Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘AAPLOG’

TurnItUp

Good news this week from Dr. Mary Davenport, President of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). RU-486 abortions can be reversed in many cases where the mother has second thoughts. It’s beautiful news during this 40th anniversary week of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Links to help lines follow at the end of the post.

How Reversals Are Possible

Unlike surgical abortions which are immediately lethal, RU-486 (mifepristone) works over a period of 36-72 hours. The drug binds to progesterone receptors in the uterine lining, blocking progesterone from binding. That’s key, as progesterone is the hormone that keeps the uterine lining (endometrium) intact. If progesterone is blocked by RU-486, then the endometrium begins to break down, losing its ability to supply the baby’s placenta with oxygen and food. Over a period of a couple of days, the baby is suffocated as the placenta detaches. At that point the drug misoprostol is ingested, inducing uterine contractions to expel the baby.

The good news is that women can receive shots of progesterone if the baby is still alive. These shots will overwhelm the RU-486 and keep the endometrium intact. Dr. Davenport has sent along a few links that are helpful.

The first is a website for more information: abortionpillreversal.com

The number for women to call to find a doctor to prescribe progesterone is 877-558-0333.

To Call Dr. Davenport directly for more information: 510-417-5445

Finally, to read the peer-reviewed journal article co-authored by Dr. Davenport in The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, click here.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday, Pam Belluck of the New York Times wrote an article entitled Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded. Reading the article from the perspective of the scientific layman, one could interpret the article as indicating that the original objections to morning after pills are being attenuated by advances in scientific understanding of their mechanisms and effects, and that remaining opposition is merely religious or philosophical objection being stubbornly clung to by the less enlightened in the biomedical community. Ultimately Belluck’s piece can only be charitably characterized as confused.

Reading the article, I noted that Dr. Donna Harrison, Director of Research for the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), was made to look like a weak, shallow hack. I know Dr. Harrison, quite well. Five minutes with Dr. Harrison is all one needs to realize that she possesses a brilliant mind with an encyclopedic grasp of ALL of the research in the field, pro and con. Belluck’s quotes from Dr. Harrison indicate that she chose not to report the scientific truth that I know Dr. Harrison communicated to her in a lengthy telephone conversation.

It’s a shame, because once again women are being denied the whole truth in the New York Times, a truth which is indispensable to making decisions founded on the facts.

Dr. Harrison wrote a reply in today’s National Review Online. Some of it is reprinted here. Follow the link at the end to read the rest at NRO. If people have questions regarding the mechanisms by which these drugs act, post your questions and we’ll get them answered.

Here’s Dr. Harrison:

The Times’s Convolution of Facts on Abortifacients
By Donna Harrison
June 6, 2012 12:30 P.M.

The recent New York Times article by Pam Belluck, asserting that so-called abortifacient drugs may not be abortive at all, is a wonderful example of convolution of facts to obscure reality. First of all, lumping together two very different drugs and calling them “morning-after pills” allows for clever confusion of what is known about the mechanism of action of each drug, and the role of progesterone in helping the embryo to implant and sustain the pregnancy.

First of all, Plan B and Ella are very different drugs with very different mechanisms of action. Plan B is a progestin, a type of progesterone. Progesterone is a hormone that must be in a woman’s body for her to be able to allow the embryo to implant and develop the placental connections between the embryo and the mother. But Plan B is a very large dose of progesterone, higher than the woman’s body would normally make. It is the effect of that high dose which is under debate.

Ella is a second-generation derivative of the abortion drug RU-486, and is equipotent with RU-486 in blocking the action of progesterone at the level of the ovary and endometrium, one of the facts I explain in my paper on this topic. Indeed, if taken before a woman ovulates, Ella will interfere with progesterone action and prevent the egg from being released. But the critically important question is what happens when you take Ella after ovulation. And the answer is clear. Ella blocks the action of progesterone at the level of the ovary, and blocks the action of progesterone at the endometrium, both of which interfere with implantation. Ms. Belluck is in factual error in her article. The European Medical Association technical review articles state that Ella is embryocidal. That means that Ella kills embryos. I attended the FDA Advisory Committee Hearing on approval of Ella, at which data were presented which demonstrated that Ella is around 95 percent effective in preventing a clinically recognized pregnancy. One of the Advisory Committee members repeatedly pointed out to the manufacturers that there was no way the effectiveness of Ella could be explained by delaying ovulation alone. This fact does not take an FDA Advisory Committee member to figure out. If Ella works even when a woman takes it after ovulation, then of course it doesn’t work in that woman by preventing ovulation.

The same Advisory Committee member stated that the manufacturer had an even bigger problem. If you consider the pregnancies which are mentioned in the NYT article, what Ms. Belluck failed to mention is that 90 percent of those pregnancies “miscarried” and the other 10 percent were “lost to follow-up”. So what the studies supporting the FDA approval of Ella actually show is that even the dose of Ella used as “emergency contraception” is high enough to interfere with the early development of the embryo in such a fashion as to increase the miscarriage rate if a pregnancy is recognized.

And here, abortion proponents speak out of both sides of their mouth. The quote from Trussell in the NYT article was particularly amusing. If you read his previous research papers, sometimes he claims over 90 percent efficacy from Plan B, and sometimes he claims around 50 percent efficacy. Why these differences? Well, as he so readily admits, you can’t get numbers of 90 percent efficacy without some sort of post-fertilization effect. So when the issue of mechanism of action is raised, suddenly the efficacy for Plan B gets “adjusted” to what would be expected from a drug with no post-fertilization effect. But, when issues of funding arise . . . well Plan B becomes much more effective.

