Is it safe?
Legal – case dropped
Some information is available at the link: https://www.abortuspilstop.nl/informatie/zorgverlener/
Introduction:
To date, over 4.000 babies have been saved through Abortion Pill Reversal.
At the bottom of this page news about a court case against a doctor, that has been dropped. The case had been instigated by an abortion provider but no evidence was subsequently found to back the charges against the doctor.
A number of studies have been done with regards to AbortusPilStopper (Abortion Pill Reversal – APR).
Noteworthy is (c) our lastest study from 2019 ‘an observational case series of 754 patients…’
and below our talking points concerning the study by Creinin intended to place APR in a negative light.
Creinin background
The Creinin study was funded by the abortion pill manufacturer DANCO Laboratories.
Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, is an abortion provider and paid consultant for Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, the first chemical abortion drug. He is the lead author and the study’s principal investigator, and previously was involved in clinical trials of the RU-486 abortion pill at Magee-Women’s Hospital Dept. of OB/GYN Pittsburgh, PA.
Dr Creinin acknowledged in a study that he is a ‘consultant for DANCO Laboratories’.
He receives a honorarium from DANCO, the study sponsor is financed by the Packard Foundation, one of DANCO’s major financial investors.
Creinin is a founding member of the Society of Family Planning – it’s mission to support abortion research, funded by the Packard Foundation, a large investor in DANCO.
Author Laura Dalton is listed as “Chief Medical Officer” of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s managing board.
Author Rachel Steward, MD, is connected to FPA Women’s Health, which does abortions.
The study was sponsored by the University of California-Davis and the Society of Family Planning, both of which have strong ties to abortion.
An inconvienient truth
Dr Mitchell Creinin – study terminated sometime between August and September 2019.
The halted Abortion Pill Reversal APR trial underscores the dangers of the abortion pill itself.
Instead of focusing on the fact that the abortion pill is dangerous, they attempted to mislead the public into believing that APR treatments are dangerous for women.
The study by Dr Creinin showed that a fetal heartbeat was detected at the first follow-up visit in 80% of women who attempted to reverse the abortion pill with progesterone.
Continuing with the study would have proven how dangerous the abortion pill is. Long before this study was published, it was a known fact that the abortion pill can cause severe excessive bleeding. This study does nothing but further prove serious risks when taking the abortion pill.
Around 1,000 babies have been saved through APR protocols. It involves doses of progesterone to counteract the effects of the first abortion pill mifepristone. The first APR baby is now 13 years old (2007). It empowers women who feel they have made a mistake. The abortion industry isn’t prepared to admit that some women regret their abortion, and keeps information from women on development of their baby, and APR.
If progesterone treatment is not ‘junk science’ for IVF treatment, stopping a miscarriage once bleeding had begun, supplement during or after menopause, or for certain menstrual cycle disorders, why is it called that for APR, attempting to save children from medication abortions, saying it’s use is unsupported by science?
Stopping this study has less to do with science and much more to do with a desire to defend abortion.
The abortion pill is a two-step process. Mifepristone is a progesterone blocker. Misoprostol, taken a few days later, makes the uterus contract, completing the chemical abortion by causing the mother to deliver her dead baby. The chemical mifepristone blocks the effects of progesterone, the natural hormone in a pregnant mother’s body necessary for her pregnancy to thrive. In blocking the progesterone, the abortion medicine causes the uterine lining to break down and the placenta to begin to fail, in effect starving the baby of oxygen and nutrients.
Abortion Pill Reversal APR gives women a chance to change their mind after initiating a chemical abortion.
The Abortion Pill Reversal APR protocol works by giving the mother extra progesterone up to 72 hours after she takes the first chemical abortion drug.
Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, is an abortion provider and paid consultant for Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, the first chemical abortion drug. He is the lead author and the study’s principal investigator, and previously was involved in clinical trials of the RU-486 abortion pill at Magee-Women’s Hospital Dept. of OB/GYN Pittsburgh, PA.
