues about the drug's safety, which was the whole basis of my complaint--that is why doctor's must dispense it and not pharmacists. I contend that this is the exact reason the US insists that doctors dispense it and not pharmacies. So my whole point is ignored, so how can the coverage be fair and balanced?

Ombudsman: Regarding Dr. Norman's "strange and bizarre" comment that I took issue with:
HEATHER HISCOX 
You’ve used a couple of interesting words – you called this very unusual regime around this, you said “have bizarrely put in place”. Why do you think they’ve put this extra layer or these extra additional requirements around this particular drug?
Dr. Wendy Norman 
"Well, this is a gray question, Heather, and I think it is a little bit inexplicable, a little bit hard to explain. In Canada, for many years, the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them and even some of our most concerning drugs, for example, methadone, pharmacists are able to dispense this drug, so for all of a sudden out of the blue to have a normal woman’s health medication such as Mifepristone, the RU-486, requiring this very unusual mechanism, is strange."
"all of a sudden, out of the blue"? I don't think so. After much evidence that the drug is dangerous, this was decided by Canada, and the US did the same. And RU-486 isn't really like Methadone though is it? I contend that allowing doctors only to dispense RU-486 is not "bizarre and strange" at all. If a first world country (like the US) that is ten times the size of Canada does it this way (for safety reasons), that is something to heed, and Canada followed suit. Sounds prudent to me and not "bizarre and strange". 

Ombudsman:
"The host of CBC News Morning Live introduced the interview with Wendy Norman in this way:
Canadian doctors say Health Canada’s strict guidelines will limit access to the abortion drug RU-486... "The host says that Canadian doctors say..." 
This statement implies that "[ALL] Canadian doctors say..". Bias again. Not all doctors say this, only some doctors. More precisely, some abortion doctors. Did the the interviewer try and find any doctors who disagreed with this statement? Apparently not. 

Dr. Norman calls Mifepristone a "Normal woman’s health medication". I fail to see what is normal about a drug that has killed women, causes excessive hemorrhaging, and the multitude of serious side effects "normal". Again, my whole point is about the danger of the drug, a point the Ombudsman has neglected to address. In fact these side effects are mentioned in only two of the CBC writings on the subject. There truly is nothing "normal" about RU-486. This is why Health Canada felt it important to have doctor's dispense it, just like it is done in the US (my US point was also not addressed by the Ombudsman).

Ombudsman:
"On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully, taking into account their relevance to the debate and how widely held these views are. We also ensure that they are represented over a reasonable period of time."
So the CBC represents a "widely held views...over a reasonable period of time"? I beg to differ. I googled "RU486 and CBC" and "abortion pill and CBC".

Below are all the links that came up. I found 20 CBC links related to RU-486 (there could be more). The first four might be said to be somewhat neutral, so let's ignore those articles. 

The remainder 16 CBC articles on RU-486 all quote only pro-abortion advocates, and no alternate pro-life viewpoints, with Dr. Wendy Norman a seemingly favourite of CBC journalists. Dr. Norman is quoted six times. 

The CBC gets millions and millions of dollars a year from the taxpayer. It should be impartial on such controversial subjects like abortion. But is the CBC biased for abortion or not? You be the judge.

Part 2 here

________________________________________________________________________________


3) Vicky Sapporta (National Abortion Federation) and Mary Ellen Douglas (Campaign Life Coalition)

4) Dr. Laura Lewis (Ontario family physician and a Canadian Physicians for Life board member)
5) Joan Dawkins (executive director of Women's Health Clinic)

6) Dr. Wendy Norman and Dr. Ellen Wiebe (abortion doctors)

7) Dr. Kelly Monaghan (of abortion Clinic 215 in St. John)

8) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

9) NDP MLA Nahanni Fontaine (NDP is officially pro-choice)

10) Leigh Anne Caron, (team manager of health services at Women's Health Clinic in Winnipeg)

11) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

12) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

13) Lyndsey Butcher (executive director at Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region)

14) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor) and Judith Soon (assistant professor in the faculty of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of British Columbia)

15) Vicki Saporta (president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation and its Canadian offshoot, NAF Canada), Dr. Erika Feuerstein, family physician at Women's College Hospital and Bay Centre for Birth Control in Toronto and Rebecca Cook, a law professor in the International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program at the University of Toronto


17) Dr. Wendy Norman (abortion doctor)

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Will the CBC ever get it?

