How do you propose that doctors looking at the possible RU486 role is going to be harmful to investigating the infection generally? Seems to me it would likely be all relevant.

And on the issue of safety of the drug overall, it is a valid point that even with higher risk of dying with the this infection, it is overall safer compared to continuing with pregnancy. But the comparison with the death rate from surgical abortion is relevant here too, isn’t it? I am not sure from the links you provided how that compares.

My point is that by reporting on “Abortion Pill Dangers”, it is implied that this particular bacterium is linked with mifepristone. I bet that most people who haven’t followed this debate closely would have assumed that this bacterium was caused by mifepristone, as opposed to also being linked to pregnancy/ menstruation, i.e. that it’s a bacterium that’s there in the body already.

Scientists whose job it is to figure these things out would notice a spike in deaths linked with mifepristone if there was one. But instead of being allowed to find the real causes of these deaths, and try to prevent them, the FDA are being made to “prove” mifepristone safe - over and over again.

This harm principle thing is nonsense, and shows that you don’t understand this point. If scientists aren’t allowed to do their job, then how do we know what it is that is causing the harm, and more importantly, how to prevent it? Either because these people don’t understand causality or they don’t care if it helps them in their cause, they are preventing health professionals from doing the job of saving women’s lives. There’s your harm principle.

I agree with her to the extent that it is possible that misplaced public concern might drive limited research funds away from one more deserving area to another. But really, this probably happens all the time in medicine (for example, the vaccination research which always seems to come up with no connection.) And you don’t really know whether the concern is misplaced until you do the research. I just don’t think there is much that can be done about this, and (as I said in my original post) a lot has to do with the understandable notion that doctors should do no harm with their treatments.

Btw - I had a feeling chicks talking about menstrual cycles might be a thread killer for the boys.

there are lots of other reasons for the pill to be prescribed in order to regulate or otherwise control the menstrual cycle other than for contraceptive purposes.

…like for controling PCOS
http://www.4woman.gov/faq/pcos.htm

From this point of view, which I don’t think really deserves criticism, it is entirely appropriate to be looking at RU 486 and its possible role in this infection with some priority. (As I recall it, a pro-choice sounding woman writer had a piece in The Australian last year pointing out that one of the problems with RU486 and infections is that the symptoms of the drug can be hard to differentiate from the first signs of an infection.)

The data , I think, is FDA data - the research is still ongoing.

I’m not suggesting that those death figures are actually complete enough to draw those conclusions, just pointing out that comparing numbers of deaths rather than rates is useless.

* much more slight an exaggeration than you’d hope

Our sixties sisters may have been onto something…