24 women have died after using Mifepristone, but the pill is not considered dangerous. https://www.fda.gov/media/112118/download
In 2019 they did a study of 10 women – (12 enrolled, 2 dropped out)
After taking mifepristone, which binds and inhibits progesterone receptors, participants were given either progesterone treatments to try to save their preborn children… or a placebo. The study, randomly divided into 2 groups:
1) Placebo group
2) Women receiving progesterone (APR)
was terminated early due to supposed safety concerns. But a more thorough review of their data tells a different story.
Of the 3 women who experienced severe vaginal bleeding and needed ambulance transport to the hospital:
2 out of 3 patients reported were from the PLACEBO group.
This is 40% significant haemorrhage from mifepristone ALONE.
The 2 women from the PLACEBO group required emergency surgery to stop the bleeding, one required a blood transfusion.
The 3rd patient, who received progesterone (APR) – her bleeding was self-limited, not requiring surgery or transfusion. 3 hour bleeding, no intervention needed.
This amounted to 20% haemorrhage rate – so actually progesterone would appear to have a PROTECTIVE effect against haemorrhage (although the numbers are small).
These findings are consistent with what has been known about mifepristone, that it increases the risk of significant haemorrhage from the uterus – due to its physiologic effects of vasodilation and inhibition of platelet aggregation.
The study showed that progesterone was working to reverse the effects of mifepristone, the first abortion pill, so it was more convenient to stop the research, refusing to acknowledge that the abortion pill is the problem.
……………….
Of the 5 women in the progesterone APS treatment group, 4 had healthy pregnancies (termed: ‘gestational cardiac activity’) checked 2 weeks after taking mifepristone – that’s 80% success rate!
In the placebo group, 2 women had an ongoing pregnancy (40%).
Could it be that that is why they didn’t want to ‘complete’ the study? As it showed that administering progesterone (APR) resulted in DOUBLE the chance of saving her unborn child after having begun a medication abortion.
Research should be conducted to find the true answer to the question being investigated, not the answer that the researcher wants to find.
His study showed that progesterone for rescuing a pregnancy is an effective option for women who change their mind after taking mifepristone.
Continuing with the study would have proven how dangerous the abortion pill is.
Long before this study was published, it was a known fact that the abortion pill can cause severe excessive bleeding. This study does nothing but further prove serious risks when taking the abortion pill.
If progesterone treatment is not ‘junk science’ for IVF treatment, stopping a miscarriage once bleeding had begun, supplement during or after menopause, or for certain menstrual cycle disorders, why is it called that for APR, attempting to save children from medication abortions, saying it’s use is unsupported by science?
Stopping this study has less to do with science and much more to do with a desire to defend abortion.
The study showed that progesterone was working to reverse the effects of mifepristone, the first abortion pill, so it was more convenient to stop the research, refusing to acknowledge that the abortion pill is the problem.
………….
The bias of the Creinin research team:
The study was funded by the abortion pill manufacturer DANCO Laboratories.
Mitchell D. Creinin, MD, is an abortion provider and paid consultant for Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, the first chemical abortion drug. He is the lead author and the study’s principal investigator, and previously was involved in clinical trials of the RU-486 abortion pill at Magee-Women’s Hospital Dept. of OB/GYN Pittsburgh, PA.
Dr Creinin acknowledged in a study that he is a ‘consultant for DANCO Laboratories’.
Creinin receives a honorarium from DANCO.
He provides ‘third-party telephone consults’ for DANCO.
Creinin’s study sponsor is financed by the Packard Foundation, one of DANCO’s major financial investors.
Creinin is a founding member of the Society of Family Planning – it’s mission to support abortion research, funded by the Packard Foundation, a large investor in DANCO.
Author Laura Dalton is listed as “Chief Medical Officer” of Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s managing board.
Author Rachel Steward, MD, is connected to FPA Women’s Health, which does abortions.
The study was sponsored by the University of California-Davis and the Society of Family Planning, both of which have strong ties to abortion.
Studie APR zou zijn gestopt ivm bloeden????
Er was een studie omtrent Abortion Pill Reversal die voortijds gestaakt zou zijn omdat de vouwen zoveel zouden bloeden.
