Hell, from all the facts I've seen, given what it does to the body RU-486 seems a helluva lot safer than most medications. Well, not very safe to the embryo, but you get the picture.

So. . . agreed, excellent point, 100%

Okay, maybe 99%-- if only because Planned Parenthood keeps advertising this thing as a Flinstone's chewable vitamin, which it's not. Hell, it doesn't even come in cherry flavor, dammit.

However, I think the general public understands this by now, even if Barbara Boxer doesn't.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

I would agree that the practice by a few Planned Parenthood and like groups of passing this (or any) pill out to under-age females without medical oversight or parental consent is more objectionable than abortion per se. I don't want my daughter getting Prozac behind my back, I don't want my son cadging steroids from his coach, and I don't want some twenty- or thirty-something year old man 'helping" teenaged kids become more sexually "mature". I have a job and such people are NOT helping.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the news reports I heard yesterday basically said that six fatalities occured when the women used it vaginally.

My god people, its a pill. It goes in your mouth. And preparation H would probably have a similar fatality rate if you squeezed it out on a sandwich with grape jelly. DO we really need little pictures on the sides of pill bottles?

"This goes in your ass...do not put in mouth"

"THIS goes in your mouth...don't put in coochie"

Darwin at work I tells ya.

I do not necessarily disagree, but comparing RU-486 to anti depressants is similar to comparing antibiotics to oxycontin. The purpose of their use is entirely different and thus accepted levels of danger are different.

Gromulin -

It was prescribed vaginally. An off-label prescription, but a scrip nonetheless. It's more effective when administered that way, and the risk is still statistically miniscule.

I don't have any problem seeing the distinction between the fatal side effects of RU-486 (an elective drug that has no theraputic value that I'm aware of) and, say, anti-depressents or antibiotics. But, to Bill's credit he did point out the similarities to the Rusty Coathanger argument. Didn't he?

"This goes in your ass...do not put in mouth"

I noticed that on my Armor All Leather Wipes it says something like "do not use for personal hygiene or as baby wipes."

Of course, I read it too late, so my ass is now shiny as hell (but protected from UV damage).

Bill, Missed that part. My Bad.

Thanks for the correction.

Some deaths were from vaginal use, some from oral use.

Some of the dead women were in their teens and some were in their thirties.

So, it isn't really as simple as "they all took the drug the wrong way," or "they were all immature teenagers," two explanations I've read.

This particular drug's results mask the symptoms of serious infection. Writing a prescription and assuming the patient will be able to tell when to go to the emergency room seems inadequate under those circumstances.

Victoria -

According to the LA Times article, it seems that most or all of the deaths related to the specific bacterial infection were applied vaginally. The current investigators theorize that this is the reason this particular strain of bacteria hit the women in CA. It could have been an infected batch, applied the wrong way.

Other deaths (of the 10 total cited) were not related to vaginal administration.

Brewfan -

But, to Bill's credit he did point out the similarities to the Rusty Coathanger argument. Didn't he?

No, I didn't, and I don't even understand how the "rusty coathanger" argument applies.

an elective drug that has no theraputic value that I'm aware of

yet to many people that have a certain take on the role of abortion, it does commonly have "medical" value.

And in the case of a dangerous pregnancy (say, discovering advanced breast cancer and pregnancy at the same time), it would indeed have "therapeutic" value.

I worked in a doctors office, a dentist actually and we had a patient who was batshit crazy and kept breeding. The doctor asked her one day in a joking manner, "Can't figure out what's causing these babies to keep coming?"

The woman, dead ass serious says, "I was told paxil is good for birth control."

Doctor says, "It is an anti anxiety drug, not birth control."

She says with a look like the doctor was nuts, "Yes, but i took it vaginally."

I swear to you, there is no such thing as an explicit enough medical order for some of the dumbfucks out there.

I guess all i have to say about the RU vs the antidepressants is that it really is not the same thing. If you are mentally in need of anti depressants it isn't like you have the option to take them. You have to in order to function. Women take the RU whatever because of choice.

