On May 4, 2015 The New York Times released an article about Essure by journalist Roni Rabin
(click NYT below to view article)
In response to that article, Bayer released their own statement, which the Times would not print.
We've added in our own thoughts to that statement as you read along!
Bayer letter to editor of The New York Times regarding recent story about Essure® permanent birth control
May 8, 2015 5:17 PM
WHIPPANY, N.J., May 8, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- In response to a May 4, 2015 story in The New York Times about Essure® permanent birth control, Bayer submitted the following letter to the editor, which The New York Times refused to publish in its entirety:
(most likely, because they believe the truth)
Women deserve access to a wide range of (safe) contraceptive options, and Essure is (dangerous and not worth the risks) an important non-surgical (hmmm really? Dr Zampaglione called it surgical the other day… “There is a surgical procedure associated with placing Essure”) and non-hormonal option for women who have completed their families and want permanent birth control. ( but doctors are eager to insert these into women in their TWENTIES when tubal ligation has always been refused to women of this age group, yet it is still sterilization!) However, no medical device, procedure, or even drug is completely free of side effects. (the risks of Essure are too great for permanent birth control)
To the Editor:
Re: "Long-Term Data on Complications Adds to Criticism of Contraceptive Implant" (May 4, 2015), Roni Rabin mischaracterizes a recently published long term study on Essure. This well-designed, well-executed study ( where did 30% of the participants go?) reinforces the safety and efficacy of the device and the procedure. ( really? maybe we read a different report?) The side effects reported (which ones?) are consistent with numerous other scientific studies (short term studies with small numbers) and the Instructions for Use on Essure – which the FDA approved in 2002 and then reevaluated in 2013.(they only looked at the same data provided 13 years ago, fraudulent data)