Zoals eerder aangegeven: “Data can be sculpted to fit a preferred theory. Studies can work towards a goal.”
En zoals in (12.) (13.) (14.) en (15.) aangegeven, bloedverlies is een bekend risico.
Zie bijlage ‘APR study bleeding stopped’
A more thorough review of their own data tells a different story.
The halted Abortion Pill Reversal APR trial underscores the dangers of the abortion pill itself.
Instead of focusing on the fact that the abortion pill is dangerous, they attempted to mislead the public into believing that APR treatments are dangerous for women.
The study by Dr Creinin showed that a fetal heartbeat was detected at the first follow-up visit in 80% of women who attempted to reverse the abortion pill with progesterone.
Of the 3 women who experienced severe vaginal bleeding and needed ambulance transport to the hospital:
2 out of 3 patients reported were from the PLACEBO group…
This is 40% significant haemorrhage from mifepristone ALONE.
The 2 women from the PLACEBO group required emergency surgery to stop the bleeding, one required a blood transfusion.
The 3rd patient, who received progesterone (APR) – her bleeding was self-limited,
not requiring surgery or transfusion. 3 hour bleeding, no intervention needed.
This amounted to 20% haemorrhage rate – so actually progesterone would appear to have a PROTECTIVE effect against haemorrhage (although the numbers are small).
These findings are consistent with what has been known about mifepristone, that it increases the risk of significant haemorrhage from the uterus – due to its physiologic effects of vasodilation and inhibition of platelet aggregation.
……………….
Of the 5 women in the progesterone APS treatment group, 4 had healthy pregnancies (termed: ‘gestational cardiac activity’) checked 2 weeks after taking mifepristone – that’s 80% success rate!
In the placebo group, 2 women had an ongoing pregnancy (40%).
Could it be that that is why they didn’t want to ‘complete’ the study? As it showed that administering progesterone (APR) resulted in DOUBLE the chance of saving her unborn child after having begun a medication abortion.
Research should be conducted to find the true answer to the question being investigated, not the answer that the researcher wants to find.
His study showed that progesterone for rescuing a pregnancy is an effective option for women who change their mind after taking mifepristone.
Continuing with the study would have proven how dangerous the abortion pill is.
Long before this study was published, it was a known fact that the abortion pill can cause severe excessive bleeding. This study does nothing but further prove serious risks when taking the abortion pill.
If progesterone treatment is not ‘junk science’ for IVF treatment, stopping a miscarriage once bleeding had begun, supplement during or after menopause, or for certain menstrual cycle disorders, why is it called that for APR, attempting to save children from medication abortions, saying it’s use is unsupported by science?
Stopping this study has less to do with science and much more to do with a desire to defend abortion.
The study showed that progesterone was working to reverse the effects of mifepristone, the first abortion pill, so it was more convenient to stop the research, refusing to acknowledge that the abortion pill is the problem.
a. Article February 24, 2015: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/when_mom_changes_her_mind_reversing_pill_abortions_in_progress.html
The best statistics on medical abortion are obtained from Finland, which has a national health system with linked medical records that accurately capture abortion complications. We find that a whopping 20% of medical abortions result in haemorrhage, infection, retained tissue and other serious problems
b. Meta-analysis of 12 studies:
Studie laat zien dat de overlevingskans van een embryo zonder toevoeging van progesteron tussen 23.3% – 25% is. ”Embryo Survival after Mifepristone: A Systematic Review of the Literature” is hier te lezen:
https://www.abortuspilstop.nl/doc/study_embryo_survival_after_mifepristone.pdf
Het verscheen in Issues in law and medicine.com volume 32 nr 1 Spring 2017.
http://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/product-category/spring-2017/
c. New study 2018
754 patients
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30831017/
https://issuesinlawandmedicine.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Delgado-Revisions-FINAL-1.pdf
Een nieuwe studie van 2018: ‘an observational case series of 754 patients who decided to attempt to reverse the medical abortion process after taking mifepristone but before taking the second drug of the protocol, misoprostol.’
