Is it safe?

 

Some information is available at the link: https://www.abortuspilstop.nl/informatie/zorgverlener/

 

Inleiding:

A number of studies have been done with regards to AbortusPilStopper (Abortion Pill Reversal.

 

Noteworthy is (c) the lastest study from 2019 ‘an observational case series of 754 patients…’

and below our talking points concerning the study intended to place APR in a negative light.

 

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’.

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/

 

A case series detailing the successful reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone – PubMed (nih.gov)

 

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.’

https://pregnancyhelpnews.com/study-yes-women-can-stop-in-progress-chemical-abortion-with-life-saving-protocol

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 risks APR
statement progesteron risks APR

Statement progesteron NaPro technology Dr Thomas Hilgers

 

statement progesteron NaPro technolgoy Dr Thomas Hilgers
statement progesteron NaPro technolgoy 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.”

http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2014/03000/Practice_Bulletin_No__143___Medical_Management_of.40.aspx

Teratogenic = of, relating to, or causing malformations of an embryo or fetus.

 

ACOG statement birth defect rate
ACOG statement birth defect rate

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.

 

Oorspronkelijke studie van de eerste 7 omkeringen:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23191936