|
|
| Author |
Message |
popcorn
|
|
The Birth Control Item
| 
Jan 25 04:20 UTC 1996 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 22 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 1 of 22:
|
Jan 25 04:23 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 2 of 22:
|
Jan 25 22:25 UTC 1996 |
Menopause is a great form of "birth control." Also controls mood swings.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 3 of 22:
|
Jan 26 13:56 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 4 of 22:
|
Jan 26 15:22 UTC 1996 |
Not really... the existence of legally producible drugs such as
varieties of Ecstacy don't end the War on Drugs... the drug-combination
method mentioned, I've read, is significantly less reliable than RU486.
Yes, it would be difficult for the FDA to ban it, since it involves
legally available drugs, but that doesn't mean they won't try. Marijuana
has health benefits, but it remains illegal because of social stigma;
I wouldn't be surprised to see the FDA trump up some reason to ban or
heavily restrict at least one of the drugs involved here. Cynical?
Me? No, I prefer the word "realistic".
We need to get the governmetn out of our bedrooms and our sexual/
reproductive organs.
"RU486? Yes, I am, sir!" -- Consolidated.
But wasn't this the birth control item? 8^)
|
aaron
|
|
response 5 of 22:
|
Jan 27 03:56 UTC 1996 |
The FDA tried to move marijuana to a lower category of "controlled
substance" -- recognizing its medical value. I think you're confusing
the FDA with Congress.
BTW, the makers of RU-486 haven't submitted it to the FDA for approval.
Afraid of a boycott, they are voluntarily withholding it from the U.S.
market.
|
brighn
|
|
response 6 of 22:
|
Jan 27 07:32 UTC 1996 |
(I'm sure I am, Aaron... thanks for the correction.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 7 of 22:
|
Mar 21 14:45 UTC 1996 |
This response has been erased.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 8 of 22:
|
Mar 22 05:37 UTC 1996 |
Hmmm interesting!! Me, I just drink orange juice daily.
|
valerie
|
|
response 9 of 22:
|
Jul 6 18:02 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 10 of 22:
|
Jul 6 18:25 UTC 1997 |
If there is a profit to made, rest assured, some drug company will begin
manufacturing.
|
valerie
|
|
response 11 of 22:
|
Jul 6 19:15 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
headdoc
|
|
response 12 of 22:
|
Jul 7 13:42 UTC 1997 |
I was aware of the concern regarding boycotts and/or sabotage. I have no
doubt, however, that with the expected profits in sight, some drug
manufacturer will be willing to take the risk. At least, I hope so.
|
i
|
|
response 13 of 22:
|
Jul 8 00:44 UTC 1997 |
Unfortunately, the (potential) profits on RU-486 have to be weighed against
the (potentially) lost profits on all the rest of the drugs that a company
makes if the pro-lifers manage to organize a passable boycott (probable).
Sounds like a smallish foreign firm might be the best bet.
Re: #7 & 8
Recent research has traced the grapefruit juice effect to one of the small
intestine's main drug-degrading enzymes. After only 11 days and 16 glasses
of grapefruit juice, blood levels of the (anti-hypertensive) drug that the
researchers were studying hit FOUR TIMES the pre-grapefruit juice levels.
There are plenty of other drug/vitamin/food interactions, and what isn't
known or isn't communicated about them can do you in.
(Yes, I know they're a year old. Call me slow and I'll deny it after a
couple minutes. :)
Any other promising developments on the birth control front (beyond the
proverbial Kevlar Kondom)?
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 22:
|
Jul 8 05:54 UTC 1997 |
Maybe RU486 will get picked up by some small company with nothing to lose.
If it's their only product, or their only big product, they aren't going to
be hurt by boycotts of their other products. The RU486 customers aren't going
to boycott a company for making RU486.
|
i
|
|
response 15 of 22:
|
Jul 10 22:59 UTC 1997 |
Hmm. There are a lot of little biotech firms that could REALLY use some sort
of non-experimental, non-hypothetical product that could really be shipped
and bring in some real revenue $$$ in this decade.
|
valerie
|
|
response 16 of 22:
|
Jul 11 06:19 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 17 of 22:
|
Jul 12 04:45 UTC 1997 |
A company can't be sued for more than it has. If you have an extremely small
company and you start marketing RU486, either you become very rich, or you
get a huge lawsuit, and at the worst end up going out of business, which is
just about where you started. Yes, such a drug would be a huge risk for some
companies, but for companies with almost nothing to lose and an incredible
amount to gain, it still sounds pretty attractive.
|
valerie
|
|
response 18 of 22:
|
Jul 12 13:23 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
clees
|
|
response 19 of 22:
|
Jul 24 06:49 UTC 1997 |
Sorry to intervere, but isn't making regular use of
abortion pills putting the cart before the horse?
I mean birthcontrol should be before the conception.
My sources on the States (the most possible worst the can be: J. Springer,
haha) show that many people just hop on into bed with each other
without thinking twice.
OK, admitted in a pro choice kind of way these pills add up to
the personal freedom of women.
|
i
|
|
response 20 of 22:
|
Jul 25 00:13 UTC 1997 |
(The worst case is somewhat mollified by the fact that a barely-scraping-
by-for-lack-of-$$$ company is a far less tempting target for a lawsuit.)
Re: #19
My understanding is that RU486 isn't nearly easy/neat/cheap/painless/etc. to
be a primary birth control method - it's a somewhat-better-than-most
abortion method. Certainly there are plenty of fools out there who don't
bother doing birth control right, then get abortions (often repeatedly)
when nature takes its course. But no birth control method (ignoring
virginity, etc.) is 100% reliable, no matter how carefully & consistently
used. Which means that (assuming you don't want the baby that you care-
fully tried not to have) a good way is needed to handle birth control
failures.
|
scg
|
|
response 21 of 22:
|
Jul 25 06:25 UTC 1997 |
I don't think most Americans "just hop into bed with eachother without
thinking twice." There certainly are some that do, maybe even many, which
was the word you used, depending on how you define many, but it certainly
isn't the norm. Sex is something Americans tend to be pretty uptight about.
If everybody were like the people on talk shows, then people wouldn't need
to watch talk shows to hear people like that.
|
clees
|
|
response 22 of 22:
|
Jul 25 09:54 UTC 1997 |
That's true, of course. If I would've thought that these talkshows are
a true representtion of the american society I am just dumb as the
low lifes that appear in such show. They amuse me, though.
Many in absolute numbers could be high taking into account that
the states inhabit more than 200 milion people (the exact number
I do not know). In percentages of the entire population it
could be a small number. How these figures are formed in
demographics I know even less about. For instance:
are there figures known of educational
level, ethnicity and the like?
|