Monday 28 Jul
 photo BO-Button1_zps13524083.jpg


OKG Newsletter

Letters to the Editor


Dr. Dominic Pedulla March 27th, 2013

Recent research has clarified how emergency contraceptives, or ECs, work.

Recent research has clarified how emergency contraceptives, or ECs, work.

Seldom suppressing egg release, ECs are often “embryocidal,” as European medical authorities stated in 2009, destroying life before implantation.

Game-changing recent studies precisely revealed how the most popular ECs work. Chilean researchers attempted to definitively show Plan B chiefly suppresses ovulation without embryocidal effects and thus cannot threaten the already-conceived embryo.

But they demonstrated unhindered ovulation up to 86 percent of the time, admitting this suggests “other mechanisms” make it 100-percent effective when taken during the fertile period.

We already knew emergency contraceptives couldn’t block sperm from uniting with eggs, so if eggs can reach sperm, conceived embryos are at risk. This study was a disaster for researchers focused on exonerating ECs as embryocide. Even worse, their own data provided a most unwelcome explanation, considering their quest to prove Plan B non-embryocidal. Plan B interferes with the luteinizing hormone “surge” affecting not ovulation, but functions needed for embryo survival.

Despite discovering effectiveness came through interfering with embryo survival, the researchers manipulatively reported that since Plan B does not work when given after ovulation, it cannot have post-ovulation effects. But a chain of causally linked events occurs here, much like sabotaging an airplane’s landing mechanism that, even though done before taking off, nonetheless operates when landing.

We now know how Plan B prevents pregnancy. Let the reader not be deceived. Given before ovulation, it largely does not prevent union of sperm and egg but rather inhibits pre-implantation embryo survival.

Why has this knowledge eluded some of my colleagues? Do they not have before them the same studies I have? Within certain specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, are physicians even permitted to disagree with the party line? Is dissent from “contraceptive progress” even tolerated? Are we witnessing a new, irrational ideology pushing “progress” at all costs and punishing the dissenters?

If a paper concludes falsely that the danger everyone worried about is disproved once and for all, yet a proper reading of that same paper leads to the opposite conclusion, must these specialists suspend their critical faculties and remain in slavish conformity, like a corrupt and dishonest party platform?

And we call this freedom?

—Dr. Dominic M. Pedulla, Oklahoma City

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


03.29.2013 at 03:36 Reply

Are we to be scandalized by this?  How many fertilized embryos fail to implant naturally, many without the woman's knowledge?  And how many day-old embryos have family, friends, hopes, fears or desires, like an adult woman, much less a brain, or ability to feel pain?


04.02.2013 at 09:49 Reply

In response to Embryonic by Dr. Dominic M. Pedulla (Gazette 3-27-13) I have to admit that I am taken back by a man of science being so disconnected from the idea that unchecked procreation will not have negative consequences in the long term.
Within the past 100 years the world population has grown by approximately 5 billion people.  I realize the Bible says to be fruitful; I get that, however, the Bible didn’t account for 7 billion people with extended life expectancies thanks to the kind of medicine that Dr. Pedulla practices.  It stands to reason that if mankind did not make advances in medicine we really would have to procreate as the Bible prescribes (no pun intended). 
To argue against emergency contraception one can equally argue against medically assisted life extension, for if one asserts that contraception goes against God’s will, then one must believe that all medical intervention also goes against his will.  God didn’t create pacemakers, stints, artificial hearts, dialysis machines, and it’s a safe bet he never intended for humans to have heart valves from pigs.
Assuming world population stays its course, it’s expected to hit 9 billion by 2050.  It would appear that by that point we may very well be negotiating the End of Days as that egregious population scrambles for limited resources.
My point is the same one I’ve tried to make in previous letters; we need to conserve the resources that we have.  With oil being a major component in pesticides, shortages could very well bring about crop short-falls and starvation; a hefty price to pay for dumping it down the gullets of our cars.  If Dr. Pedulla’s office were tall enough to see over Integris hospital, he would have a very telling view of Lake Hefner , and a stark reminder that water is also a precious and limited resource.  Something easily forgotten as long as the tap works without fail.
As someone who would like to be a father, I understand the desire to save embryos, but there is a dichotomy here that extremely ironic in nature.  It is impossible to imagine a future with continued life extension through medical science without the older generation(s) becoming an impedance to the newer generations. 
Emergency Contraception might not be ideal for those who seek some form of religious absolution, but it may actually be preventing or staving-off the worst prophetic parts of the Bible.  It is unwise to procreate under the supposition that the deus ex machina is going to save us from war, famine, and related suffering at the 11th hour. 
I, for one, am in no hurry to see humanity tear itself apart, but unless God’s plan involves starships and extraplanetary colonization we probably shouldn’t rally against “contraceptive progress.”


04.11.2013 at 07:50

It's a shame that the Gazette didn't publish your sentiments, since apparently your notion of finding other planets to inhabit are shared with Professor Stephen Hawking.  Of course, you're a nobody, so you can't really blame them.