PeterMP Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 His some good info from Discovery on the morning after pill: Plan B A drug could lower the risk of pregnancy in one of three ways: •It could kill all of the sperm after ejaculation. •It could prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. •It could either prevent or delay the release of the egg. Levonorgestrel takes this third path. When you purchase Plan B, you get two pills. Each pill contains 0.75 milligrams of levonorgestrel. You take the first pill as soon as possible after unprotected sex, and you take the second pill 12 hours later. Although scientists aren't completely sure how it works, they believe that levonorgestrel prevents pregnancy either by stopping the ovulation process or by disrupting the ability of sperm and egg to meet in the fallopian tubes. Some speculate that the drug may prevent the fertilized egg from implanting as well, perhaps by making the uterine lining less receptive to the egg. How does the morning-after pill work? http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual-health/contraception/morning-after1.htm Levonorgestrel AT LEAST stops ovulation. There is ZERO (real) doubt about that. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20099990 "Hormonal emergency contraceptives have been used to prevent unwanted pregnancy for more than 3 decades. The mechanisms of action of the regimen containing a combination of estrogen and progestin, known as the Yuzpe regimen, and those of the levonorgestrel regimen continue to be controversial, especially over the possibility that these regimens might act by interfering with implantation of the fertilized ovum. We performed a search of the PubMed (1949-July 2009) and EMBASE (1980-July 2009) databases to identify literature on the mechanisms of action of these contraceptive regimens, and data were extracted from pertinent English-language studies. We classified studies according to the approach taken by the investigators to study the actions of emergency contraceptives on pregnancy: an indirect method that uses statistical models to determine whether emergency contraceptives would be as effective as reported if they act only by disrupting ovulation; direct observation of the effects of emergency contraceptives on surrogate outcomes, including ovulation, sperm activity, hormonal levels, and endometrial receptivity to implantation; and analysis of directly observed pregnancy outcomes against statistical data. Acceptability of emergency contraceptives by women and clinicians may depend on personal opinions about when life or pregnancy begins. The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation, although the possibility has not been completely excluded. The data also suggest that emergency contraceptives are ineffective after ovulation. Women and clinicians who consider implantation or later events to be the beginning of pregnancy should be aware that emergency contraceptives are likely nonabortive by this definition of pregnancy." Suggesting that it prevent implantation is, as your link accurately states, complete speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I'm seeing a lot of "scientists don't know how it works", though. (Granted, the fact that it's immoral to do human testing on things like this does make certainty kind of tough. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 But I'm an idiot, and that one study was completely conclusive, right Pete? There's been more than one study on levonorgestrel. There's been one study that directly tested the idea that it was affecting implantation in humans. There are different levels of "understand". I can see that I give women levonorgestrel and see that they don't ovulate. I can understand that. I might not understand WHY it prevents ovulation (though in this case we can provide a very reasonable mechanism). Affects on things like the effects on cervical mucus and how that affects the sperm (so the 2nd option in his list) are a little more complex (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21074010 "Extrapolation of these findings from other progestin-only contraceptives suggests that cervical mucus changes may also be a primary mechanism of action of the LNG-IUS. However, two studies have not confirmed this hypothesis. Although an investigation by Barbosa et al. [6] I. Barbosa, O. Bakos, S.E. Olsson, V. Odlind and E.D.B. Johansson, Ovarian function during use of a levonorgestrel-releasing IUD. Contraception, 42 (1990), pp. 51–66. Article | PDF (1468 K) | | View Record in Scopus | | Cited By in Scopus (89)[6] demonstrated significant qualitative differences in the cervical mucus of LNG-IUS users when compared to Nova-T users, adequate sperm penetration occurred in both groups. A second study by Barbosa et al. [7] comparing LNG-IUS users to TCu380Ag intrauterine device users noted the presence of “good” cervical mucus in 69% of the ovulatory cycles studied and concluded that hormonal effects on the cervical mucus are unlikely to be the main mechanism of action of the LNG-IUS. However, both studies examined cervical mucus after a prolonged freeze-thaw period that altered its composition and quality.") so that might be a component of it. That than might be related to NOT understanding (e.g. how much of it is stopping ovulation vs. how much is it negatively affecting sperm mobility and fertilization AND how is it doing the things it is doing w/ respect to things like cerevical mucus). However, there is no reason to believe that it affects implantation. There never was any reason to believe that it did. Levonorgestrel was selected based on its known role in stopping ovulation. Despite that, people went and directly tested if it did stop implantation in humans, and they found that it didn't. Normally in science, that kills an idea, unless something else comes up from another direction indicating that something has been missed. Like I already said: Unless something new is learned, that'll probably be the end of it. There's a difference between