Talk:Mifepristone/Archive 1

message: A girl in California died after taking the pill:  . -- Jim Regan 20:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is being investigated for use against cancers. Looks like the pro-life lobby is spreading disinformation again. JFW | T@lk 07:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. fatalities

message: The External links section is extremely biased in its coverage of websites dealing with RU-486, with only one link against the drug and the others being supportive of the drug and its use. Either some of these links should be removed or more pro-life/anti-RU486 links should be added; otherwise, this section's information is unreliable and uneven. Brisvegas 03:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pro-choice links 

message: There is a lot of false info on this article, most notibly being the mortality rate, which the FDA says there are only 4 deaths that were reported, and they clearly say that none of them were linked to RU-486, and there is one death that is being investigated currently, though they allude to the fact that infection was the problem, not RU-486:
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/
Elsewhere on the FDA site, they say that in the 4 reported deaths where the women died of infection, all 4 were taking the drug vaginally, which is an off-label use.  Meaning, the medication was never intended to be taken vaginally.  
Whomever wrote this needs to learn how to research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.233.140.87 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 May 2006.
:I disagree. I believe all of that info is covered in the article. The only thing we may need to qualify is that we say "six women in the US and one in Canada have died following medical abortions" which doesn't mean that mifepristone CAUSED the deaths. We may need to say "though the FDA has ruled mifepristone out as the cause" or something similar. Feel free to edit the article in whatever manner you feel will improve it. And also, you can alwas register a username. It's fast and easy (and free), and editors tend to take you more seriously if you aren't an anonymous IP address.--Andrew c 02:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of wrong info on this article.... 

message: Said rate of deaths for illegal abortion was 1 in 3000. Depends on what year you're talking about. Prior to Roe v. Wade, there were something like 40 deaths from illegal abortions, and there were certainly more than 120,000 illegal abortions that year. Rate of death for illegal abortion depends on the year you're talking about, the country you're talking about, and the medical ability of the country. Antibiotics greatly reduced deaths due to abortions, both legal and illegal. Killua 13:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need reference for abortion death statistic 

message: This article could do with information on the use of mifepristone as a morning-after contraceptive (which is not the same as the higher-dose abortifacient role; see e.g. discussion here.) I don't have the time to do it now - anybody feel like taking a crack at it? --Calair 04:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As morning-after contraceptive

message: i removed the previous citation for statistical comparison because 1) it was out of date 2) it cited another source for its numbers, and that source didn't cite any source 3) i believe it is wrong.  both alan guttmacher institute (whose primary resource is journal of obstretics) and the new england journal of medicine cite that the risk of fatality in surgical abortion at 8 weeks is .1 in 100,000/one in a million.  the michael greene article from the NEJM is available online, but only with registration, so i found it reproduced at another site and included that link instead. (greene also notes that 460,000  doesn't necessarily equal 460,000 procedures--he thinks it is far less--but in the absence of reliable data about how many procedures it does mean i have left that number without qualification.)
Cindery 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comparative fatality

message: based on facts that i am aware of, they are similar but not the same (average bleeding/length of bleeding in spontaneous abortion is less than in medically induced; medically induced has drug-related  side effects; d&c is more likely to be performed for spontaneous...) here is one article:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1120430
the description of medically induced in strictly taken from the product insert--i will note that as citation.  if you want to compare spontaneous vs. induced abortion, feel free--but please provide citations, and note in your comparison both the similarities and differences. a direct conflation isn't accurate in terms of symptoms/mechanism of action (or standard medical attention/management).
Cindery 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: is mifepristone+misoprostol the same as miscarriage/spontaneous abortion?