I think the worse thing about the damn pill is it takes the shame factor out of abortion. Women have to truly think hard about going get a fetus hoovered out of their body, but a pill is just so benign, they do not even have to think about what they are doing. That is not medical advance, it is absolving people from experiencing the gravity of their actions.

And in the case of a dangerous pregnancy (say, discovering advanced breast cancer and pregnancy at the same time), it would indeed have "therapeutic" value.

Your contention that chemically inducing a miscarriage is somehow therapeutic is bizarre. They would give a pregnant woman with advanced breast cancer RU-486? Speaking of farfetched scenarios! (Or could it be a lame spelling flame?).

With a 1 in 92,000 chance of death, do you want your daughter to take that pill? Especially when the risk is dramatically less by simply waiting 9 months?

But, to Bill's credit he did point out the similarities to the Rusty Coathanger argument. Didn't he?

No, I didn't, and I don't even understand how the "rusty coathanger" argument applies.

Reminds me of the Caveman Lawyer tactic.

I find the implication made by Jennifer that women who use RU-486 are less sensitive to what they are doing to themselves and their child absolutely appalling. This is a very difficult decision to make for any woman and I find it appalling that anyone could imply that one method or another is easier. And it isn't as if the baby just disappears, it does come out, but you get to be all alone and crying in your bathroom instead of in a cold doctor's office when it happens.

In the easiest method for everyone concerned would be to promote the use of proper birth control through good sex education and easy access to the pill. But, then people would have sex! SHOCK!

Also, BrewFan this is directly from Bill's Article:

"Or, looking at another example more closely related to the topic of reproduction, what's the mortality rate of expectant mothers in the United States when they actually give birth?

0.000270, or 1 in 3,700. (PDF)

So, while 1 in 92,000 women have died from RU-486 side effects since the drug's US approval, 1 in 3,700 American women have died in childbirth during the same period, making actually giving birth 25 times more deadly than having a chemical abortion (the article states "10 to 13 times riskier" than having any type of abortion)."

So the risk is of abortion is actually less than that of giving birth. (Especially for young women whose bodies are not yet large enough to carry a baby safely!) You should also think about what you would say to your daughter when she told you she was pregnant. Maybe you'd be happy and help her out, but not every girl is so lucky.

Was this stuff self administered under dubious conditions or in a clinic/hospital under sanitary conditions?

"So, while 1 in 92,000 women have died from RU-486 side effects since the drug's US approval, 1 in 3,700 American women have died in childbirth during the same period, making actually giving birth 25 times more deadly than having a chemical abortion (the article states "10 to 13 times riskier" than having any type of abortion)."

So the risk is of abortion is actually less than that of giving birth."

Ban childbirth now! The silent killer!

Clearly.

Not to be a pain in the ass, but lets be serious here for a minute. Appalling is a tad dramatic and my points are valid. What is appalling is that the word easiest is being bandied around like this process should be less "burdensome."

We all have a right to choose, I totally support that in most cases. I think you are naive if you think every woman cries a bucket of tears over her abortion. If that were so then there would not be so many of them going back for a 3rd, 4th and 5th procedure.

Good sex education? Your serious? They practically give kids condoms with their happy meals these days and golly gee they still have sex without protection.

Why shouldn't they go out and do what they want without caring? They can call the doctor and go get a nice fast prescription and be done with it. No more finding a friend to drive them to planned parenthood and no more explaining a lost day to mom and dad. They can just come home and take care of things. The sad and mortifying reality is that many girls have these procedures and move on with their behavior as it they just passed a peach pit for all it effected them.

You will have to excuse my intolerance and lack of enthusiasm about making abortion "easier." I have kids, lots.. all girls and one thing i have learned as a parent, is when you make things easier to "Fix" the worry and fear of breaking things decreases exponentially. Why shouldn't it. The "fix" is easier and less traumatic.

People are no mystery, we like the easy way it is in our nature. We do not like pain and we certainly do not like facing the consequences of our irresponsible behavior. (no i am not talking about sex. I am talking about stupid sex without thought to the outcome.)

