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." 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ru-486-abortion-pill-canada-1.3665865 (July 6, 2016)

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

RU-486 is a danger to women

Last week I wrote this on Joyce Arthur's take on RU-486.

Yesterday my letter was published in the Windsor Star:

Re: Beware of medical misinformation, by Joyce Arthur, Aug. 17.

The letter writer says, “There’s a reason it took Health Canada almost three years to approve mifepristone (the name RU-486 is incorrect) because the agency very carefully studied all the evidence, including possible concerns.”

There is no way she can know this, since that information is not publicly available.

This drug is very dangerous. The risks and health hazards regarding RU-486 have been meticulously documented in a book by Renate Klein called “RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals.”

Dr. Klein is pro-choice, so the letter writer cannot allege that she is also just “anti-abortion and therefore ideological.” I suggest the letter writer read the book, she might learn something.

One excerpt from the book:

“ … 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.”

Now that this drug is available in Canada, it is only a matter of time before we will have our own women suffer its serious side effects, possibly fatal.

PATRICIA MALONEY, Ottawa

Joyce Arthur's logic isn't logical

This letter prompted Canada's number one pro-abortion Joyce Arthur to say this:

"It is irresponsible to allow dangerous medical misinformation like this to be published. The letter writer’s sources are apparently anti-abortion and therefore ideological."

Isn't that rich? Ms. Arthur dismisses the letter writer's sources because the writer is "anti-abortion and therefore ideological". Well since Arthur is "pro-abortion and therefore ideological", why would she think we wouldn't dismiss her as well?

I wonder if Ms. Arthur has read Renate Klein's book "RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals."  Dr. Klein is extremely opposed to RU-486 and backs this up with extensive research into its harms. By Arthur's own logic, this book is worthy of paying attention to, since Dr. Klein is pro-choice.

Funny that Arthur doesn't mention the book in her letter.

RU-486 - you won't get the truth from the pro-abortions

Health Canada has approved the drug RU-486. What a shame. Contrary to what the pro-abortions will tell you, it's neither safe nor private.

And it is especially dangerous for women in remote areas.

There are also eight pages of side effects.

Renate Klein, a pro-choice woman, wrote a book called RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals. The book is extremely well researched and completely dismantles the nonsense we are told about the safety of this drug and all of its supposed benefits.

Here's just two excerpts from the book:

"...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..."

"...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." 

More of what Klein says about this dangerous drug. Read it and weep.

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 #2 - private way to end a pregnancy

(Excerpt from Renate Klein's book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals)

Privacy versus Control

"Many of the claims about RU 486 are based on its supposed privatization of the abortion experience. Ellen Goodman, for example, in her syndicated column, calls for the marketing of RU 486 in the United States. `What could be more private than taking a pill? How could a state control swallowing?' (1989: 11). Like Goodman, the media presentation of the new abortion pill in western countries tends to simplify and idealize the drug. The going wisdom holds that a woman pops a pill in the privacy of her own home and the pregnancy disappears.

The medical literature tells another story, belying the myth of the do-it-yourself abortion, Yet here too, the rhetoric of more control for women over the abortion experience exists with an entirely different reality. At a European meeting of gynecologists and obstetricians in 1987, Etienne Baulieu proclaimed that 'RU 486 could be a prototype of the second generation of ways of giving women more control of their fertility' (Baulieu, 1988b: 128). But in the medical journal article, on the same page, and in the same paragraph, he also said `... it should be given under strict medical supervision in specialized centers' (idem.). So what are women to make of these conflicting claims and is effective doublespeak?

The clearest answer lies in the medical journal article themselves. The conclusions that much of the medical literature draws are not consistent with the findings that the articles present. Additionally, every article, without exception, remarks that RU 486 should be administered only under strict medical supervision. The reality of medical surveillance is not simply physician oversight from a distance but a highly medicalized, multi-step, time-consuming procedure which, for many women, involves continuous suffering and pain. This treatment regimen deserves careful scrutiny.

