Comments on: Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate (Part I)

By: Curiously_Confused

Curiously_Confused — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 23:29:26 +0000

Wait, I'm confused. Prolactin lowers progesterone levels? I thought it lower estrogen levels. So, since it lowers progesterone levels that (as I understand it) are necessary for implantation, wouldn't that suggest that breastfeeding is actually an abortifacient? On the other hand, boosting one's progesterone levels while lactating is considered acceptable. If prolactin opposes progesterone, how could these treatments be compatible with breastfeeding then? And what about the deficient corpus luteum function that the study says can be brought on by lactation? Wouldn't that be considered an abortifacient effect? Seems to me like the case against breastfeeding is stronger than the case against the pill. Very confusing. I mean, try to imagine the, Nation Pro-life Anti-Breastfeeding Association. As nice as it is to be right, in this particular instance, it'd be nice if someone could prove me wrong.

By: Generations for Life » Blog Archive » Does NFP Lead to “Massive Embryonic Death”?

Thu, 03 May 2007 14:16:16 +0000

[...] I think that’s more a matter of covering themselves than reporting the results of scientific studies. Thus far, the pharmacological inserts are the only places I’ve seen any mention of implantation being affected. [...]

By: Investigating NFP: The Great Embryo Killer? (Update) | Science

Investigating NFP: The Great Embryo Killer? (Update) | Science — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:37:39 +0000

[...] Investigating NFP: The Great Embryo Killer? (Update) By Funky Dung Some updates regarding Bovens' bunkum:The NY Times printed a reasonably fair article about the paper - a welcome contrast to many articles that proceded it .Bovens has responded to his critics. I'd intended to fisk his inadequate responses, but others have already done that far better than I ever could. [...]

By: Beverly Nuckols, MD

Beverly Nuckols, MD — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:42:09 +0000

Again, thank you for addressing this subject. The JME appears to be a collection of papers from undergraduates with an agenda. (Did you see the one about the cultures of the "Ovoids"?

By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate (Part II)

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:50:00 +0000

[...] In all my searching, I have found no studies that support the notion that Plan B acts as an abortifacient. [...]

By: CowPi

CowPi — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:50:45 +0000

Catholic Carnival #83…

As we mingle through this week's carnival, our focus will move from the outward to the inward. When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their country by a short route to……

By: Stuff

Stuff — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:51:35 +0000

Regarding breastfeeding specifically, the study cited by Richard seems to be in complete harmony with the conclusions in the post. The correlations that I personally have seen between breastfeeding and progesterone have suggested that ecological breastfeeding is responsible for *higher* levels of progesterone - high enough to cause amenorrhea. Not that I've read the study, but it seems to be saying that progesterone only returns during breastfeeding when an infant begins to be weaned (through use of formula, pacifiers, etc.). The whole idea of ecological breastfeeding is that the infant if fed AND comforted ("pacified") *only* at the breast - meaning a mother will be nursing her child anywhere from every 30 minutes to every 3-4 hours. Breastfeeding works by means of a sort of supply/demand feedback mechanism - the more you breastfeed, the more your body is stimulated to produce the hormone prolactin, responsible for milk production (and suppressed ovulation, as cited in the post). The less the infant demands (because of receiving formula, pacifiers, solid food, etc.), the less prolactin and milk. It seems that the only time progesterone enters the picture is when weaning begins, so it would seem to me that it is not breastfeeding but lack thereof that is responsible for any progesterone-related anything!

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:42:27 +0000

I too was surprised at the statements about progesterone levels, fertility and breasfeeding, since my understanding is that progesterone drops rapidly following birth. But here is a scientific paper that shows a relationship between postnatal progesterone levels and the supression of menstruation in breastfeeding women. "The association of progesterone, infant formula use and pacifier use with the return of menstruation in breastfeeding women: a prospective cohort study" Ingram et al. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology Volume 114, Issue 2 , 15 June 2004, Pages 197-202.
To quote from the paper:
"Our study shows that for this group of 85 breastfeeding mothers, the return of menstruation is associated with several factors including the introduction of formula
feeds, the early use of pacifiers (both of hich affect the frequency of breastfeeds)
and lower postpartum progesterone levels."

And elsewhere:

"Again, postnatal progesterone was the only hormone associated with return of menstruation, the significant negative coefficient indicating that higher
concentrations were associated with less chance of the return of menses and hence a
longer period of amenorrhoea (P=0.012)."

Of course, correlation does not mean causality, as suggested by the analogy to Plan B. Still, scientific articles like this could be the basis of the proposal that breasfeeding mimics Plan B in some way.

By: Nerd Family

Nerd Family — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

universalism is openly accepted among those who belong to, and especially those employed by, various Christian institutions in Underground Universalism. Let us move from church politics to society and politics. Ales Rarus has an interesting article,Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate. Looking to Hollywood, Nehring tells us about a Christian film, Facing The Giants, that has been given a higher film rating because it was too "proselytizing" in JESUS LOVES YOU BUT HOLLYWOOD THINKS YOU’RE A JERK