Abortionist makes startling under-oath admissions about 'abortion pill reversal'

Abortionist Mitchell Creinin, a "national and international expert on medication abortion" whose questionable study attacked the abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol, admitted during a deposition that he could not swear under oath there is "no evidence that APR works."

Key Takeaways:

• Abortionist/researcher Mitchell Creinin — whose tiny study on 'abortion pill reversal' (APR) has deceptively been used to claim that APR (use of bioidentical progesterone to counter the actions of the abortion pill mifepristone) is dangerous — couldn't swear under oath one way or the other about the effectiveness of APR.

• Creinin admitted in a deposition that, while he doesn't "recommend" progesterone for women, "in the short term, it's safe" and agreed that "progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she's under medical supervision."

• He admitted that attempting to "do statistical analyses on ten people or three people" is "not science," yet this is exactly what his APR study (with just 12 participants) attempted to do.

• Creinin's study was funded by the Society for Family Planning, yet he stated he didn't believe that this was a conflict of interest even though he is a founding member of SFP, served as former deputy editor of SFP’s official journal, and currently sits on the journal's editorial board.

• In the past, Creinin has stated that he believes contraception and abortion are important to keep the world's population in check.

The Details:

In the deposition, Creinin also discussed the fact that he committed over 5,000 abortions and has been on the payroll of abortion pill manufacturer Danco Laboratories.

Creinin's declaration stated:

I am a clinical expert in the provision of abortion, having provided care for over 5,000 patients as an integral component of my practice.... I teach on topics related to abortion, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and contraception.

Backdrop for Deposition

‘Abortion pill reversal’ (APR), a protocol which uses the hormone progesterone to assist women who change their minds after taking the first drug (mifepristone) of the abortion pill regimen, has come under fire by states led largely by pro-abortion politicians.

Creinin's deposition was taken in response to a lawsuit (People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & Real Options) filed by the State of California. It alleges that pro-life organizations “used fraudulent and misleading claims to advertise an unproven and largely experimental procedure called ‘abortion pill reversal (APR).'”

To make his case, California Attorney General Rob Bonta gathered evidence from radically pro-abortion sources, some with ties to the abortion pill’s manufacturer.

• September 2023: CA AG Bonta announced the state's lawsuit (The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & Real Options).

• February 2024: The Thomas More Society filed a response asking the California Superior Court to throw out the lawsuit.

• June 2024: Court denies Heartbeat's challenges to jurisdiction and to the complaint after the initial hearing.

• February 2026: Heartbeat International (HBI) which operates the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN), claimed the protocol has saved "more than 8,000 lives."

The trial is slated to begin on June 24, 2026.

Creinin's APR 'Study'

Creinin's study — which has been heavily criticized as being unreliable and even deceptive in its conclusions — has been used to allege that “abortion pill reversal” is unsafe, despite the fact that progesterone has been safely administered to women at risk of miscarriage for decades.

This study sought to enroll 40 participants, but utilized just 12 participants; it was halted after two women dropped out and three women experienced “severe hemorrhage requiring ambulance transport to hospital.” Creinin's deposition later acknowledged one of those patients "did not arrive by ambulance."

Two of those three women received only the abortion pill and a placebo (in other words, no progesterone to counter the effects of the abortion pill), and one received progesterone only.

Creinin's minuscule study was funded by the Society of Family Planning (SFP) — an organization founded with a “generous contribution” from the David & Lucile Packard Foundation and receiving millions from the Buffett Foundation (both early investors in the abortion pill).

Creinin was a founding member of SFP, serving as former deputy editor of SFP’s official journal – Contraception – and currently on the journal's editorial board.

Asked about the reputation of SFP, Creinin admitted in deposition that "I don't always agree with everything, all their statements or whatever."

When asked, "Do you think that there is a conflict of interest with you being one of the founding members of SFP?" Creinin responded, "Heck, no."

Admissions about APR

1) Progesterone used "Off Label" is "Safe"

Abortion proponents often criticize the APR protocol for "off label" usage, yet Creinin admitted to prescribing progesterone "off-label."

He clarified:

I don't recommend it. I offer it to patients and tell them the pros and cons, and it's the patient who decides if she wants to use it... In the short term, it's safe. In the long term, there is an association with thyroid cancer. So it's up to them to decide if the... potential benefit outweighs the potential risk.

Creinin agreed that "progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she's under medical supervision."

In the deposition, Creinin was asked, "Do you recall what you meant when you made this statement" in an e-mail, which read, "Note that claims about progesterone being safe are true, but that is not the safety issue here."

