Comments on: “Laboring” In Vain: Plan B Study Shows It Doesn’t Reduce Pregnancy Rate http://www.frcblog.com/2007/04/%e2%80%9claboring%e2%80%9d-in-vain-plan-b-study-shows-it-doesn%e2%80%99t-reduce-pregnancy-rate/ The Blog of Family Research Council Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:28:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/04/%e2%80%9claboring%e2%80%9d-in-vain-plan-b-study-shows-it-doesn%e2%80%99t-reduce-pregnancy-rate/comment-page-1/#comment-374 Suricou Raven Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:09:08 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=250#comment-374 Mark: This is by no means the first time I have seen the FRC misrepresent scientific studies for their political purposes. Its a quite common theme for them. Several past events come to mind: - Citeing a paper showing severe medical risks of first-trimester abortions, while not mentioning that the two authors of the paper were both members of the board of directors of a pro-life pressure group and that the paper had not been accepted in any peer-reviewed journals. - Citeing a paper showing that abstinance-only programs are by far the most effective way to reduce teen pregnency - again, failing to mention that it was produced by a political organisation with the open aim of promoting abstinance-only education, and which had not been accepted by any more respectable journal. I addressed this incident on my own <a href="http://moronality.blogspot.com/2007/01/dodgy-science.html" rel="nofollow">blog</a>. - On numerous occasions, pointing to specific instances of cold weather as 'proof' that climate change is not occuring. - Citeing another study on abortion written by a doctor who has been churning out papers on the subject for decades, every single one showing abortion has serious negative impacts - study after study demonstrating that abortion causes everything from cancer to suicide to sleeping difficulties. Think carefully about the last one, and wonder what he might have used as a comparison. Very few of these papers were published in credible journals because his bias was so well-known, including the one the FRC choose to cite. Mark: This is by no means the first time I have seen the FRC misrepresent scientific studies for their political purposes. Its a quite common theme for them. Several past events come to mind:

- Citeing a paper showing severe medical risks of first-trimester abortions, while not mentioning that the two authors of the paper were both members of the board of directors of a pro-life pressure group and that the paper had not been accepted in any peer-reviewed journals.

- Citeing a paper showing that abstinance-only programs are by far the most effective way to reduce teen pregnency – again, failing to mention that it was produced by a political organisation with the open aim of promoting abstinance-only education, and which had not been accepted by any more respectable journal. I addressed this incident on my own blog.

- On numerous occasions, pointing to specific instances of cold weather as ‘proof’ that climate change is not occuring.

- Citeing another study on abortion written by a doctor who has been churning out papers on the subject for decades, every single one showing abortion has serious negative impacts – study after study demonstrating that abortion causes everything from cancer to suicide to sleeping difficulties. Think carefully about the last one, and wonder what he might have used as a comparison. Very few of these papers were published in credible journals because his bias was so well-known, including the one the FRC choose to cite.

]]> By: mark http://www.frcblog.com/2007/04/%e2%80%9claboring%e2%80%9d-in-vain-plan-b-study-shows-it-doesn%e2%80%99t-reduce-pregnancy-rate/comment-page-1/#comment-373 mark Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:40:44 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=250#comment-373 I'm sorry to put this so bluntly but this is a misrepresentation of science in the most egregious manner. This study does not compare plan B to no contraception at all which is the implication of your post. This study compares women who are given plan B ahead of time to women who have used plan they obtained by prescription. Not only does your article misrepresent the systematic review, but it fails to mention the systematic review proved that plan B use did not increase promiscuity, STD transmission, or alter previous contraceptive habits - all arguments that FRC has made at one point or another. Finally <a href="http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001324/frame.html" rel="nofollow">this review</a> also from Cochrane, is proof aggregated from dozens of trials that plan B is indeed highly effective as birth control. You have cherry-picked statements that you wanted to misrepresent the actual science in an extremely deceptive manner. This post should be removed and you should apologize. I’m sorry to put this so bluntly but this is a misrepresentation of science in the most egregious manner.

This study does not compare plan B to no contraception at all which is the implication of your post. This study compares women who are given plan B ahead of time to women who have used plan they obtained by prescription.

Not only does your article misrepresent the systematic review, but it fails to mention the systematic review proved that plan B use did not increase promiscuity, STD transmission, or alter previous contraceptive habits – all arguments that FRC has made at one point or another.

Finally this review also from Cochrane, is proof aggregated from dozens of trials that plan B is indeed highly effective as birth control.

You have cherry-picked statements that you wanted to misrepresent the actual science in an extremely deceptive manner. This post should be removed and you should apologize.

]]> By: Suricou Raven http://www.frcblog.com/2007/04/%e2%80%9claboring%e2%80%9d-in-vain-plan-b-study-shows-it-doesn%e2%80%99t-reduce-pregnancy-rate/comment-page-1/#comment-372 Suricou Raven Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:49:47 +0000 http://new.frcblog.agathongroup.com/?p=250#comment-372 The pills work very well, under laboratory conditions, so the drug itsself is fine. No problems there. Its not as effective as condoms or the Pill, but thats why its called Plan B. The problem seems to be education - the drugs are good in the lab, but in the real world people just arn't using them correctly. Is this a reason to abandon the drug? No, it just needs some more attention. Clear up the labeling, make sure that 'AS SOON AS POSSIBLE' is in large enough text, and get the instructions added to those sex-ed programs that havn't yet been butchered in the name of abstinance. The pills work very well, under laboratory conditions, so the drug itsself is fine. No problems there. Its not as effective as condoms or the Pill, but thats why its called Plan B.

The problem seems to be education – the drugs are good in the lab, but in the real world people just arn’t using them correctly. Is this a reason to abandon the drug? No, it just needs some more attention. Clear up the labeling, make sure that ‘AS SOON AS POSSIBLE’ is in large enough text, and get the instructions added to those sex-ed programs that havn’t yet been butchered in the name of abstinance.

]]>