Creinin et al Study – Spinning the Results Does Not Protect Women

You would think the attempted reversal of abortion was to blame for some horrific outcomes. The truth is the opposite.

Some important points to take away from the Creinin et Al study:

  • Before this study was published, it was a known fact that Mifeprex can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections, excessive bleeding, and incomplete termination requiring follow-up surgery.  

Firstly, a large study of women in Finland undergoing induced abortion examined the rate of adverse events in surgical as compared to drug-induced abortion.  They found that the overall incidence of immediate adverse events is four-fold higher for medical abortions than for surgical abortions. Link: M. Niinimaki et al., Immediate Complications after Medical compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy, OBSTET. GYNECOL. 114:795 (Oct. 2009).

Conclusion: Both methods of abortion are generally safe, but medical termination is associated with a higher incidence of adverse events. These observations are relevant when counseling women seeking early abortion.

Secondly, A 2006 review by Gary and Harrison. found that “Hemorrhage and infection are the leading causes of mifepristone-related morbidity and mortality. Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16380436/

AERs relied upon by the FDA to monitor mifepristone’s post-marketing safety are grossly deficient due to extremely poor quality.

  • This study [Creinin et Al] does nothing but further prove these serious, life-threatening risks when taking the abortion pill.
  • This study was ended early because of severe hemorrhage in 25% (3 out of 12) of women, requiring emergent ambulatory care, because they took the abortion pill.
  •  In fact, the bleeding was so bad for one woman, described as “significant brisk bleeding”, that she needed a blood transfusion. She also came into the emergency room with hypotension and tachycardia
  • Two of these women took the placebo, meaning there was no attempted abortion pill reversal for these women.
  • Thus two of five women who took Mifeprex alone required emergency surgery, and one required a transfusion.
  • The other woman who had taken progesterone after taking the Mifeprex did not need surgery and her bleeding stopped by itself.
  • Clearly, the women who did not take progesterone fared much worse than the woman who did

What their study did show

  • A heartbeat was detected at the first follow-up visit in 80% of women who attempted to reverse the abortion with Progesterone.

These results were consistent with a 2018 study (George Delgado et al.) that had a 68 percent live birthrate after treatment with the same oral progesterone used by Creinin et al.

Conclusion: The reversal of the effects of mifepristone using progesterone is safe and effective

  • In the five women who took Mifeprex with no progesterone, two had massive hemorrhages requiring emergency surgery, and one needed a blood transfusion. Of the remaining three, two had a baby with a heartbeat at the two-week check-up visit. That’s a 40 percent survival rate at two weeks with Mifeprex alone.
  • In the five women who took Mifeprex with progesterone — in other words, attempted an abortion pill reversal — one lost her baby and experienced heavy bleeding, which stopped by itself. She went to the ER but had no need for surgery or other treatment.
  • But the most remarkable finding is that four of the five women who took progesterone had living babies at their two-week follow-up. That’s an 80 percent success rate!
  • Both women on placebo (no reversal attempted with progesterone) required emergency surgical aspiration, but the woman on progesterone did not require any additional intervention.
  • So, the outcomes were far worse for women (and their babies) when they took mifepristone alone, without any attempt to reverse the chemical abortion.

Other Important Considerations

Finally, references show that both Mifepristone and Misoprostol suppress immunity.  Many women who have died from medical abortion succumbed to a common soil organism called Clostridium sordelii, that a healthy immune system should be able to suppress.

  1. Miech R. Pathophysiology of Mifepristone-Induced Septic Shock Due to Clostridium sordellii.  Ann Pharmacother 2005 Sep;39(9):1483-8.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16046483/#:~:text=sordellii%20infection.,development%20of%20lethal%20septic%20shock. 

Conclusion: Theoretically, it appears that the mechanisms of mifepristone action favor the development of infection that leads to septic shock and intensifies the actions of multiple inflammatory cytokines, resulting in fulminant, lethal septic shock.

  1. Aronoff et al.  Misoprostol Impairs Female Reproductive Tract Innate Immunity against Clostridium sordellii. J Immunol. 2008 June 15; 180(12): 8222–8230. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18523288/ 

In summary, we have developed the first animal model of a C. sordellii infection (of any organ system) and document for the first time an adverse impact of misoprostol on host defenses against this infection both in vivo and in vitro. These studies support the therapeutic use of misoprostol via nonvaginal routes of administration, which might reduce the risk of immunosuppression within the female reproductive tract. Beyond the immediate relevance of our data to the understanding of clostridial endometritis after medical abortion, these findings suggest that PGE2, in which production is exaggerated within the reproductive tract during pregnancy, might be an important (and pharmacologically modifiable) causal determinant in the pathogenesis of more common infectious complications of pregnancy (such as chorioamnionitis). In addition, these results identify a general caution that must be considered in other circumstances in which PGs are administered locally for therapeutic purposes.  https://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/12/8222.long

This information is taken from Dr Tara Sander Lee’s article “Contrary to Media Reports, New Abortion Pill  Finds it Endangers Women and Reversal Works Study,” The Federalist.com 10th January 2020 and Dr Lee’s email correspondence to and highlighted reference studies to Jakki Jeffs, Executive Director Alliance for Life Ontario with subsequent commentary points.

Follow Us

Connect with us on social media and please share our posts!

No comments yet.

Add your Comment