message: this is the last time i am going to replace this info, per the rules about reverting. if it is removed, i am going to flag the article for accuracy.
:Well, I initially supported including the information regarding the synthetic steroid. However, I have read the paragraph closely again and I cannot think of a reason why it should be included. It has nothing to do with mifepristone. The one cited article doesn't deal with mifepristone. It deals mainly with HRT, and specifically says "The use of progestational agents in pregnancy... does not cause concern in relation to BC risk." So I don't see how an journal article that doesn't deal with this drug, that doesn't mention the sort of single dose application used normally with chemical abortions, and specifically mentions the lack of risk these agents pose during pregnancy, has anything to do with this artlce. The rest about the ABC hypothesis and the NCI is off topic and covered in other articles. How does removing that section throw the accuracy of this article in question? --Andrew c 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew's concerns notwithstanding, if this is the case, I think it might be useful to explain within the article how it is the synthetic hormones which might pose a cancer risk with mifepristone. It might be unclear to readers that this risk factor is independent of that proposed by the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. However, I do not think this would necessitate that we discuss the history the ABC hypothesis, related studies, or the NCI workshop at length. It is already covered in part at Abortion#Breast_cancer and in full and abortion-breast cancer hypothesis. -Severa  (!!!) 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The ABC hypothesis stuff doesn't seem to fit here. I voiced my concerns over the cited study. I was thinking it might be OR to claim a study that doesn't mention mifepristone posits a BC risk. However, the way it is phrased regarding how no studies have been performed, and if we clarify the synthetic hormone bit, I think we could come up with a couple sentences to cover this issue. So the question to Cindery, would you conceed those extra sentences about the ABC hypothesis, if it was replaced with a wikilink to the main article?--Andrew c 01:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't add the news article; that was done after me by another user. I did however reinsert it and used your point (with a reference) to give it appropriate context. I agree with your analysis. - RoyBoy 800 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: breast cancer risk

message: This article is not misoprostol and is not Chemical abortion. I cannot think of any reason to include extensive information about another drug in this article. The edit summary that put this paragraph back in says replace highly relevant misoprostol info/mifeprex is not used alone/this is very little info re misoprostol. I do not see how it is highly relevent. This article should be about what the title says it is. If we want to combine mifepristone and misoprostol, we can do that. If we want to work up most of this information in the more releven chemical abortion article, we can do that as well. However, I still need more of a reason why to include information about another drug in this article.--Andrew c 22:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misoprostol 

message: The following is lifted verbatim from the product label:
:There are no data on the safety and efficacy of mifepristone in women wih chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular hypertension, hepatic, respiratory, or renal disease, or insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Women who are more than 35 years of age and who smoke 10 or more cigarettes a day were excluded from clinical trials.
:No long term studies to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of mifepristone have been performed.
It needs to be altered to avoid plagarism, or quoted.--Andrew c 21:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  plagiarism 

message: :Quoting text has it's uses, and sometimes it is hard to paraphrase and summarize certain content (such as lists). However, I think the recent edits have gone out of hand. There is way too much jargon and content that isn't encyclopedic or accessible to lay audiences. Furthermore, elipses are not being used to indicate breaks and edits not found in the original text. Wikipedia is not a primary source, and quoting so extensively the technical language from the Mifeprex label is degrading the quality of this article. I request any editor's help in summarizing the key points under the "In Vitro and Animal Studies" to avoid this problem of quoting a technical source so extensively. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just a little concerned over the current state of things. If it is in progress, hopefully soon it will be improved. However, not to butt heads again with you, but the language is not neutral. It comes from a medical POV and clearly is full of jargon that is not accessible to lay audiences (i.e. "genotoxic", "estrus cycles", "Teratology", etc). There is a difference between wikipedia's NPOV policy, and a scientific POV or a No-POV policy. As for the copyright, if it was produced by the US government, then most likely it is in the public domain. But if it was produced by Danco, it may be copyrighted. Do you have any more information to help clarify this issue?--Andrew c 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't mind attempting to rewrite the package insert information in a more accessible way. Also, it would seem preferable, to avoid having such a large chunk of the article being a direct quotation. However, being that we are dealing with a technical subject, the retention of some technical terms will be unavoidable. There is no substitute for a term like "estrus cycle" — but that is the purpose for which Wikilinking was invented. "Genotoxic" could be simplified to "mutation-causing substance" or else Wikilinked like estrus cycle. I don't believe in "dumbing down" a technical subject, by any means, but some smart editing should make the information both accurate and accessible to a wide readership. -Severa  (!!!) 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: animal in vitro/human

message: is it true that there is a four hour observation/waiting period in most other countries which use mifepristone--all of europe, china, but not U.S?
Cindery 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like good information, and the international perspective is always welcome.--Andrew c 20:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 hour waiting period