In point of fact, any drug which can act to prevent pregnancy after a woman has ovulated must have some post-fertilization effect. Whether it kills the embryo directly, or prevents the embryo from travelling down the tube, or prevents the embryo from implanting, or interferes with ovarian function, or increases immune rejection of the embryo, or directly destroys the placenta, some mechanism must be in place to interfere with the normal embryo functioning and then kill the living embryo.

Get the rest here.

Tomorrow, a deeper analysis of the subject.

Read Full Post »

My article in today’s HeadlineBistro.

The first part of this series showed how the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) newest contraceptive drug, Ella (Ulipristal acetate), is in reality an abortifacient like RU-486. It argued that FDA’s marketing of Ella as strictly a contraceptive that denies its abortifacient capabilities, which are abundantly evident to most informed non-scientists, is the culmination of a series of lies through omission. Here in Part II, we will see all the safety data that the FDA deliberately ignored, and all of the safety investigations it didn’t bother to make the manufacturer perform.

In a June 2, 2010, letter to the FDA’s Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs, Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) outlined the deficiencies in the safety data and proposed labeling of Ella. This article summarizes those deficiencies and the reader is referred to the letter for the details.

The first great omission was that of transparency in the drug approval process. According to FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret A. Hamburger, who wrote in a letter to her colleagues:

“FDA is advised by 49 committees and panels with more than 600 members. These committees provide advice on specific regulatory decisions, such as product approvals, and general policy matters, such as regulations and guidance. … [t]he primary goal of the advisory committee process is to bring high-quality input to FDA in order to support agency decisions.”

In reality, FDA required comment submissions from advisory groups such as AAPLOG by a deadline without any prior releasing of the data on the drug. Harrison and AAPLOG were forced to use the publicly available data from the European Medicines Agency, as Ella is already available in Europe, sold under the brand name EllaOne.

According to the European agency, “EllaOne is contra-indicated during an existing or suspected pregnancy.” Right there is the admission that this drug can serve as an abortifacient. But there are additional issues beyond the immediate embryocidal effects that are associated with this contraindication.

It is important to note that 2 percent of all pregnancies subjected to Ella will survive the treatment. That means 20,000 babies for every 1 million treatments, and no studies were performed on the toxicity of Ella on the surviving fetuses.

The European agency admits that there are very insufficient data regarding the developmental effects of Ella on surviving fetuses. It is beyond comprehension that no reproductive toxicity studies have been performed on Ella when International Conference on Harmonisation guidelines clearly requires such studies to be done. The European agency states:

“Reproduction toxicity data are insufficient due to lack of human and animal pharmacokinetic data. Due to its mechanism of action, [Ella] has an embryolethal effect in rats, rabbits (at repeated doses above 1 mg/kg) and in monkeys. The safety for a human embryo is unknown.”

The purpose of animal studies is to extrapolate to humans what is found in evolutionarily similar animals such as monkeys. Combining the mechanism of action described in Part I and the lethal effect for embryos in all tested animals, it isn’t difficult to make the connection that Ella has an embryolethal effect on humans.

Additionally, studies in monkeys indicate the presence of Ella in reproductive and other tissues 14 days after single dose administration, a presence that far exceeds the touted five-day window of drug effect. Many women will certainly use this drug more than once per menstrual cycle, so the lasting effects remain unresearched and unknown.

According to Harrison, the European agency based their safety assessment of Ella on a single 30 mg dose per menstrual cycle and based on that alone they “lowered or waived required safety, toxicology and pharmakodynamic study requirements for:

1. Human in vivo metabolism data
2. Single dose toxicology studies
3. Dose recovery studies
4. Carcinogenicity studies
5. Toxicokinetic documentation
6. Bioavailability and absorption studies
7. Mechanism of action with regard to threshold concentration effects
8. Formal dose proportionality studies
9. Information on drug interactions in patients with renal or hepatic impairment
10. Pharmacokinetic interaction studies.”

Were that all not enough, the European agency also identified other unstudied populations, such as women over the age of 35, women who are on concomitant hormonal contraceptives (use for “missed pill” contraceptive failure), lactating women, and adolescent females, for whom no safety or efficacy studies have been done.

It is accepted in the pro-life community that abortion, and its proponents, are among the most corrosive influences on the public health. The machinations behind the passage of Ella constitute a case study in how, yet again, women’s health is sacrificed at the altar of this modern-day Moloch. No serious scientist or physician can look at this appalling list of omissions in safety and toxicity studies, the lack of transparency surrounding the hearings, and conclude that the FDA had women’s health at heart. There are well-established, rigorous scientific and regulatory protocols for the approval of new drugs, a frightening number of which were either incomplete, or not engaged at all in the case of Ella.

This is primarily about population control, a driving ideology behind the Culture of Death. It is not only cultural, but civilizational suicide. The surest way to defeat this is at the grassroots level, by spreading the word among women of just how dangerous abortion is for them, and the conspiracy of silence among those scientists and physicians who have betrayed every ethical precept in railroading an unsuspecting public.

In addition to getting out the truth, our prayers and our support of crisis pregnancy centers are two of our greatest weapons in reestablishing a Culture of Life and a Civilization of Love.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 779 other followers