A 64 – 68% rescue rate when a woman takes doctor-prescribed progesterone within 72 hours of taking the first abortion pill.
‘Notably, the study also found zero increased risk of birth defects or preterm births’
Progesteron:
Statement progesteron risks APR
Statement progesteron NaPro technology Dr Thomas Hilgers
Mifepriston:
Statement birth defect rate ACOG statement birth defect rate ACOG
“no evidence exists to date of a teratogenic effect of mifepristone.”
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) in its Practice Bulletin Number 143, in March, 2014, (and 2016 update) states:
“There is no evidence to date of a teratogenic effect that comes from mifepristone.”
In other words, it does not appear that mifepriston causes birth defects.
Picture ACOG: “No evidence exists to date of a teratogenic effect of mifepristone.”
Teratogenic = of, relating to, or causing malformations of an embryo or fetus.
Bij vaginaal gebruik in het eerste trimester van de zwangerschap is tot nu toe geen verhoogd risico op aangeboren afwijkingen gevonden (Informatorium Medicamentorum 2017, blz 671).
Synthetic progesterone effects include male hormone effects (see APR picture). Anomalies associated with methotrexate include limb abnormalities (see ACOG picture).
Note: Abortion Pill Reversal does not use this synthetic progesteron.
Original study of the first 7 cases:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23191936
Now over 4000 babies have been saved.
Legal – case dropped
MEDICAL COUNCIL DROPS CASE AGAINST ABORTION PILL REVERSAL DOCTOR WHO HELPED WOMEN SAVE BABIES IN BRITAIN
MARCH 6, 2022
The General Medical Council (GMC) in Britain has dropped its case against a pro-life doctor who was banned from providing abortion pill reversal treatment (APR) using the hormone progesterone. The case had been instigated by an abortion provider but no evidence was subsequently found to back the charges against the doctor.
Irish-born consultant cardiologist, Dr Dermot Kearney, started providing APR treatment – for free – after connecting with a pro-life organisation and witnessing a significant demand from women experiencing regret after taking the first abortion pill, mifepristone.
Dr Kearney told Gript that providing APR therapy has been ‘the most rewarding thing I’ve ever done’. Pro-life group advocating for “better choices” for women have welcomed the GMC’s decision, saying that women should have the right to chose to reverse the effect of the first abortion pill and continue with their pregnancy.
The GMC dropped the case against Dr Kearney, acknowledging that there was no prospect of finding any evidence to support any of the ten allegations which were made against the pro-life doctor.
As reported by Gript, in May 2020, Dr Kearney was banned from providing emergency abortion pill reversal therapy (APR), a procedure which involves administering the natural hormone, progesterone, which can be safely given to pregnant women who have taken the first of two abortion-inducing pills in an effort to block the effect of the first abortion pill.
According to abortion provider, BPAS, “The abortion pill is in fact two medicines. The first medicine ends the pregnancy and is named mifepristone. It works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without progesterone, the lining of the uterus breaks down and the pregnancy cannot continue.
The second medicine, misoprostol makes the womb contract, causing cramping, bleeding and the loss of the pregnancy similar to a miscarriage.
Abortion Pill Reversal involves administering progesterone after the first abortion pill has been taken – which helps to undo the effect of mifepristone and can help to ensure the unborn child survives.
The Daily Mail today said that, in just 12 months, Dr Kearney had helped three women reverse the effect of the first abortion pill, and that he “became a saviour to them and their babies”.
“Indeed, the babies’ doting parents will forever be indebted to this softly spoken Irishman, who they describe as a lifesaver,” the paper reported. One woman said of him: “to find there was such kindness in the world was phenomenal. It felt so selfless I cried”.
Marie Stopes International (MSI), a prominent UK abortion provider, claimed that Dr Kearney inappropriately prescribed the hormone to a patient for “a use not backed by evidence” whilst “failing to present a balanced picture of its benefits and risks”. MSI also made the claim that Dr Kearney “imposed his anti-abortion beliefs” on a patient, something which he strenuously denied.