message: We list the number 6 in 460,000. I have been unable to find a source that lists that number. The first cited source says "less than 1 per 100,000". The 3rd cited source lists the more than 460,000 number, and mentions the 5 deaths. As far as I know, mortality rates are usually given in a per 100,000 number anyway.  Do we have another source, or should we change it to reflect the already cited sources? --Andrew c 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is verifiability. If someone wanted to look up that specific number, they'd have no place to turn because it is a synthesis of sources (aka original research). Why don't we simply use a figure already found in one of our sources. I seriously doubt finding an estimate mortality rate for mifepristone requires OR. I could not find the numner "1.34" in Greene. I did find this "These figures would suggest that the risk of death from infection is less than 1 per 100,000." So does this figure ignore the one death due to an ectopic pregnancy? Anyway, can we find a source that is more specific? Or should we leave it vague? I think its important to note what our sources note, that is that chemical abortion is 10 times more deadly than a comparable surgical abortion, however it is also ~10 times safer than live birth. I find it odd that its hard to find a simple mortality rate figure for mifepristone, but it clearly isn't our job to try and calculate that and publish the number here for the first time.--Andrew c 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a sticky issue and I'd like a third opinion to weigh in, but I still feel that if we have a single figure that is verifiable in our sources (instead of combining 2 numbers), it is clearly superior. Wikipedia shouldn't be the only place that a precise mortality rate is mentioned. And as I stated above, I agree completely that we should state the risk is ~10x that of surgical.--Andrew c 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If there was an article about the trees of Monroe Park, I could easily walk down the block and count the trees. However, it would be against wikipedia policy for me to publish that number in that article because it would be original research. Obviously, my number would be the most accurate figure available, but without it being reported somewhere else first, it violates policy. Yeah, we might not like it, but we may have to sacrifice accuracy in lieu of verifiability and no original research. That's all I'm saying. Now, if we have a source that has a figure, I propose we use that. And if it isn't precise, well it isn't precise, but it is verifiable. The most favorable solution would be to find a source that published the 6 in 460,000/1.3 number.--Andrew c 00:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another part of this issue is, mifepristone has been around for about 17 years in Europe. Your figures only deal with Mifeprex in the US (and Canada?). Wouldn't data from the past decade in Europe be equally as important to this article? Maybe that is why the mortality rate is always listed as "less than 1 in 100,000" despite your math. This is why OR can be tricky. What seems obvious to us at first, is deceptive because it doesn't consider the bigger picture.--Andrew c 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting point. Qualifying them as US numbers seems appropriate. Anyway, your protests made me reconsider my OR accusation. So I posted Wikipedia talk:No original research#New synthesis.2Fis this OR.3F. Feel free to correct any mistakes I made, present your own side, and read the replies.--Andrew c 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mortality rate 

message: The following violates the official no original research policy of Wikipedia, specifically no synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:
:There may be some concern regarding elevated breast cancer risk and 19 nortestosterone steroids. 
:Although it has been reported in one small study that mifepristone might have experimental value to minorly affect breast tissue in vitro in the least common kind of hormone-dependent breast cancer, systemic hormone therapy is of little value, and mastectomy/lumpectomy and chemotherapy are the effective standard means of treatment.
:Mifespristone is an anti-progestin which causes temporary estrogen dominance. 
:Estrogen dominance is associated with increased breast cancer risk.
If there are reliable published sources representing a scientific consensus that "there may be some concern regarding elevated breast cancer" when using mifepristone, please cite them.
Per Wikipedia, "The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or textbooks and some forms of monographs."
68.253.177.250 01:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated above, I agree with this. Wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish that mifepristone may increase BC risk. If this information is a synthesis or analysis of multiple sources, then it fails OR. All claims, especially controversial or disputed claims need to be WP:V. I think we have the WP:RS part down fine (if anything, maybe a bit overboard with the primary sources), but for this one claim, it may fail verifiability and original research.--Andrew c 01:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The point is, if we are going to suggest a causal relationship, even a logical one, we're going to need at least one peer-reviewed, academic study which advances the claim to cite. Take, for example, vaccine controversy, which lists studies that have explored the supposed link between vaccines which contain mercury as a preservative and autism. Sure, given the fact that mercury exposure can cause neurological disorders, it seems like a logical conclusion — but we need a reference which advances this claim, or otherwise, it seems like original research or downright alarmism. I think that the same holds true here. -Severa  (!!!) 02:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree, perhaps something should be said in sounding a cautionary note. I like Cindery's one line suggestion "no long-term studies have been performed to determine the carcinogenicity of mifepristone." Though it should not be bolded nor italics. I'm thinking along these lines primarily because of prosilac; I use this as an example of what we don't know, can hurt us in the long run. - RoyBoy 800 06:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of removing the entire abortion-breast cancer paragraph and replacing it with just that sentence. Although I find the dominance stuff interesting; it would be good if a source stated that. - RoyBoy 800 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep discussion topical. Avoid personal commentary. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -Severa  (!!!) 05:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No original research please 

