RU-486 - myth #5 - everybody else is doing it

Renate Klein from her book RU486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, states in her conclusion:

"There is much about RU 486/PG that is fraught with risk and problems. As we have queried, what is the meaning of a `private' and 'de-medicalized' abortion that requires three or four doctor visits to a specialized center, includes the taking of two and perhaps five hazardous drug combinations, is accompanied by vaginal ultrasound, and too often has complications ranging from moderate bleeding to severe pain and, for some women, blood transfusions? If this is a private and de-medicalized abortion experience, then the word `private' has lost its definitional moorings..."

I puzzled over why such a dangerous drug, could be so blindly promoted by the pro-abortions.

Then Klein answers this question.

"...There are many reasons why individual women and women's groups have jumped on the RU 486/PG bandwagon. The packaging of the new abortifacient has been immensely successful. `The very nature of specialized knowledge and information, the complexity of the technology, the way the `advances' have been publicized in the popular media and such places as Science magazine and the incredibly slick marketing job which is being done, have had the effect of silencing criticism' (pers. comm. to from Judy Luce, June 1991). 

Many women's groups have taken the erosion of women' right to abortion, as well as the fear of playing into the hand of the right-wing, as incentive enough for promoting RU 486/PG. The philosophy prevails that 'we' — those who are committed to women's rights — must be for whatever 'they'' — those who are not committed to women's rights, i.e. the anti-abortionists — are against. However, this defense of RU 486/PG has been too much defined by a reaction to the right wing."

Klein then questions the dumping of drugs into our bodies:

"It has been the purpose of this report to demonstrate that many of the basic assumptions about RU 486/PG abortion need to be fundamentally re-examined...most of these reproductive drugs used to intervene in women's reproductive cycle often have serious risks and complications. Thus for the last quarter of a century, feminist health activists have been put in the position of risk management and risk communication, documenting the downside of such technologies and drugs. At the same time, reproductive technologists, while admitting that there are some risks, minimize them so that the technologies and drugs become acceptable and go forward, despite the complications. They offer studies that convince women that the risks can be managed and that if women want effective contraception, abortions, and children, the risks have to be lived with. 

At a time when the rest of the planet is being warned about the risks of chemical fixes, there is an enormous increase in the number and kinds of drugs that are being prescribed for women, especially in the reproductive realm. From a girl's birth to a woman's death, she is often prescribed fertility drugs, the pill, a new generation of anti-pregnancy vaccines that are especially being promoted in third world countries, tranquilizers, estrogen — currently, hormone — replacement therapy, and now RU 486/PG, a haphazard combination of two dubious drugs..."

Finally, I have noticed that one of the main reasons we should approve this drug (according to the pro-abortion media), is that there has been a truckload of other countries that have already done so. I say so what. Just because my friend jumps off a bridge doesn't mean I have to too.

Health Canada must follow the the existing evidence, as Renate Klein has done, and not approve this dangerous drug.

RU-486 - myth #1 - drug is safe and effective

I hope Health Canada reads Renate Klein's book (RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals) before they approve RU-486. The book contains a lot of disturbing information about this dangerous drug. Information that I notice is conspicuously missing of late, from the pro-abortions' cries to have the drug approved (especially the Globe and Mail) here, here and here.

It's important to realize that Renate Klein is pro-choice.

The pro-abortions think the drug is "safe and effective". Renate Klein, the author of RU486, has issues with this sentiment:

"Readers might not draw the same conclusion [that the drug is safe and effective], like hemorrhage-like bleeding, including the need for a blood transfusion, and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal infection, or an ongoing pregnancy." (Page xiv in the Preface)

Klein tells us about Regine Sitruk-Ware, an early researcher from France.

"Sitruk-Ware confirms that an average of 10% of women suffered from excessive bleeding, another 1.4% required hemorrhage-controlling curettage, and .25% a blood transfusion. These numbers appear low but extrapolated to approximately 1.5% million women in the USA alone who, according to the FDA, by 2011 had undergone an RU-486/PG abortion, this amounts to approximately 150,000 women who bled excessively, 21,000 who had to endure a second procedure (a curettage to terminate their pregnancy); and 3750 women who needed a life-saving blood transfusion." (emphasis mine) (Page xv-xvi in the Preface)

Then then there are infections: A Canadian woman died in 2001 from septic shock, after an infection with the anaerobic bacterium Clostridium sordellii. Seven US women died in 2005 from septic shock after being infected with the same bacterium. Klein states:

"The particular danger is that C. sordellii does not cause fever, so in the absence of warning sighs, the infection spreads."

Then an Australian woman died on 2010 by an aerobic Streptococcus A infection.

There is also potential danger to the fetus if in a failed abortion, the pregnancy continues, because of unknown risks to the fetus.

According to Klein, Sitruk-Ware also warns against taking RU 486/PG for women with:

"allergies, renal failure, liver failure, and malnutrition, due to the fact that specific studies have not been conducted on impaired metabolism after use of RU 486/PG. Her warning against [its] use to women with malnutrition--if taken seriously--would eliminate its use for women in poor countries (where anemia is endemic) who are said to be the major beneficiaries of RU/486PG abortion by its eager promoters." (Page xvii in the Preface)

Then Klein warns that most adverse affects, are not even reported to the DFA:

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published 'A postmarketing Events Summary' up to 30 April in 2011. It contains a list of adverse events that are reported to the FDA. We should bear in mind that only between l and and 10% of` adverse reactions to medicines are ever reported to the FDA; in other words the real numbers of adverse effects could be even 100 times higher. (emphasis mine)

With this proviso in mind, in 2011, the FDA recorded 2,207 adverse events; 14 deaths; 612 hospitalizations (excluding deaths); 58 ectopic pregnancies; 339 women who experienced blood loss requiring transfusions; and 256 infections, 48 of which were `severe' (2011a). 

Of the US deaths, the FDA reports that 8 were associated with sepsis (7 tested positive for C. sordellii, 1 for C. peifringens, another anaerobic bacterium). The FDA also mentions 5 more deaths from other countries." (Page xxiii-xxiv in the Preface)

What some pro-choice doctors say about RU486/PG

...the New York Times reported that even a number of `pro-choice' doctors voiced concern over the dangers of RU 486/PG abortion. One was Dr Warren Hern, a provider in Denver, who said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU 486 (called Mifeprex in the USA), were far riskier than surgical ones. "I think surgery should be the procedure of choice," Dr Hern said. "Pills are a lousy way to perform an abortion" (in Harris, April 2006) . Dr James McGregor, a visiting professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California, said RU 486 might make women more susceptible to C. sordellii in part because the drug may inhibit mechanisms that moderate immunity. In cases of toxic shock, the body's immune response becomes lethal. "The body ends up attacking itself, and RU-486 may encourage this attack" Dr McGregor said (in Harris, May 2006) . The FDA put a `Black Box Warning' on RU 486's Patient Information alerting health professionals and users to the risk of serious and sometimes fatal infection and insisting that oral misoprostol be used. (A Black Box warning required by the FDA of a pharmaceutical company to put on its Patient Information sheet, is the strongest warning. It means that medical studies indicate that the drug carries a significant risk of serious or even life-threatening adverse effects.)" (Page xiv-xxv in the Preface)

More later.