Want this pill available at 7/11 fine do it, but please do not act surprised when it just further normalizes the practice of tossing away pregnancies like unwanted shoes. When in the hell did people start thinking life was suppose to be without challenges and unexpected events.

How about we skip handing out condoms from a pez dispenser and start teaching some responsibility and COPING SKILLS to kids? What a novel idea.

Also, BrewFan this is directly from Bill's Article: ...[snip]... 0.000270, or 1 in 3,700. (PDF)

Bills number is more than double the rate here in the good old USofA

If you read the article, you'll also find out that Maternal Mortality includes a lot of deaths (up to 1 year after giving birth!) where pregnancy is suspected as the main cause of death.

So if you want to believe that giving somebody RU-486 is safer then giving birth, be my guest. But I think the numbers, and common sense, say otherwise.

the above is mine, loose sh*t!

One last irony I failed to point out. If you give a woman RU-486 and she dies it is a "Maternal Mortality".

And in the case of a dangerous pregnancy (say, discovering advanced breast cancer and pregnancy at the same time), it would indeed have "therapeutic" value.

Well so would mastectomy, but it would be reasonable to only use it in such cases. If large numbers of young women were using radical mastectomies to prevent breast cancer your analogy might work.

Of course nobody expects that to ever happen because personal appearance is way more important than human life.

Ok Brewfan -

You are an idiot:

Your contention that chemically inducing a miscarriage is somehow therapeutic is bizarre. They would give a pregnant woman with advanced breast cancer RU-486? Speaking of farfetched scenarios! (Or could it be a lame spelling flame?).

If a woman found out that she had breast cancer at the same time she was pregnant, she WOULD HAVE TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY, you fool. Standard protocol for breast cancer includes anti-hormonal treatment to slow down the cancer's spread.
Thus, there are reasons why an abortion would be medically necessary or therapeutic.

So this is just a case of you not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, in your slobbering zeal to challenge me. I;ll try to spell things out for you a little better next time.

Plus -

I have the 1 in 3,700 AMERICAN childbirth mortality stat from the one source that I linked, and I also found a 1 in 3,500 from another source. (for North America)

Not to mention - even if the number WAS double the risk - and it was 1 in 7,400 mortality rate for childbirth, that would still be much riskier (13x) than the 1 in 92,000 mortality rate calculated for US use of RU-486, so the point remains.

Truly, you are a jackass.

I mean seriously, arguing with you about medicine and statistics is like boxing a blind, retarded kid with flippers for hands.

Pick your battles.

If a woman found out that she had breast cancer at the same time she was pregnant, she WOULD HAVE TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY, you fool. Standard protocol for breast cancer includes anti-hormonal treatment to slow down the cancer's spread.
Thus, there are reasons why an abortion would be medically necessary or therapeutic.

Stop practicing medicine without a license. Treatment depends on the type of breast cancer and there is some flexibility with protocols. I've known two women who discovered they had breast cancer when they were pregnant. Both managed to deliver healthy babies and remain cancer free 15 and 18 years, knock on wood. Yes there are some types of cancers where it is in the best interest of the mother to terminate a pregnancy, but this is not an argument for RU-486 .

I mean, this is rooted in COMPLETE FANTASY:

So if you want to believe that giving somebody RU-486 is safer then giving birth, be my guest. But I think the numbers, and common sense, say otherwise.

Uh, five reported deaths in 460,000 uses of RU-486 vs. 1 in 3,500 (or double that, depending on which stat). What "numbers" are you talking about? The fucking magic ones in your head?

Are you insane? Delusional?

Do you come to all of your conclusions by closing your eyes and wishing real hard?

Truly, I am stunned at your, uh, reasoning. You might be one of the dumbest mathemeticians I've ever run across. Like so dumb, you once stuck an abacus up your ass thinking it was a set of anal beads.

Ace should ban you on principle alone.

As for this:

No, I didn't, and I don't even understand how the "rusty coathanger" argument applies.

Reminds me of the Caveman Lawyer tactic.