message: mkay, this is from first search for source which quotes 1 in 100,000, to find underlying data:
From Medscape General Medicine™
Contemporary Issues in Ob/Gyn & Women's Health
Mifepristone-Misoprostol Medical Abortion Mortality
Posted 04/27/2006
Mitchell Creinin, MD; Paul Blumenthal, MD, MPH; Lee Shulman, MD
this source cites footnote #9 as the source for the statistic:
that's david grimes md, a familiar name to anyone who reads up on contraception/abortion.
grimes actually calculated it at .8
he  calculated .8 by using 1) number of fatalities noted in US by FDA--at time of his editorial, that number was 3. 2) the number of units sold by danco, in a personal conversation to them on novemeber 18, 2004--at the time, 360,000. he states that the number .8 has a 95% confidence interval 0.2-2.4 by Poisson distribution.
i am not a statitician, so frankly definition of poisson distribution may as well be written in ugaratic to me, and 6/460,000 may well be 1 in 100,000, by this means of calculating for all i know.
i would say that this is precedent for using the FDA fatality count and the danco report of units sold to calculate the fatality rate. (but i still would not object to qualifying those numbers as american, or to some of the other qualifications/contexts we have discussed.)
note also grimes extremely prochoice/pro-mifepristone/indicating, that using FDA/danco numbers, if any indication of bias, is bias favorable to mife. (such as no questioning of danco's numbers=procedures, etc.)
Cindery 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing the research, however nothing you have said changes wikipedia policy. I want to be crystal clear on this. We cannot publish a mortality rate for the first time on wikipedia. You even claimed that you weren't a statitician, but even if you were, you'd need to have a reliable source publish your calculations first before we could cite them here. This is policy and I don't see how it can be argued. I felt my compromise was just fine. It gave both figures from both sources, without doing original research of claiming those numbers represent a mortality rate. If we keep the numbers seperate and do not claim they represent a mortality rate, I think its fine. Saying "There have been 6 reported deaths" and "Danco states it shipped 460,000 units" is fine. Saying "The mortality rate is 6 in 460,000" is not. Do you see the difference between the two? The only thing I am objecting to above is your suggestion to "calculate the fatality rate" ourselves. That isn't our jobs as editors. We simply report on our sources, not synthesize, comment on, or interpret our sources.--Andrew c 17:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm going to ignore your off topic comments on my editing behavior and just say, thanks for finding a source for your claim. Well, the source doesn't exactly say your claim "6 in 460,000". It says 8 in 575,000. But still, now we have a source. That's all I was asking for. Thanks.--Andrew c 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: poisson ditribution

message: I'm a little concerned over the following:
:A 1992 study of female rats treated with mifepristone found that they developed lethal bacterial infections following copulation.
This is inserted at the end of a paragraph about the mifepristone deaths. This is part of the problem with using primary sources so extensively. Maybe this information is relevent, but it would take a trained professional to figure it out. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia written by trained professionals, but instead written by the people (which is why there are strict limitations on verifiability and original research). Reading the abstract, this 1992 study dealt with "[o]variectomized female rats [being] treated with oestradiol and ... mifepristone." Something having to do with "copulatory plugs" (here is a page that explains what they are) causing infection only in the rats treated with oestradiol and mifepristone, but not the ones with oestradiol alone. Also the abstract says specifically "occasionally with lethal consequences", while our text is more vague about the frequency of the lethal infections. Anyway, putting this at the end of the paragraph seems to suggest that doctors knew 14 years ago that mifepristone caused bacterial infection, but we'd need a source to make this claim. I question how notable this one study is, and how relevent it is in this paragraph. Regardless, the wording is misleading. If we are to keep it in, I'd suggest moving it to the animal studies section, and rephrasing it "A 1992 study of ovariectomized female rats treated with mifepristone found that they developed bacterial infections which were occassionally lethal following copulation and possible problems stemming from copulatory plug passage". However, if we have a source that states that this study is relevent to the discussion of human patient deaths, then lets cite it.--Andrew c 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand completely that medical articles are going to be a bit heavier on the journal articles and primary sources. I was just pointing out that this is an example of how citing primary sources can be problematic. However, I just want to be clear that I am not anti-primary sources, and I understand that this article isn't just a social/polical thing. What I am saying, it is perfectly fine to report the conclusions of primary sources. However, the issue is, we shouldn't be interpreting these conclusions for the first time here. I just found the placement of this study at the end of the paragraph a little weird, and the wording a little off. If after all these bacerial infection deaths in humans, no one in the media or medical journals is citing this rat study, it makes me wonder if there is a reason (because I am not a medical expert, maybe there is something I am missing that obviously makes this study not relevent. or maybe we are just ahead of everyone else, and therefore would be publishing original research that this rat study relates to the human deaths). You understand my concern? I'm not exactly sure what we can do, and I don't want to sound like a broken record, but having sources (primary or not) making this connection is always better in my mind. Anyway, what do you think about my proposed rewording of the sentence?--Andrew c 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ovariectomized female rats were treated with oestradiol and the progesterone-antagonist mifepristone. 