saying we don't necessarily completely understand something and saying we can't reasonably conclude some possibilities. We don't completely understand gravity, but I can reasonably conclude that being exposed to super high amounts of gravitational force (i.e. standing close to something REALLY REALLY big) isn't going to turn me into a frog based on what do know. We don't completely understand what levonorgestre does, but based on what do know we can reasonably conclude that it doesn't prevent implentation. Again, I know a difficult concept. **EDIT** Looks like I was wrong. Somebody did bother to check again: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22018122 "The efficacy of LNG-EC has been overestimated in studies using presumptive menstrual cycle data. Our results confirm previous similar studies and demonstrate that LNG-EC does not prevent embryo implantation and therefore cannot be labeled as abortifacient." The answer is still NO. If you've been told that plan B pill prevent implanation or other post-fertilization events, you've been lied to. It is as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 While I am all for sluts, inbreeders, and other left wingers not polluting the gene pool and our society with their potential offspring, I do have an issue of minors getting medication like this without parental knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Techboy, As for the same being true of the delivered fetus, I agree. I was only pointing out the flaw in the logic. I will note we have many neglected and/or unfead kids die for never receiving the intervention. Please don't think I and my wife aren't very concious of the resources spent at our house (sounds way more snippy than I mean, but I'm word fishing now). We are very thankful the state and parents opted to keep our children alive. I personally just have some serious doubts about our government's will to provide these same resources for another million kids per year. Believe me, I have often been thankful my daughter lived in a state where she could spend thefirst 8 months of her life in a hospital, go home with fosterparents (us) who had machinery and equipment shipped to their house along with medical supplies and formula, and later go back to the hospital for another month after a 4th heart surgery or cath. I have been many places in the world where she would never have lived, including some U.S. territories. Believe me, I am constantly thankful for the millions spent keeping her alive...and I often hear, "You guys are so awesome taking in sick children and raising them. I could never do that." We (I hope) are making society's choice to spend the money as worthwhile as we can building a loving family, but everytime I hear praise, what I mostly hear is "you are doing something exceptional." It shouldn't be exceptional. It should be normal, and until we take care of the kids already out there in need of homes, I can't take seriously the outrage against those who chose not to add to the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I think the GOP should push for this. Can you imagine the reaction by the media and liberals to the GOP making sure the day after pill is available in CVS and Rite Aid stores in minority populated, Team Donkey areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 This is a good point. We've done the abortion thing many times before. We should stick to the more specific topic at hand.This is easy for me to say when I currently have the last word, of course, so if you or gbear want to respond, I'll let that be the final portion of our exchange. The funny thing is, while I was being magnanimous, I failed to notice that Larry had already responded to me. Still, I will bite my, uh, keyboard? I don't think it's out of bounds, though, to point to one of the links where this exact discussion (including the assertion that sperm is a member of homo sapiens sapiens) played out, here. Still, shouldn't we get back to bashing President Obama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 We should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 But I'm an idiot, and that one study was completely conclusive, right Pete? But it was a scientific study. Can you site one that concludes otherwise? I'm very pro-life. I have no issue with contraception. You have to show me how this is not contraception with evidence, not hyperbole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 We should. Is this action a sign he supports requiring parental consent for birth control? (or at least medical supervision) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Is this action a sign he supports requiring parental consent for birth control?(or at least medical supervision) Actually, it looks like it's a sign that he doesn't want to energize the Republican base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Is this action a sign he supports requiring parental consent for birth control?(or at least medical supervision) It's one of many signs that you have too much time on your hands. Ration your ammunition. Remember: one lance = one windmill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Actually, it looks like it's a sign that he doesn't want to energize the Republican base. I agree Which goes back to me bashing him over his assertion he would put science before politics.....a blatant lie Pandering while cloaking yourself in science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Obama has two daughters, so he probably can see himself finding out after the fact that his minor daughter bought and used a day after pill. And feeling like most parents. Nothing political at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 It's one of many signs that you have too much time on your hands. Ration your ammunition. Remember: one lance = one windmill. Yes I do I blame him for that as well :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Yes I doI blame him for that as well :evilg: You went easy on me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.