1. A woman seeking a chemical abortion must submit to physical examination and pregnancy test. This includes a pelvic examination to see if there is any uterine bleeding or previous pelvic infection. During the physical examination, women should be checked for contraindications, making the drug more dangerous for certain women. Most centers, now testing or administering the new abortion pill, use vaginal ultrasonograph i.e. sound waves that project a picture of the embryo a a screen to estimate gestational age of the pregnancy and/or a determination of serum human chorioni gonadotropin (B-hCG) to confirm and define the age a woman's pregnancy.

2. Depending on the legal situation in a particular country, many centers impose awaiting period of at least 24 hours or more after which a woman must return to the clinic hospital for RU 486, given in tablet form (usually three). Contrary to the popular picture of the pill-popping abortion, a woman does not take these tablets home but usually swallows them in the presence of a nurse or doctor while she is at the clinic. This has been one of the myths supporting the privatization argument for RU 486. Some feminists have claimed that women eventually will be able to obtain RU 486/PG at the local supermarket. However a woman must go to a clinic or other medical center to obtain the tablets and return to the center for several visits. During the 48 hours between RU 486 and PG administration, women are required not to smoke or drink alcohol.

3. Procedures at this point vary. Some centers that give RU 486 alone require the woman to visit the clinic seven days after RU 486 administration to confirm that the embryo has been expelled completely. Most centers, however, now administer prostaglandins in concert with RU 486 to hasten and strengthen the contractions that will ultimately propel the embryo from the uterus. Thus women once again must return to the clinic for a prostaglandin injection, vaginal prostaglandin suppositories, or, more recently, oral prostaglandins. The prostaglandins are usually given 36-48 hours after RU 486 administration because it takes this time to fully sensitize the myometrium (part of the uterine lining) to contract (see Chapter Four for an alternative theory).

4. Then the wait begins. Many clinics keep women prone for three to four hours, in the hope that the embryo will be expelled before sending them home. Other women wait longer hours, days, and some even weeks. The only thing private about RU 486 is that the final stage of the abortion, the expulsion of the embryo, often happens at home — or someplace else. To call this an at-home abortion is deceptive, to say the least, since most of the treatment transpires in the clinic or hospital and is extremely medicalized. What actually happens at home can be an excruciatingly long wait for the embryo to be expelled from the uterus, accompanied by pain: bleeding, vomiting, nausea, and other complications that are drawn out over a substantially lengthy period of time compared with a conventional abortion.

5. Finally, a woman must return several days later for physician's examination to make sure abortion complete. (Some studies mention as many as three follow-up appointments, e.g. Hill et al., 1990a: 415). Again, vaginal ultrasound and/or a determination of B-hGG used to ascertain whether the pregnancy has be en terminated and whether the embryonic tissue has been totally expelled. At this point the woman receives another pelvic examination, the third within a time period usually eight days. The pelvic examination, vaginal ultrasound, and other instruments used internally in chemical abortion are important to emphasize, because women have been led to believe that an RU 486/P abortion is free of medical instruments inserted into the body. This misrepresentation singles out only suction curettage as an invasive internal or instrument procedure. In actual fact, chemical abortion involves the use of more interventionist instrumentation than conventional abortion.

6. If abortion is not complete, then a conventional is performed. Between two and 13.4 per cent of undergoing RU 486/PG terminations endure abortion jeopardy (Gao et al., 1988).

How does the claim that RU 486 is a private means of abortion square with the claim that it needs close medical supervision? It doesn't. Physicians have been very explicit that RU 486 will never be available over the counter for do-it-yourself abortions..."

(Pages 25-28 excerpt of Renate Klein's book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals)

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.

More reasons why RU-486 is a very bad idea

The pro-abortions are jumping up and down, yelling at Health Canada to approve mifepristone or RU-486. They want Health Canada to hurry up, but I don't see the pro-abortions telling you all of the risks and issues that must be addressed before it's approved.