message: Could you please post a link to the page where the FDA reports this and I'll format the reference? If the reference is already used, we can name the ref tag, and then have the citation point to the existing footnote.--Andrew c 01:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ectopic Pregnancies and 27 cases

message: according to the author of the boston globe article (personal correspondence with her yesterday) the citation for "scientists have been warning for years..." is this:
  	
Comment: pathophysiology of mifepristone-induced septic shock due to Clostridium sordellii
Pr. Didier Sicard and Dr. Laurence Chauvelot-Moachon
Ann Pharmacother 2005;39:2142-2143. DOI 10.1345/aph.1G189a
Published Online, 15 November 2005
i haven't had a chance to read it yet, so i don't know if it references the rat study. she does reference the article above in the text of her article, but i don't think she makes it clear that "scientists have been warning..." and the sicard/chauvelot-moachon editorial comment are directly linked. but, just because i didn't get that is not definitive proof that no one else could it; could be dimness on my part. anyway, definitely personal correspondence with the author is OR :-),  but perhaps the sicard/chauvelot-moachon comment could put rat study in better context than boston globe, bypassing it and possible problemmatics with it re 1) statement pretty strong 2)link between statement and editorial comment by sicard/chaevelot-moachon maybe not so clear.
Cindery 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rat study

message: the full text of this book--which is out of print--is available online, but the copyright does sepcifically state that it may not be stored in a retrieval system without permission. so it can be cited, but not with a link to online retrieval of the full text, i think--so i have not replaced link after my bungled attempt. 
Cindery 16:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ru-486: misconceptions, myths, and morals

message: i think the account of political machinations in australia over the approval of mifepristone is fascinating and complicated enough that it bears expansion into its own article, or inclusion in full into another article about australian politics.
but... the account the way it is presented here is very overcomplicated in comparison to the account presented for any other country.  since the article is about the drug--though politics should definitely be mentioned/are definitely relevant--i think they should be summarized as they are for US and new zealand, rather than treated in depth.
here is version of a proposed summary (which would hopefully have a wikilink to complete text at another article):
Mifepristone was banned in Australia in 1996. In late 2005, a Private Member's bill was introduced to the Australian Senate to lift the ban and transfer the power of approval to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The move caused much debate in the Australian media and amongst politicians. The Bill passed the Senate on 10 February 2006, and mifepristone is now available in Australia.
Cindery 02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed revision of "usage in australia"

message: i'm going to move this out of external links into the controversy section as a ref for "pro-life actively campaigned.." so it's not the only external link which is a news cite, and to support the statement in the article.  but will leave here in case there are objections.
Cindery 19:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: newspaper link

message: i think all of yomangani's criticisms are good advice and will start fixing/report is archived here if anyone else wants to make changes as well.
Cindery 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: result of "request for feedback"

message: Is there a source for this? I feel it needs to be explained a little further at the very least.--Andrew c 22:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's from the article--2nd pill is taken two days later; longest reported bleeding was 30 days. we could put an average--also from the article--instead of a day range: "Surgical takes ten minutes, mifepristone averages 3-7 days" or something. the refs already in article could be recited in this new section (I didn't create new section; I don't know who created it or why, or why no refs are cited. It didn't seem like a terrible idea, though, so I fixed it instead of deleting it or moving it to talk.)
Cindery 03:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the issue I was concerned about was actual procedure vs. recovery time. Mifepristone averages about 2-10 hours of severe cramping. But recovery or bleeding may continue for up to a month (14 days is typical?) but for a surgical abortion, the actual procedure take 5-15 minutes, but again recovery may take 6 weeks before all bleeding stops (typically a lot less). So I just thought it was misleading to to say surgical abortion takes 10 minutes and you are done, while chemical abortion could take 30 days, when in actuality, surgical abortion is a lot short, less crapming, less side effects, and is generally recommended by clinics, it still have a comparitavely long recovery time as chemical abortion, right?--Andrew c 19:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mifepristone abortions take between 3 and 30 days" 

message: In the picture that shows the structure, there is a hydrogen missing from the hydroxy group.  I would edit this myself, but I have neither the time nor the experience with wikis.
128.175.87.38 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure error. 