Creinin responded:

It's very similar to the questions you've just been asking me. Progesterone may be safe, but the safety issue here is about not using misoprostol.

2) No Evidence APR Doesn't Work

Creinin was asked, "Can you swear under oath that APR does not work?"

He responded, "My answer is yes, but I can also say that I have no evidence that it does work."

Asked to clarify "yes" or "no" Creinin stated:

I'll make it clear. I cannot swear under oath.

I can swear, okay... There is... no evidence that APR works, and there is no evidence that it does (sic) work.

So what I can swear under oath is both of those.

Asked, "Can you swear under oath that APR is unsafe?"

Creinin responded:

"Safety" is how you define it. But if if you want to talk about side effects, giving progesterone is unlikely to cause significant side effects.

If there is no benefit to the treatment, there is a potential for something long-term that could be a problem. Right? So depends how you, again, define "safety."

3) Statistical Analyses on Ten People 'Not Science'

During the deposition, Creinin unknowingly discredited his own study, which involved a small sample size of just 12 participants:

• Q: "How many medical organizations are you aware of internationally that disagree with ACOG's position on APR?" A: "Other than the associations related to pro-life organizations, I'm not aware of any.

• Q: "And how many of those associated with pro-life organizations are you aware of? ... They don't count to you, though." A: "They are...bound to uphold science in the same way, and they demonstrate they don't when they try to do statistical analyses on ten people or three people. That's not science. So if they're not going to do science right, then then they're misinterpreting data, very similar to how the FDA currently is."

• Q: "They did statistical analysis on ten people? Is that what you said?" A: "If they want to try to do that kind of stuff, then that's not science."

In response, Creinin was asked, "That sounds like what you did, though, doesn't it?"

4) Admitted to being a consultant for abortion pill manufacturer, Danco Laboratories

Creinin's declaration also acknowledged his work as a "consultant" for abortion pill manufacturer, Danco Laboratories:

I have provided consultative services for Danco Laboratories since 2002.

As a small pharmaceutical company without a full-time medical division, Danco contracts with a few experts to be available to provide consultation to medical professionals who contact the company with medical questions about their product, which is a requirement for them as a company.

I get paid $300/month for this service and have been paid the same amount for the duration of my service.

Creinin is a professor at the University of California Davis (UCD) and the Director of Complex Family Planning Fellowship at their Medical School.

Carole Novielli

@CaroleNovielli

·Follow

Replying to @CaroleNovielli

4/ Mitchell D Creinin is a consultant for abortion pill manufacturer, receiving consulting fees $$/ honorarium f/ DANCO liveaction.org/news/whos-who-… #AbortionPillReversal #prolife #UCSF #Gynuity #SelfManagedAbortion

6:15 PM · Apr 18, 2019

2

Reply

Copy link

Read 1 reply

In 2002, Creinin was sent a corrections letter by the FDA for another study, where he was cited for:

• Failure to ensure that the requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent were met

• Failure to conduct the study in accordance with the investigational plan

• Failure to maintain complete, accurate, and current records relating to the investigation

Zoom In:

In 2010, Creinin published "Family planning, population growth, and the environment" where he claimed, "Family planning is the most humane and viable strategy for human survival" and "environmental justice."

The editorial read, in part (emphases added):

The wild card effects of global warming and degradation of ecosystem services contribute further to our concerns about overpopulation... Both rich and poor nations have a responsibility to limit family size and future population growth.

The world cannot sustain unchecked consumption in rich nations, nor high fertility in poor nations.

Asked in the deposition about the editorial, Creinin stated:

Family planning is contraception and abortion. It allows people to have pregnancies and be pregnant and have children when they want to.

... The biggest part of our carbon footprint issue right now is that we have more users than the earth can handle, so that the earth is not able to recreate what we need on a yearly basis.

So we're using more of the earth's resources and affecting the environment on a yearly basis than the earth can regenerate or provide. So the biggest problem, in my opinion, along with my coauthor -- one of the biggest problems is the amount of the population on the earth.

The more users there are, the more we use up the earth, and the more the earth can't provide appropriate food and environmental sustainability for us to survive as a people.

Will this affect us in 1,000 years, in 10,000 years?

Who knows?·

But the environmental science had demonstrated that this is one of the biggest problems we have.

So family planning, which is part of people controlling if and when they have children based on what they want, is a big part of the -- I don't want to say "solution" -- but of the answers to this problem that we've been dealing with for 50 years.