But the abortion provider’s case against Dr Kearney began to fall apart when a vulnerable woman who was helped by the pro-life doctor told the Medical Council that she felt ‘scared and pressured’ by Marie Stopes who called and emailed her trying to gather evidence against Kearney, the Daily Mail reported.
In a statement to the GMC, the women said Dr Kearney was ‘professional, kind and compassionate’, in contrast to the abortion providers made her feel “scared and pressured” at a time when she was “vulnerable and ill”.
‘I feel that Marie Stopes are to blame for what has happened to me and I do not wish to be used by them in some sort of complaint against Dr Dermot,” she said.
Speaking to Gript, Dr Kearney said he got involved in administering the APR treatment shortly after the first lockdown in the UK after being informed that women were looking for the service through the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, which is a project hosted by pro-life organisation Heartbeat International.
The network describes APR treatment as “a last chance to choose life.”
The Abortion Pill Rescue Network explains: “From the moment a woman takes the abortion pill, she has about 72 hours to change her mind and save her baby. The Abortion Pill Rescue Network, through Option Line’s 24/7 contact center, answers more than 150 mission-critical calls a month from women who regret their abortion decision. Statistics show that more than 3,000 lives have been saved (and counting) through the abortion pill reversal protocol.
“Seeking a last chance to choose life for their little ones, women can reach out to the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and be connected with a local medical provider who starts the Abortion Pill Reversal Process”, they say.
The women desperate to save their pregnancies often contact pro-life doctors through searching ‘abortion pill reversal’ on Google if they experience instant regret after taking the first abortion pill.
Last year, Dr Kearney was banned from providing the treatment for up to 18 months by an Interim Orders Tribunal, following a referral from the General Medical Council (GMC).
Dr Kearney challenged the decision to ban him from providing the treatment and was supported in doing so by the Christian Legal Centre. The case was set to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday 24th February, but the GMC then dropped the case. Speaking with Gript ahead of the hearing, Dr Kearney said that he was “very hopeful about the outcome.”
“All the evidence is on our side,” he said.
Dr Kearney’s lawyers argued that the interim order against him should never have been made, and should now be discharged.
They also argued that the general dispute about the safety and ethics of APR therapy was outside of the GMC’s remit and that the evidence against Dr Kearney failed to demonstrate a real risk of impairment of fitness to practise. Dr Kearney’s legal team maintained throughout that the measures enforced were disproportionate and that the evidence does not demonstrate that the conditions are necessary to protect the public.
CASE DROPPED
The General Medical Council dropped the case before it reached the High Court as it was argued that there was no prospect of finding any concrete evidence to support any of the ten allegations which were made against the doctor.
It was described as “a huge victory” for the pro-life doctor, the broader pro-life movement and APR treatment” by supporters in Britain and Ireland.
The GMC has now asked the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to revoke the conditions which banned Dr Kearney from providing progesterone to pregnant women seeking to block the early abortion pill, and this was done on Friday 18th of February.
“There is no doubt that the threat of a High Court hearing forced them to act fast,” Dr Kearney told Gript. The GMC then quickly relented. Dr Kearney added that even the GMC’s own expert witness in the case was “largely supportive of APR in practise.”
Dr Kearney now hopes to have the service up and running again in the near future, telling us he hopes the outcome of the case will set a precedent across the world and validate the legitimacy of APR treatment.
On its website, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (the tribunal service for doctors in the UK which makes independent decisions about whether doctors are fit to practise medicine), states that the order against Dr Kearney has been revoked. The interim conditions imposed on the doctor have also been revoked, the MPTS states.
‘THE MOST REWARDING THING I’VE EVER DONE’
Speaking to Gript shortly ahead of the decision, Dr Kearney said that providing the abortion pill reversal treatment to women in crisis has been the most rewarding part of his entire medical career which has spanned over 20 years.
Explaining why he decided to offer the chance for women to block the effects of the abortion pill and potentially save their babies, he told us: “I did this because I could clearly see that the need and the demand was there. It is the most rewarding thing that I’ve ever done.” He adds that the evidence to back up the safety of the treatment is there – progesterone has been used for decades to safely treat women at risk of miscarriage – and he provided a service that so many women in the UK, where medical abortion is the most common form of abortion, wanted.
