Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

EndnotesAnother such example is the outcome of prostaglandininteractions with lymphocytes (the white blood cells responsiblefor immune protection) where dosage manipulations permit theinduction of either immunosuppression or immunostimulation.Taken together with the variation in individual sensitivity toprostaglandins, the contradictory effects of both exogenous andendogenous prostaglandins are further evidence that RU 486/PG abortion methods should be resisted.4The type of prostaglandin analogue, its dose, administration siteand infusion time, and the number of previous pregnancies, areeach factors which contribute to the abortion-rate in prostaglandininducedterminations.5The guinea pig model was also crucial to the discovery ofsulprostone, which had very little activity in the rat model. I tstherapeutic potential would not have been recognized, but forguinea-pig studies which identified ‘E-prostaglandins to be morepotent abortifacients than F-prostaglandins’ (Elger et al., 1987:79).Subsequent studies in the guinea-pig model indicated the followingascending order of abortifacient activity: PGF 2•, PGE 2, PGE 1,sulprostone/15-methyl-PGF 2•and 16,16-dimethyl-PGE 2whichparalleled to a considerable extent the order of effectivenessobserved in human pregnancy.6K.Schmidt-Gollwitzer from Schering Gynecological Therapyreplied to our questions of 22 January 1991 with the followingstatement: ‘We are conducting research on and developing antiprogestinsubstances for the treatment of illnesses such as breastcancer or endometriosis. The substances presently underdevelopment are not intended for the indication of abortion’(pers. comm. to LD and RK, 19 March 1991).131