message: I've removed the sentence stating that Corlux (mifepristone) was no more effective than placebo in a Phase III trial for psychotic depression. I can't access the newspaper article which was cited as a source, but I did look on PubMed. The only published Phase III trials I found were these:  and . The former was e-published in August, around the time of the inaccessible newspaper article - perhaps this was the "failed" Phase III trial the paper referred to? But both studies report improvements in measures of psychosis with mifepristone. There's also a letter to the editor () in response to the first of the two PubMed citations I've mentioned, alleging that the statistical methods and clinical relevance used were questionable. Nonetheless, the only peer-reviewed Phase III data I can find report that mifepristone is effective, although one could wonder about the clinical relevance of the endpoints and study design. Hence, in accordance with WP:RS, "avoid citing the popular press on scientific matters", etc I removed the Corlux sentence and added the PubMed refs to the lead sentence in the section. MastCell 19:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corlux 

message: * "Chemical abortion" is not a WP:NPOV term. 
** "Medical abortion" is the accepted medical term.
** "Chemical abortion" is a term used by pro-life advocates.
*** Just as "embryo" and "fetus" are medical terms, whereas "preborn baby" is a term used by pro-life advocates.
* PubMed search of MEDLINE biomedical research articles:
** "medical abortion" OR "medical abortions": 616 articles
*** "medical abortion" OR "medical abortions" mifepristone: 330 articles
** "chemical abortion" OR "chemical abortions": 7 articles
*** "chemical abortion" OR "chemical abortions" mifepristone: 0 articles
**** 3 articles (1969, 1975, 1991): septic chemical abortion (illegal, self-induced with soap, Lysol, hypertonic sucrose) 
**** 3 articles (1991, 1991, 2000): preclinical spontaneous abortion (only detectable by immunological hCG pregnancy test) 
**** 1 article (1961): no abstract, in Spanish, in Prensa Médica Argentina (Argentina Medical Press)
* Google search:
** "medical abortion" OR "medical abortions": 230,000 results
*** "medical abortion" OR "medical abortions" mifepristone: 92,800 results
** "medical abortion" OR "medical abortions": 118,000 results
*** "chemical abortion" OR "chemical abortions" mifepristone: 11,000 results
**** 1. Wikipedia Chemical abortion article
**** 2. Wikipedia Mifepristone article
**** 3. American Life League RU-486 article 
*****RU-486 is a man-made steroid designed to work against a woman's normal, natural state during pregnancy. Sometimes it is called a "medical abortion" or "chemical abortion" because it does not involve surgery, unless the chemicals fail to kill the baby.
*****Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.
*****During pregnancy, the preborn baby requires a chemical called progesterone. This chemical is produced naturally in the mother's body. It is so valuable to the baby's proper growth and development that some call it "nature's pregnancy hormone."
*****RU-486 works against this hormone. It breaks down and then destroys the surroundings the baby has established in his mother's womb, and eventually destroys the baby as well. The chemical cuts off nourishment to the preborn child, who starves to death inside his mother's womb.
*****But RU-486 does not work alone. A second chemical is also involved.
*****The second chemical (misoprostol), causes cramping and contractions. After RU-486 has killed the tiny boy or girl through starvation, this second chemical is designed to push the dead baby out of the mother's womb.
69.208.181.213 17:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I had been under the impression that "medical abortion" and "chemical abortion" were simply regional variants in medical terminology, the later being preferred in the U.S., and the former being preferred elsewhere in the world, sort of like the "fetus"/"foetus" dichotomy. I suppose, however, it's more akin to "PBA"/"IDX," with one expression being an accepted medical term and the other, at best, a colloquialism. This is also confirmed by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance article, "Non-Surgical, Medically Induced Abortions," which states, "Religious and social conservatives often refer to medical abortions as 'chemical abortions.'" I suppose we should move Chemical abortion to Medical abortion then. Thanks for clarifying. -Severa  (!!!) 18:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "chemical abortion" vs. "medical abortion"