Important considerations the pro-abortions aren't telling you about:

1) As I've already written, RU-486 is not a good idea for women in remote areas. And the FDA agrees:

 "Doctors must have the ability to date pregnancies accurately and to diagnose tubal pregnancies. Doctors must also be qualified to provide any necessary surgery, or have made arrangements for any necessary surgery. Doctors must ensure that women have access to medical facilities for emergency care...it is important for women to be fully informed about how Mifeprex works and about its risks, as well as the need for follow-up visits with their health care provider, especially on the 14th day after mifepristone is administered."

2) In Ontario when women die from RU-486 and or have serious complications like septic shock, we'll never know that, because, as I've said before, Ontario's cover up of all things relating to abortion. There will be no way to get any information in Ontario on abortion complications from this drug, or from any other forms of abortion either.

3) There is no mechanism in place (like in the US) to give us statistics on women who die from RU-486. The FDA does have a reporting system of "adverse events". So how does Health Canada plan to ensure adverse events are reported and made public in Canada when they don't do this now? Compound that with Ontario's abortion secrecy law, and women could be seriously harmed, even die, and nobody will ever know it was linked to RU-486. How is this in the best interests of women?

4) Read what Renate Klein--who is pro-choice--has to say about RU-486 in "The ethics of disclosure: RU486 and the suppression of facts".

"Together with colleagues, Professor Janice Raymond and Dr Lynette Dumble, I have been researching the RU 486 abortion story since 1988, when what was then called "the French abortion pill" made its debut on the world-stage. As long-term women's health researchers and supporters of safe abortion, we watched in astonishment as many international women's health groups uncritically greeted the arrival of this chemical abortifacient. We wondered why the progesterone antagonist RU 486, a largely untested chemical, was hailed as a new "miracle drug" and the "moral right of women." 

The result of our three-year investigation was the book RU 486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, published in 1991. We concluded that the "safe-and-effective" mantra that RU 486/PG abortion had acquired was misleading: the adverse effects of the two drugs were unpredictable and dangerous and the research undertaken inadequate. The new "demonising" of suction abortion as "surgical" abortion (conjuring up knives and requiring a general anaesthetic, both wrong) was worrying. We said that the drawn-out and painful process of chemical abortion (our preferred term; but I also use pill abortion or "medical" abortion) was emotionally and physically hard on the women. The abortion process lasts a minimum of three days - when all goes well - but women can bleed up to 6 weeks. Moreover, between 5 and 8% of women need a second abortion when the drugs fail to completely terminate their pregnancy and remaining products of conception need to be removed to prevent an infection. This is a very draining and unpredictable time for women, especially so when compared to the 15-30 minutes a suction abortion takes in the relative safety of a clinical setting. In particular, we worried that because the second drug, the prostaglandin, is taken outside a clinic, the woman's life would be at risk if she was haemorrhaging excessively and needed a blood transfusion but was away from an emergency clinic. 

We concluded that the RU 486/PG abortion had the making of a new wave of DIY backyard abortions which burdened women who had decided they needed an abortion with unnecessary days of agony: haemorrhaging, vomiting, cramping and the well-founded fear of sepsis. We predicted deaths and also wondered why pro-choice activists could not see that this abortion method only benefited pharmaceutical companies and doctors. For the latter, it is much easier to prescribe pills than actually perform an abortion: only die-hard abortionists "like" to do them, while most other doctors perform them out of a sense of duty. We warned that the push for RU 486/PG - especially when it is cheap - could be particularly dangerous for poor and/or Indigenous women. And we were concerned that the uncritical - and endlessly repeated - promotion as "safe, effective and more natural" in a society that has a pill for every ill, would lead to RU 486/PG abortion becoming the preferred abortion method. This would result in clinics offering the much safer and 98 to 99% effective suction abortion folding as they were too expensive compared with the cost of the RU/PG abortion." (emphasis added)

I hope Health Canada doesn't cave to the pro-abortions. I hope Health Canada does not approve this terrible drug.