Daily Camera (Boulder)

More to tell about ‘gold standard’ study


Regarding the article, “State becomes haven, advocates target crisis health centers,” printed on Sunday, Feb. 12, and written by Seth Klamann of the Denver Post, I was curious to find out about the gold standard study that was done in 2019 by Dr. Mitchell Creinin, a researcher at University of California, Davis. I had not heard about the abortion pill reversal treatment or this study so I did a little digging.

It turns out that this study was ended months after it was started because of three women hemorrhagi­ng, but two of the three only received placebos instead of the reversal treatment and the one woman who did receive it aborted successful­ly and was able to self-limit her bleeding.

So it would seem that it was the abortion pill that caused the majority of the hemorrhagi­ng and not the reversal treatment. Also, there were only 10 subjects in the study.

I don’t believe that this study can even be cited as proof that the reversal treatment is not effective. Indeed, of the five women that were in the progestero­ne treatment group, four had healthy pregnancie­s two weeks after taking mifepristo­ne — an 80% success rate!

When I tried to look up the study itself, it had been taken down from the Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal.

I’m also not sure why using progestero­ne would be ineffectiv­e or even dangerous. Progestero­ne itself has been used safely in pregnancie­s for decades.

It is used in in vitro fertilizat­ion, infertilit­y treatments, and high-risk pregnancie­s (such as those experienci­ng pre-term labor).

— Connie Baker, Berthoud

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States