Hate to break it to you, but I truly don't understand what the "rusty coathanger" argument has to do with my post. I wasn't arguing for "life" or "choice," "RU-486" over "childbirth," I was arguing against the misrepresentation of risk in making an ideological argument.

Stop practicing medicine without a license. Treatment depends on the type of breast cancer and there is some flexibility with protocols.

#1 - You assume quite a bit about my expertise.

#2 - My point was that women that get breast cancer may require an abortion as part of their therapy (my language was aggressive and imprecise). Yes, if a woman has an early stage of cancer that can be excised without an extended fight and chemo, she wouldn't have to lose the baby. If she has an intermediate and advanced stage that requires aggressive anti-hormonal treatment, she WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO lose the baby.

You're nitpicking my language. Jesus Christ.

Yes there are some types of cancers where it is in the best interest of the mother to terminate a pregnancy, but this is not an argument for RU-486 .

Once again, the nuance is lost.

#1. It is not an argument for the use of RU-486 in standard elective procedures.

#2. It is an argument for RU-486 in certain potential scenarios as a medically useful drug apart from the pro-life, pro-choice argument. As a tool. Which contradicted Brewfan's assertion that it had NO therapeutic usage.

As it is, his argument was a distraction, as the original post was about misrepresenting relative risk.

And do me a favor: stop practicing medicine without a license, ok? And sign your name, chicken.

#1 - You assume quite a bit about my expertise.
You may con your dates into thinking you're a gyn, but don't try it here.

#2 - My point was that women that get breast cancer may require an abortion as part of their therapy (my language was aggressive and imprecise). Yes, if a woman has an early stage of cancer that can be excised without an extended fight and chemo, she wouldn't have to lose the baby. If she has an intermediate and advanced stage that requires aggressive anti-hormonal treatment, she WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO lose the baby.

#1 Imprecise? No. You made bold assertions of fact that are not true.

#2 Your point was that RU-486 shd be left on the market b/c women who get breast cancer wd have to terminate the pregnancy (lie) and by implication RU-486 is the only method (another lie).

#3 You can have chemo while pregnant.

#4 You continue to practice medicine without a license.

You're nitpicking my language. Jesus Christ

No, I'm just calling you on your b.s. You hold the title of chief nitpicker.

Once again, the nuance is lost.

On you.

#1. It is not an argument for the use of RU-486 in standard elective procedures.

Did I say it was? Or, are you just creating a strawman?

#2. It is an argument for RU-486 in certain potential scenarios as a medically useful drug apart from the pro-life, pro-choice argument. As a tool. Which contradicted Brewfan's assertion that it had NO therapeutic usage.

And your bullshit argument was that:

#1 She WOULD HAVE TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY (a lie)

#2 Standard protocol for breast cancer includes anti-hormonal treatment (a misrepresentation, since it is only tx for hormone-receptor positive breast cancer and if a women does have hormone-receptor positive breast cancer she can have surgery and chemo and delay Taxol until after she gives birth. So, so much for your drama.

#3 That it has some use does not mean it shd be kept on the market. There were theraputic abortions long before RU-486 came along.

As it is, his argument was a distraction, as the original post was about misrepresenting relative risk.

As opposed to all your misrepresentations?

And do me a favor: stop practicing medicine without a license, ok?

You first.

And sign your name, chicken.

Why? You would still be wrong and still be willing to stretch the truth.

Wow, Bill certainly has convinced me with his calm demeanor, his desire to see everyone's voice heard, and his reluctance to drag a debate into the gutter with ad hominem. I am sold on this miracle drug now.

In an earlier thread, lauraw pointed out that certain commenters here, when poked, give us a glimpse of their real personas. Bill is one of those people. We see he enjoys invective more then discussion and when he realizes he's losing an argument he steps up the ad hominem attacks and if that doesn't work he asks that his opponent be banned. This banning would be much easier for him if this was his blog, but since fewer and fewer people stop by to read his half thought-out posts he has to come here and demand people he disagrees with be banned. In his zeal to flame, he overlooks the fact that his contrived 'pregnant woman with breast cancer' scenario is laughable because no doctor is going to use RU-486 to terminate her pregnancy and risk the drug masking a subsequent infection. But, I think our anonymous friend has totally destroyed Bill on this point so no use beating a dead horse.

