I just got it. Koppel is great. He had DR. Wood on (retired during

[I_Make_Mistakes]

Katrina stuff), FDA in charge of Women's Health Issues (don't know her exact position). She retired because of the decision to block the passage of the latest contraceptive morning after pill.

Ted got her to say at least 3 times, this is about an emergency situation where a woman doesn't have time to see her doctor, there is a closing woman. He then steered back to the safety issue, which FDA voted unanimously that it was safe. The vote to stop it's OTC sale was influenced by the outside.

He then went back to the fact that oral contraceptives require a prescription (another, this is a time sensitive issue response). He then asked a question about who was preventing this politics?

I thought it was coming from the RW, please excuse me because, I am not politically savvy. The pharma's influenced the FDA that a 4 vote nay, out of either 23 or 27 (I know the no. is 23, but not sure if it is inclusive or exclusive) stopped the over the counter availability of this pill.

The oral contraceptives have to be taken, injected etc., on a daily basis with severe adverse effects, this pill has to be taken once when needed, with severe adverse effects also. I think one pill (when needed) vs. 21 a day every month is worth the risk and probably, the 1 vs. insert number, minimizes the risk.

It is the contraceptive mfgs. that stopped this approval. They from now on in my book will be murderers (for every women who gets blood clots, cancer, etc. from taking a regular contraceptive).

[Lexingtonian]

1. I doubt that's right

First of all, I'm not sure what your point about 'severe adverse effects' is.

Savvy women have known for as long as The Pill has been on the market that large doses of estrogen prior to implantation prevents implantation. Women have stocked up and used extra pills for exactly that purpose all along, or kept a doctor handy who would write the prescription for a massive dose when a situation came along.

The pharma industry gains a bit from selling Morning After pills. It's not much money, though- that, contrary to what you believe, is in the regular users who buy pills for 15 to 25 years without needing marketing or TV ads or exhortations to 'go see your doctor whether this drug is right for you' to do so.

It's 'Christian' Right fringe groups that want these sorts of things, the gradual curtailing of contraceptive technology access until people go over to, well, either abstinence or Caucasian-Americans start outbreeding brown skinned ones again. Of course, they can't admit that these ends are what they have in mind. But this is how they play- always playing the Agrarian Age "morality" card and slowly diminishing as much knowledge and access as possible.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

2. Well, jeez since I have been taking the pill as a smoker, does that

change your point of view?

I have been categorized as a visual communicator so maybe I am not communicating well. If you take the pill as a single, who only has a sexual contact, once in a blue moon, me, this pill would work way more effectively and without any contraindications.

Why are you so hostile?

And just to be thorough, I knew someone who lost a leg due to blood clots. Does that make you happy?

Do you think the pharma will make more from 1 pill in 3, 6, 12 months or almost everyday pill, 3,6,12 months (Oh and let's not forget the 6 month Dr. appointment to get that prescription?).

Some people can't afford Dr. appts., look at the uninsured. This pill was supposed to be over the counter. I have no idea where you are coming from, but obviously you aren't a woman.

[Lexingtonian]

6. I dunno

A command of the facts tends to change my p.o.v. faster than anything else, since you asked.

I'm disagreeing with your idea that the pharma industry has meaningful financial incentive to suppress Plan B. There isn't much money to be made or lost by that. Plan B is good, as they see it, in giving women a far easier option than chemical or surgical abortion should regular contraception fail or not be available. They simply regard it as a backup product that will sell at 2% or 5% of the rate of their monthly packs, making it easier to get women with medical risks (like yours) off them and keep those who aren't at risk of that but have the odd accidental problem with the regularly taken kind on them.

If you actually knew, or did, the math- and I've been in the industry- you wouldn't suspect anything of the kind. The profit angle is neglegible in the decision.

Trust me, it's the fundies and such who are the reason. If you can get the New York Review of Books, the latest edition, there's a saddening (or maddening) article by Gary Wills on how (and why) Christian Right fringe groups and extremists have extraordinary but invisible power in the Bush Administration. This kind of opaque death of a basically sound measure by faceless red tape burial and strangulation is the kind of thing these people know how to do. They've done it with regulations in the business and taxation and environmental realms for decades, they do it within their religious groups all the time, it's how this shit gets done.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

3. You need to re read my post. I wanted this drug passed over the

counter. In my view, men (mostly involved with the decision, are trying to control my body). It is not for sale and never has been, it's mine and what I do with it and to it, is mine to do.

I just think informed decisions are the best.

[SnowGoose]

4. Another way to think about safety:

first off, I agree that the "plan B" pill ought to be easy to get - if you have to go get a prescription, it makes it harder to use "the morning after".

However, you also seem to be arguing that becuase you'd only take it once in a while, it's safer than a pill you take every day. I haven't looked at the toxicology data, but consider this analogy.

Alcohol has toxic effects. However, there are lots of people who have a beer or a glass of wine with dinner most every night, but do not experience much in the way of negative consequences. Compare that with drinking the same amount of alcohol, but only once "in a blue moon". There are many negative effects, including brain damage and death that can result from alcohol overdose, yet lots of data suggests that a glass of wine a night can actually be beneficial.

So, yes the drug companies' primary interest is maximization of profit at any cost (that's the American business model, sad to say). But your conclusion that taking very large doses occasionally is safer than taking small doses daily is not *necessarily* a sound one.

(edited for spelling)

[I_Make_Mistakes]

5. The FDA (I know the recent problems) has determined it

unanimously to be safe. They had no problem with the safety, 100%, just the OTC availability, with outside influence on that vote.

Did you watch Nightline? I didn't think so, or you wouldn't be challenging.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

7. Nightline did a good expose. so where are those that actually

care about the truth. I like DU, because I have gained about 400% of informational intellect, but, where are you guys or should I say gals on this issue.

If the MS comes out with an issue that is not popular among their peers, and you don't show support, then you reap what you sow!

And, we will reap, just like we did in the last election.

[SnowGoose]

8. Nope, didn't watch nightline. Didn't claim to.

Thought I might share a little bit of toxicology 101 with you, because my personal bias is that the more you understand the science, the better equipped you'll be to interpret for yourself what you see on TV.

Clearly you weren't interested. My bad.