So, the FDA has a meeting, at which they decide that there needs to be more investigation because the link between the drug and the infections is not clear, and that's "dithering"? I thought the idea was that the FDA should make decisions based on the scientific evidence, rather than politics. If they really don't have enough information to know whether RU-486 is more dangerous than the alternatives in terms of causing/facilitating an infection, what would you have them do? Make up answers to women's reproductive health questions? Should they say that RU-486 is totally safe even if it isn't, or if they don't know? Should they defend a drug just because there will be congressional hearings on it and right-to-lifers will use what they say for their own purposes? How does that protect women's health?

I apologize, I read only one thing from this entry: there's a correlation between toxic shock syndrome and delivering? I'm so glad I keep a convenient "things to occupy mind during labor" list handy... Seriously, though, that makes sense considering what's going on in labor. What doesn't make sense is the suggestion that contractions draw anything up into the uterus, that theory was discredited back when someone posited that women have orgasms to draw sperm into their uterus. Turns out the orgasmic contractions were onward and outwards like men's, it makes even more sense that contractions aiming to deposit a child out of the uterus would head outwards rather than inwards, too.

Page...

Has anyone looked at the douching practices of these gals?

My interest would be in normal or 'disturbed' vaginal flora...the 'good bacteria' thinking.

I really think a'probiotic' approach might be useful...to think about at least

And I see in the NYT yest. that you gals still can't tell your perineal orifices apart.

according to one benighted Ob-Gyn.

Be well