‘THE NEED AND THE DEMAND WERE THERE’
“The need was there and the demand was there. The motivation was the need and the desperation of women who regretted this decision, and the fact there was nobody else offering this,” he said.
Responding to MSI’s claims, he also told us: “I never tried to push my pro-life beliefs on anyone, and I only ever talked about being a Catholic when one of the women asked me about my faith even though MSI tried to turn this into a purely religious issue from the start,” Moreover, he says: “I didn’t try to persuade women otherwise; I simply offered them a choice.”
Although Dr Kearney expresses huge joy that he has been able to save the lives of 20 babies, some of whom he has been able to meet, he is critical of the ban imposed on him for providing the treatment, stating that he believes lives have been lost directly because of it.
“32 babies that we know of have been saved [by Dr Kearney and another female pro-life doctor offering the treatment] in the UK. However, since I was banned from providing this service, Heartbeat International has told me there have been 160 calls; 7 of those from Ireland, where women sought APR treatment. Although they were called back by the APR helpline, they were not able to be helped.”
He stresses that providing progesterone is not guaranteed to work, and adds that the hardest part of providing the treatment is seeing it fail in some cases.
“Prompt treatment is the key thing here, and will increase success rates. Whilst we cannot promise APR will allow the baby to stay alive in all cases, it has a 55% rate so far in the UK, and that figure is as high as 70% in some US states.”
He ventures that the success rate is probably higher in the US owing to the fact that there is greater public awareness about the treatment, and it is even mandatory to tell women about APR in some US states. He adds that “the data has grown stronger and stronger” surrounding the safety of the treatment.
The success of the treatment also depends on the gestation and health of the woman, he says.
Dr Kearney told us that claims that the treatment is unsafe are categorically untrue, and added that his case raises uncomfortable questions for abortion providers.
“It’s a complete myth that this treatment is unsafe, and I hope that my case will raise awareness that this is not the case.”
“The problem with this going to court [for those who sought to ban APR] was the lack of evidence but also the fact that it shows women change their minds after abortion, and it raises uncomfortable questions for abortion providers. It also shows that women are not fully informed about the options open to them; most women don’t want to have an abortion but feel as though they have no other choices. Studies, for instance, are out there which show that women can be coerced into abortion by a family member of partner more than 60% of the time.”
WHAT NEXT?
He says the breakthrough decision in the UK will have “major ramifications” across the world, including in many European countries, in Russia, and in commonwealth Canada where the abortion pill reversal treatment has also faced scrutiny.
Now, Dr Kearney hopes that the positive outcome will lead other doctors to get involved in providing a service which he says is desperately needed. He says that abortion providers and the NHS on a broader scale are doing an “injustice” to women for not raising awareness about the possibility of being able to reverse the effects of the first abortion pill to deliver a healthy baby.
The NHS doctor says that during his time providing the treatment, women have told him first-hand that abortion providers and NHS trusts told them there was no such thing as abortion pill reversal. He believes this needs to change, and that, in light of the decision, NHS trusts and abortion providers should face a legal mandate to tell women that abortion pill reversal therapy exists – and as his case has proven, is safe and effective for both mother and baby, despite claims to the contrary by campaigners and journalists in the UK, Ireland, and across the world.
The Life Institute, which has produced several campaigns raising awareness of Abortion Pill Reversal, said the result was a “victory” for women and babies. “Dr Kearney is a hero to these women because he offered them a real choice: a safe alternative to abortion. Anyone who says women need choices should be welcoming this news,” they said. “Now the Department of Health in Ireland needs to start offering women this choice also. We know that women in Ireland are looking for Abortion Pill Reversal, and that choice must be respected.”
POSTED IN WORLD NEWS
Al ruim 4.000 baby’s gingen je voor!
Geboren na gebruik van toegevoegde progesteron, om je baby weer de voeding te geven die de eerste abortuspil probeerde te ontnemen.