One last thought; Bill's half-assed research produced a Maternal Mortality ratio that was wrong in the context of this discussion and now he attempts to provide a link to a similar ratio that he also wants us to accept even though it too is out of context. This arrogance is created when you believe your own invective about the types of people you're engaging in discussion here, i.e., they're too stupid to know I'm bullsh***ing them so I can link anything. So what does this mean? It means you're not quite as smart as Cedarford who at least knows not to try and support the crap he spews with links to bogus information.

Sorry to revive a dead thread but this is too good not to share. Bill has updated the post Ace linked to and says:

"And of course I don't expect a blogger to conduct statistical analysis worthy of a professional epidemiologist for every post on a health issue (my own general analysis was flawed, superficial and exposed to various avenues of criticism)"

So I left a comment on his blog yesterday suggesting he come back here and apologize. I knew this would lead to my 'banning' and there was no way he would ever apologize but I never expected to get an email. I did and here it is for your amusement:

You dig up that the maternal death rate for the USA was different from
North America and then claim that RU-486 is more fatal?

You are INSANE.

Like, literally, batshit crazy or delusional.

If you weren't so busy trying to attack me, you'd probably realize
that you're wrong. In that respect, you remind me of an antiwar
protestor whose logic faculties are blinded by BUSHATE.

Don't bother commenting on my blog again.

--

lol! My first hate mail!

I don't agree that you have mental issues, but I do think the numbers he presented have yet to be impeached.

Personally, I have trouble with the 1 in 3500 scenario myself, but feel no need to run down the real numbers. I'm relatively sure childbirth will still be more dangerous than this Wonder Drug.

I suspect the ratio there includes women who give birth in less-than-optimal circumstances, like in an abandoned bus down by the river. I have real problems believing 1 in 3500 women who go to hospitals to have babies never check out.

Still, the bus down by the river probably ought to be included in the ratio though you could make the argument that both procedures should be evaluated under optimal conditions. Why? Because an early term abortion produced with such efficacy by this Wonder Drug is pretty optimal when compared to other abortions.

It's a little weak, I know.

Ardolino's a dick--this is no secret. But he makes a good point here and from what I can see his numbers are sufficiently germane to his purpose.

BrewFan:

Beat you to it! Bill banned me weeks ago and I got a comparable rant in an email. Kinda funny that he's calling you batshit crazy while he sounds batshit crazy.

I don't know why, but he seems to be under a lot of stress. Doesn't take much to set him off.

"And of course I don't expect a blogger to conduct statistical analysis worthy of a professional epidemiologist for every post on a health issue . . . ."

And of course I don't expect Bill to be anything but an a-hole.

"I suspect the ratio there includes women who give birth in less-than-optimal circumstances, like in an abandoned bus down by the river"

Excellent point. FWIW, in the U.S. white women have a ratio of about 1 in 12,500. My larger point though was that these mortality figures are vastly inflated by the fact they pretty much include every death of a woman who was pregnant in the previous 12 months. For example, if you get pregnant and your boyfriend shoots you because he doesn't want to be a father, this gets counted as maternal mortality. On the other side of the equation, there is a feeling that the RU-486 related deaths are under reported for various reasons. With even, say, 100 deaths related to the drug that changes the 1 in 92,000 to about roughly 1 in 5,000 very quickly. So I think its fair to say its hard to compare at this point and why the FDA chose to warn instead of ban. To call out Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt on such dubious math was my main reason for poking at Bill (in addition to getting a little rise out of him which is always fun).

The main point is that Bill is still an asshole, and anybody that disagrees with him is an idiot. Same as always.

"Bill banned me weeks ago and I got a comparable rant in an email"

Ha! Maybe we need to start an advocacy group or something. "Banned By Bill Anonymous" has a certain ring to it. I'll make the coffee.