Plan B: Preview of Literature Review

4 Replies

In order to satisfay my own curiousity and my critics , I've begun a review scientific literature related to the question of whether or or not Plan B is abortifacient . Here are the articles currently on my reading list. Feel free to suggest others.

  1. Croxatto HB, Devoto L, Durand M, Ezcurra E, Larrea F, Nagle C, Ortiz ME, Vantman D, Vega M, von Hertzen H. Mechanism of action of hormonal preparations used for emergency contraception: a review of the literature. Contraception 2001;63(3):111-121.
  2. Durand M, del Carmen Cravioto M, Raymond EG, Duran-Sanchez O, De la Luz Cruz-Hinojosa M, Castell-Rodriguez A, Schiavon R, Larrea F. On the mechanisms of action of short-term levonorgestrel administration in emergency contraception. Contraception 2001;64(4):227-234.
  3. Kahlenborn C, Stanford JB, Larimore WL. Postfertilization effect of hormonal emergency contraception. Ann Pharmacother 2002;36(3):465-470.
  4. Croxatto HB, Ortiz ME, Muller AL. Mechanisms of action of emergency contraception. Steroids 2003;68(10-13):1095-1098.
  5. Muller AL, Llados CM, Croxatto HB. Postcoital treatment with levonorgestrel does not disrupt postfertilization events in the rat. Contraception 2003;67(5):415-419.
  6. Croxatto HB, Brache V, Pavez M, Cochon L, Forcelledo ML, Alvarez F, Massai R, Faundes A, Salvatierra AM. Pituitary-ovarian function following the standard levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive dose or a single 0.75-mg dose given on the days preceding ovulation. Contraception 2004;70(6):442-450.
  7. Gemzell-Danielsson K, Marions L. Mechanisms of action of mifepristone and levonorgestrel when used for emergency contraception. Hum Reprod Update 2004;10(4):341-348.
  8. Ortiz ME, Ortiz RE, Fuentes MA, Parraguez VH, Croxatto HB. Post-coital administration of levonorgestrel does not interfere with post-fertilization events in the new-world monkey Cebus apella. Hum Reprod 2004;19(6):1352-1356.
  9. McGregor JA, Equiles O. Risks of mifepristone abortion in context. Contraception 2005;72(5):393-393.
  10. Mikolajczyk RT, Stanford JB. A new method for estimating the effectiveness of emergency contraception that accounts for variation in timing of ovulation and previous cycle length. Fertility and Sterility 2005;83(6):1764-1770.
  11. Pruitt SL, Mullen PD. Response to letters to the editor regarding Contraception or Abortion? Inaccurate Descriptions of Emergency Contraception in Newspaper Articles, 1992-2002. Contraception 2005;72(5):396-397.
  12. Pruitt SL, Mullen PD. Contraception or abortion? Inaccurate descriptions of emergency contraception in newspaper articles, 1992-2002. Contraception 2005;71(1):14-21.
  13. Spinnato II JA, Mikolajczyk R. Emergency contraception — a different interpretation. Contraception 2005;72(5):395-395.
  14. Stanford JB, Larimore WL. Description of Emergency Contraception in the Media. Contraception 2005;72(5):394-395.
  15. Trussell J, Jordan B. Mechanism of action of emergency contraceptive pills. Contraception 2006;74(2):87-89.

A Spectral Smack-Down

2 Replies

Arlen Specter reamed out Advanced Cell Technologies scientist Rober Lanza for their hype about having found a way to non-lethally harvest embryonic stem cells. As you may have heard, this development was only theoretical, as all of the embryos were destroyed so all their cells could be harvested and the chances of getting viable embryonic stem cells would be optimized. And since the success rate was two percent, "optimized" is very relative. We therefore cannot say that we have a non-lethal (let alone non-harmful) method of harvesting human embryonic stem cells (hESCs).

At first, ACT was only guilty of hype, which it has done before, but now folks on the web are calling out Lanza for having left out some critical details: when the AJOB blog, which is very pro-embryonic research, has an entry called "Paging Dr. Hwang?", you know something juicy came out.

What folks now say is that ACT soaked the harvested cells (blastomeres, to be precise) in the same dish as the original embryo, providing some cellular signals that would help the harvested cells live and be viable embryonic stem cells. This doesn't nullify the ultimate premise of their research, but it's black eye for Nature and a further disgrace to ACT. Perhaps ACT wanted this technique for themselves, and while they wanted the hype of a Nature article, they didn't want competitors replicating those results.

 (HT: Wesley Smith, who has posted half a dozen entries on this topic. You'd be well-served to read his and AJOB Blog's many fine points about this issue, particularly AJOB's entry on the "Kevorkianization of Stem Cell Research"–I'll even forgiven them for conflating all stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research…this time. 😉 )

Selective Memory

9 Replies

September 11, 2001 was indeed a sad and tragic day that will haunt Americans for years to come. I mourn the loss of life and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones. However, I cannot and will not jump on the rah-rah "Let's Roll" bandwagon of melodrama mixed with hawkish propaganda. 

If the lives of ~3000 who died at the hands of terrorist scum mean so much to us, why aren't we doing anything in Darfur, Sudan where tens – perhaps even hundreds – of thousands of people have died, are dying, and will die at the hands of genocidal scum? If we're so gung-ho about kicking Evil's ass, why didn't we do it in Congo , where millions died – not by a swift crash, explosion, or building collapse, but by starvation?

Before we get all Toby Keith about 9/11 again, let's have a reality check and decide whether America's innocents are more important to protect than any other country's.

Is the War in Iraq Just?

Leave a reply

Rob at UnSpace asks an interesting question. He wonders if the following quote from Dick Cheney clashes with just war theory.

“He’d done it [created WMD] before,” Cheney said. “He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in ’91.”

The U.S. invasion “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,” he said.

In other words, even if the intelligence had indicated no WMD, it would have been right to invade anyhow. As Rob points out, such a statement casts doubt on Bush’s sincerity when he claimed to be pursuing every diplomatic option to avoid war. Does it also make the way unjust? Did we have sufficient moral reason or obligation to depose Hussein? John Paul II didn’t seem to think so, even before the intelligence was found to be faulty. What do you think?