I received this email from the CBC yesterday. My response is below it.

---------------------

August 26, 2016

Dear Ms Maloney,

Thank you for your e-mail of July 23rd, addressed to Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, drawing our attention to an interview on CBC News Network with Dr. Wendy Norman on July 6th about government restrictions placed on the dispensing of the RU-486 abortion pill. 

Since CBC News Network is my responsibility, Jennifer McGuire, General Manager and Editor in Chief of CBC News, asked me to reply.  

In your complaint about the interview by Heather Hiscox, you wrote that the segment was "another example of CBC abortion bias". You countered Dr. Norman's views that the restrictions are "unusual' and "bizarre", by saying that RU-486 is a "dangerous drug" and pointing to regulations in the United States making RU-486 available only in "certain healthcare settings, specifically clinics, medical offices and hospitals, by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber." 

I would argue that the interview was not presented as part of a debate as to whether the drug is safe for use in Canada.  Had it been, it would have been reasonable to hear from an opponent of the drug on that basis.  

The interview was, instead, focused on access to the recently approved drug.  In that context, it is my view that the coverage was fair and balanced.  

In the online story on this matter, it's pointed out that the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada wrote to Health Canada to express concerns about the rules and accessibility of RU-486 writing, "dispensing by physicians is not normal practice (and could be a conflict of interest) and has the potential to create additional barriers for patient access." 


I would add that in the interview on CBC News Network, Dr. Norman herself explains why she used the words "unusual" and "bizarre" saying that "in Canada for many years the safety mechanisms for drugs have required pharmacists to dispense them" and she went on to use the example of methadone being dispensed by pharmacists rather than by physicians. 

Thank you again for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time to write with your views to CBC News Network. 

It is also my responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied with my response, you may wish to ask Esther Enkin, CBC Ombudsman, to review the matter. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be reached by mail at Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, or by fax at (416) 205-2825, or by e-mail at ombudsman@cbc.ca.

​Yours sincerely,​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin,

I would like to make a complaint about what I believe is bias with the reporting of the story on RU-486 as detailed below.

(As an aside, Jennifer Harwood disagreed with me and noted that I could make an official complaint, as this is apparently her responsibility she stated. I find this surprising, since the last time I made a complaint of CBC bias on your RU-486 reporting, I was never told that my complaint was not with the Ombudsman, when I assumed that it was, since I had actually sent that complaint to the Ombudsman in the first place. I see this time, this fact was explicitly brought to my attention.)

Ms. Harwood says that the interview in question was not part of a debate. This is a disingenuous argument. To mention in a news article on anything relating to abortion--always a politically and emotionally charged subject that elicits huge controversy every time it is mentioned--and not provide commentary from the opposing viewpoint is biased. CBC knows this. When Dr. Norman stated that the restrictions are unusual and bizarre (and CBC reiterated these adjectives in their tweet on the show when they stated: "It's very strange." reproductive health expert reacts to "bizarre" restrictions on #RU486 home abortion pill @cbchh), it seems clear to me that the CBC should have asked someone else to please explain this "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour, since Dr. Norman in the seven minute interview couldn't explain it.

Would this not have possibly shed some light on the "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour to put additional restrictions on this drug?

In fact the CBC has rarely if ever discussed any of the many dangers of RU-486. Here is some information about the dangers of this drug for an upcoming interview:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-1-drug-is-safe-and-effective.html
http://www.nps.org.au/publications/consumer/medicine-update/2013/mifepristone-misoprostol#sideeffects
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/02/ru-486-myth-2-private-way-to-end.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2015/01/more-reasons-why-ru-486-is-very-bad-idea.html

I suggest if the CBC would interview Dr. Renate Klein who wrote the book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, to learn why this drug is dangerous and why this "strange bizarre unusual" behaviour to put additional restrictions on this drug are not actually "strange bizarre unusual" at all.

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney