Natural fertility methods better than IVF ?

Nevyn · 15-09-2008 8:59am #1

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4749677.ece

From The Sunday Times
September 14, 2008
Natural fertility methods better than IVF
A Dublin-based study carried out by Utah University in America has questioned the effectiveness of in-vitro fertilisation
The hidden fallout of failed fertility treatment.
Sarah McInerney

Natural fertility treatment is more effective than in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), according to new research by the University of Utah in America.

It found that one in four of the 1,100 couples treated with natural methods in a clinic in Galway had successful pregnancies using natural procreative technology treatment (NPT). This compares with the most recent European success rates of 18.4% for IVF.

The research, published last week in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, has been disputed by Tony Walsh, director of the Sims Fertility Clinic in Dundrum, Dublin. He claimed the study was not scientifically sound and did not constitute proof that NPT gives comparable live birthrates to IVF. The clinic has sent a letter to the journal outlining its argument.

But the study is being hailed as a landmark paper by supporters of NPT, as it is the first research into the effectiveness of the method to be published in a peerreviewed medical journal. It also found that the number of multiple births resulting from NPT was significantly lower than using artificial methods, with only 4.6% of women becoming pregnant with more than one child.

This compares with multiple birth rates of 34% recorded in a recent American study of couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Joseph Stanford from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, the main author, said that he hoped the research would help overcome the “current information deficit” surrounding NPT.

“Many GPs and obstetricians are not aware of NPT because of a lack of published studies,” he said. “Now physicians can inform themselves of this treatment approach and hopefully recommend it to their patients.”

This sentiment was echoed by Phil Boyle, who carried out the research at the Galway clinic. “We opened 10 years ago, and I’ve had a waiting list since day one,” he said. “But that is primarily because of word of mouth. We don’t get many referrals from GPs or obstetricians because, for the most part, they don’t know enough about the procedures we carry out.”

“For some couples, IVF does not work and NPT does,” Boyle said. “Over the years we have successfully treated 140 couples who tried IVF and failed.”

Boyle said that while he didn’t wish to present NPT as a “budget fertility service” the process was also far cheaper than IVF. “On average, a couple will pay €1,000 for the whole course of treatment, in comparison to about €4,000 for IVF. While money is not the issue for a lot of couples, I think it is still relevant. Basically, I believe if there is a simpler way for people to conceive, they will take that option if they know about it.”

Walsh disagreed: “It’s like comparing apples to oranges,” he said. “The study isn’t broken down into diagnoses, it’s not broken down by age, there just isn’t enough patient analysis to make any valid statements. It’s also set over a 24-month period whereas IVF percentages are based on a monthly basis. You simply cannot compare that sort of data.”

The new research is also likely to attract interest from the Catholic church, which is a strong supporter of natural fertility methods.

What natural methods do you think should be tried by a couple trying to conceive ?

littlebug · 17-09-2008 11:21am

They don't actually explain what natural procreative treatment is

I'm off to google it now...
But as it stands the study doesn't seem to be comparing like with like.

littlebug · 17-09-2008 11:29am

Here we go

Outcomes From Treatment of Infertility With Natural Procreative Technology in an Irish General Practice
Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, Tracey A. Parnell, MD and Phil C. Boyle, MB
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (JBS)
Department of Family Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (TAP)
Galway Clinic, Ireland (PCB)
International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine, London, United Kingdom (JBS, TAP, PCB)

Correspondence: Corresponding author: Dr. Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, University of Utah, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, 375 Chipeta Way, Suite A, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 (E-mail: joseph.stanford@utah.edu)

Objectives: We evaluated outcomes in couples treated for infertility with natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology, NPT), a systematic medical approach for optimizing physiologic conditions for conception in vivo, from an Irish general practice.

Methods: All couples receiving treatment from 2 NPT-trained family physicians between February 1998 and January 2002 were studied. The main outcome was live birth, and secondary outcomes included conceptions and multiple births. Crude proportions and adjusted life-table proportions were calculated per 100 couples.

Results: A total of 1239 couples had an initial consult for NPT, of which 1072 had been trying for at least a year to conceive and initiated treatment. The average female age was 35.8 years, the mean duration of attempting to conceive was 5.6 years, 24% had a prior birth, and 33% had previously attempted treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART). All couples were taught to identify the fertile days of the menstrual cycle with the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, and most received additional medical treatment, including clomiphene (75%). In life-table analysis, the cumulative proportion of first live births for those completing up to 24 months of NPT treatment was 52.8 per 100 couples. The crude proportion was 25.5. Younger couples and couples without previous ART attempts had higher rates of live birth. Among live births, there were 4.6% twin births.

Conclusion: NPT provided by trained general practitioners had live birth rates comparable to cohort studies of more invasive treatments, including ART. Further studies are warranted to compare NPT directly to other treatments.

Bah.... I wouldn't exactly call clomid natural. So the younger people who had never had fertility treatment before were more likely to become pregnant. I wonder how the percentages compare to those of similar aged couples trying to get pregnant for the same length of time with no intervention at all or with clomid only.

Grawns · 20-09-2008 1:46pm

It It sounds like a load of church baloney to me.

I checked and I had a friend who went to an NPT clinic in Galway. Waste of time , money and a total head wreck as it was very church religous driven. She was desperate fo a child. She then tried IVF and luckily that worked. She then conceived naturally so maybe she was stressed or something and that was stopping things as she was under 30.

These people think IVF is a sin so their research is very biased.

http://www.catholic-today.co.uk/latest-news/infertile-couples-celebrate-natural-conception/

Hellrazer · 25-09-2008 9:15am

Actually it was Phil Boyle in Galway who helped us have 2 children after our problems and numerous IVF failures.

We`ve pointed 5 or 6 friends in his direction and all of them so far have been successful despite failed IVF cycles.

He claims a success rate of 25% or thereabouts and judging by past experiences Id say its even higher.

The religious bias can be a bit much but its not in any way forced upon you.

The clomid is used to evalute your cycle ie in order for him to help you,you have to have a full cycle which is monitored every few days with blood tests at various stages throughout the cycle after which the treatment cycle is precribed which may mean tiny doses of clomid especially if you are one of the few who dont ovulate naturally every month.

Id highly recommend this method especially if you have failed IVF cycles.

Mind Hunter 85 · 26-09-2008 7:03am

Congrats hellrazer
can you tell me though ,i researched napro after i read the article obviously heard of it before but never paid much attention to it .
I'm still a sceptic but i'm open to changing my views ,we've already done all natural methods of confirming ovulation and timing sex, etc, still do for almost 2years now and the medical ways confirmed it the same also, and everything is fine there, so if your have all the right things ovulation regularly without medication and sperm count is not an issue .
What exactly can Napro do to get a woman pregnant?
Because at this stage i'm gearing towards laproscopy to make sure theres no problems we dont know about ,then if all ok ,on to ivf .
thanks in advance if you can write back here or pm me .

Hellrazer · 26-09-2008 9:01am

Asta,
We were like yourselves--totally unexplained infertility.My count was fine and my wife was fine (she actually had 2 laproscopys done and they found some adhesions but not enough to explain why we wernt conceiving)
Any way the way Napro works is that its all to do with cycle tracking by examining (for want of a better word) your cervical mucus.
The way it was explained to us was that even if a person has say a 28 day cycle every month you`d expect them to ovulate on say day 14 but one of the reason that they dont conceive is that they are really ovulating either earlier or later than the "ideal" day in the cycle.It can also be a lack of or "hostile" mucus that can cause infertility and the little swimmers cant get through this hostile mucus.
Napro uses a combination of drug treatment and cycle tracking to help people concieve.In our case my wife was put on clomid (to stimulte a set day each cycle for ovulation),and Naltrexone to produce better mucus and also to stop her producing hostile mucus and also progesterone to support her hormone levels after ovulation in case a conception had occurred.

It also turned out that even though my wife had 30 day cycles and was expected to ovulate on day 14/15 she actually ovulated as early as day 12 or as late as day 17/18 so our timing was off

When going through Napro you need to get 3/4 blood tests done each month to determine what your hormone levels are and then the treatment is increased or decreased to get to the ideal levels.

I know you may be a bit sceptical about the treatment but in my opinion its what worked for us (twice) even after failed IVF cycles.And you`ve nothing to lose by trying it as you can do both together.If you do decide to try it when you ring ask to be put on the "cancellation" list as I think theres a 12 month wait at the minute but if youre on the cancellation list you could get a call to go with only 24 hours notice.

Any more questions feel free to ask.

Richie.

ASTA20 wrote: »

Congrats hellrazer
can you tell me though ,i researched napro after i read the article obviously heard of it before but never paid much attention to it .
I'm still a sceptic but i'm open to changing my views ,we've already done all natural methods of confirming ovulation and timing sex, etc, still do for almost 2years now and the medical ways confirmed it the same also, and everything is fine there, so if your have all the right things ovulation regularly without medication and sperm count is not an issue .
What exactly can Napro do to get a woman pregnant?
Because at this stage i'm gearing towards laproscopy to make sure theres no problems we dont know about ,then if all ok ,on to ivf .
thanks in advance if you can write back here or pm me .

Roots-Sinead · 28-09-2008 8:24pm

Apart from obvious medical difficulties one huge barrier to getting pregnant is stress. It affects so many of the body's systems that the knock on effect of stress can be enormous. Wanting to conceive for most, especially those who worry there may be a difficulty, is stressful enough. Add to that a few months of nothing happening despite all best efforts and care, perhaps GP visits for consultation, fertility tests etc., all increase the stress levels within the body and this impacts even further.
When the body is stressed over time it becomes completely out of balance, hormonally and physiologically not to mention emotionally. One of the first things to try in an effort to conceive 'naturally' is to sit down and assess your lives, the stress factors within them and how you each cope with those stresses. The next step is to learn how to deal with the stress so that whilst it may still be present you and your body manages it better. This may all sound 'new age etc..,' but it really is relevant.
There are some complimentary therapies which can help this process and really improve things, some will also assist the improvement of fertility. Try reflexology, acupuncture or acupressure for starters.

tdavfc · 19-10-2008 7:46pm

Dr Boyles methods will only work in unexplained cases of infertility. It's not going to work for anyone suffering with tubal infertility or if the couple are dealing with male infertility, which put together cover about 60% of all infertility issues. The above doc is making it sound like the natural method can get anyone pregnant. The fact is it can't in most cases. Take it with a pinch of salt is my advice.

Mrs tdavfc.

PS. Stress does not cause infertility.

Hellrazer · 19-10-2008 8:03pm

tdavfc wrote: »

Dr Boyles methods will only work in unexplained cases of infertility. It's not going to work for anyone suffering with tubal infertility or if the couple are dealing with male infertility, which put together cover about 60% of all infertility issues. The above doc is making it sound like the natural method can get anyone pregnant. The fact is it can't in most cases. Take it with a pinch of salt is my advice.

Mrs tdavfc.

PS. Stress does not cause infertility.

Actually I have to disagree with you there.In 2 of my friends cases which we referred to Dr Boyle both with low counts Dr Boyle has treatments which worked.He used some new steroid treatment from the states.

All I can say about him is that in our case it worked twice.And as mentioned above the 5 or 6 couples we referred to him also managed to conceive even after failed Ivf.

Te be totally honest we were as sceptical as most people with regards to his methods but after been through it we would definatel recomend anyone to try it even if they are a sceptic.
Theres nothing to lose but a lot to gain if it does work for you.

tdavfc · 20-10-2008 12:25am

Congratulations on your success!

It would be interesting to know how severe your friends male infertility was. Maybe he can do things for borderline cases, which is brilliant but I would imagine in a lot of severe male conditions (were an op has to be done to get even one sperm) it just wouldn't work. Otherwise IVF clinics would be asking their patients to try this before they start down the IVF route.

I just don't think the doc gives proper facts. It gives a lot of details of age, how long they were ttc but yet doesn't mention a very important fact when it comes to IVF and that's the condition that brought you to IVF in the first place. It says that one in four got pregnant with natural methods you can be sure none of those women had blocked tubes and this should be stated. I do agree that this approach should be considered if you are suffering from unexplained infertility and you have time on your side to hang about for a year trying.

Good to see he's brought joy to the posters above though.

Mrs tdavfc

Anorak1 · 22-10-2008 1:48pm

tdavfc wrote: »

Congratulations on your success!

It would be interesting to know how severe your friends male infertility was. Maybe he can do things for borderline cases, which is brilliant but I would imagine in a lot of severe male conditions (were an op has to be done to get even one sperm) it just wouldn't work. Otherwise IVF clinics would be asking their patients to try this before they start down the IVF route.

Sorrt tdavfc but unless youve had personal experience of Dr Boyles methods I think some of your comments are very broad and crass

My wife had 4 miscarraiges in 5 years and thanks to Dr Boyle we now have a lovely son. Fertility was not an issue in our case, unexplained recurretn miscarraige was. However I know he also has success with infertility issues

To say that if the IVF clinics believed in him they would send their patients to him is rubbish. If they did this with all of their patients how long would they stay in business

Also to say that DR Boyle is anti IVF is wrong. I have friends whom he saw a few times and then told that they should explore the IVF route (which they have since successfully done) as he could not help their particular case.

And yes Dr Boyle's methods and the Natpro technology are religious based but so what. The end game is to have a successful pregnancy end of story

Anorak1 · 22-10-2008 1:51pm

Sorry tdavfc didnt mean to imply that you said they were anti IVF it was Grawns who said that

tdavfc · 22-10-2008 2:50pm

Anorak,

Firstly can I say how sorry I am that your wife had to go through 4 MCs I know how very hard that must have been on you both…

As for my posts, where in any of my posts did I say anything bad about Dr Boyle. I actually said his approach should be tried first if you are suffering with unexplained infertility. I am not disagreeing with DR Boyle just the document in the original post for it’s lack of information.

Anorak1 wrote: »

To say that if the IVF clinics believed in him they would send their patients to him is rubbish. If they did this with all of their patients how long would they stay in business

My answer to that would be, sadly for a very long time... Because Dr Boyle can't get everyone pregnant especially women who have blocked tubes, no uterus, certain cancer patients, certain male factors. This list goes on...
Why do you think IVF clinics wouldn't use a different approach if they thought it would work before trying IVF. The fact is they do. I've been attending fertility clinics for the past 7 years and have tried many different options on the advice of IVF clinics before starting IVF so you are wrong to think that IVF clinics just say hey lets just go straight into IVF.

And as for your comments about religion I really don't know what you're talking about because I never mentioned religion once.

My point was not about Dr Boyles methods it was about the OP dou that didn't mention that Dr can't get you pregnant with certain infertility issues like tubal infertiliy and certain male factors. I like to see all of the facts not just the ones poeple think that look good on paper... Just my opinion though...

Oh and yes I did consider Dr Boyle as an option but as both my tubes are completely blocked he wouldn't have been able to help me out.

Mrs tdavfc

LadyMP · 24-10-2008 11:00am

Hi everyone

Just surfing on in here from Wales, UK

We've been through the infertility mill as well. My hubby has a low sperm count - around 10 million per ml, which is only half what is classed as "borderline normal" (the lowest level of "normal" is 20 million per ml). I'm pretty much OK.

3 years ago we were tested by our fertility clinic in Cardiff after trying for 2 years and we were told we needed IVF with ICSI - (ie £4,500 of treatment, not sure what that is in Euros - about 4,000 I beleive). No attempt was made to try any other forms of therapy, the Consultant even scoffed derisively when I told him I was taking my temperatures and tracking my cycles. Apparently ICSI was the only thing which would give us a baby.

We couldn't really afford to fund privately and the NHS waiting list is around 4 years so we basically sat back and looked at our options. Egg share? Forget IVF and go for adoption? Donor Sperm?

Next thing I knew, I was pregnant. Naturally.

My son was born in November 2006 and we've been trying again all this year, with no luck. Been back to the fertility clinic, re-tested. Hubby's sperm count even worse than it was back in 2005. We were told - guess what - "You need IVF with ICSI".

Again, no attempt to find out why his count is so low, no attempt to try more "natural" (and cheaper!) treatments, even though we are obviously capable of having a child without help (the proof of this is running around trashing my living room as I type this!).

Why are they directing us straight to ICSI and discounting simpler methods? In my view its money. These clinics exist to make money - they are businesses. They'd prefer you to pay £4,500 (or 4,000 Euro) for a cycle of ICSI than £100 for a cycle or so on Clomid.

I read about Dr Boyle with great interest and am actually trying to find out some details on his clinic, I would be quite happy to travel to Galway and pay 1,000 Euro for some natural help instead of being expected to take out a huge bank loan to go through a painful, difficult and stressful procedure which we might not even need.

Its my view that, except in cases where there is no sperm, tubes are blocked, etc etc people should be encouraged to try natural methods. We're living proof that even those who are told "you'll never do it without IVF" can do it naturally. At the end of the day these clinics want your money and thats just cold hard fact.

Hope I haven't offended anyone but I do feel very strongly about this.

On another note, has anyone got a link or any further info about Dr Boyle's clinic? I'd definitely like to look into getting some help from him . . .

Anorak1 · 24-10-2008 1:39pm

If you Google Galway Clinic you will get phone numbers etc. I have number if you want to pm but not sure if I should post it here

Also Google Natpro and you will get more info on some of the techniques

Attending Dr Boyle is (in my mind anyway) relatively inexpensive. He charges Eur 200 per visit but you probably only see him 2 or 3 times .

The rest of the time you visit one of his people in your local area who help with the charting of cycles etc you need to do. They charge Eur 50 or so a time and you probably see them once a month

In the meantime you need to chart cycles , have bloods taken regularly etc so that the Dr can assess what treatments will work best

Hope this helps

Dr Tracey · 26-10-2008 12:54am

littlebug wrote: »

Here we go

Bah.... I wouldn't exactly call clomid natural. So the younger people who had never had fertility treatment before were more likely to become pregnant. I wonder how the percentages compare to those of similar aged couples trying to get pregnant for the same length of time with no intervention at all or with clomid only.

You're right, clomid isn't natural! The "natural" refers to the ability to conceive using a natural act of intercourse and to the focus on correcting abnormalities, restoring natural reproductive ability.

There is some data on comparable younger patients with fewer years of infertility that should address your question of how the percentages compare:

In a 1985 quasi population-basedstudy, there was an overall conception rate of 48 per 100 couples for all causes of infertility after 2 years of treatment, adjusted by life-table analysis (treatments included ovulation induction,artificial insemination, hormonal treatment, and/or surgery).44Again, the population in this study was much younger (women's mean age, 28 years) than our study; had a much lower duration of infertility before treatment (mean duration, 2.4 years);and excluded couples that had previously attempted ART. Closer to comparison with our study, the subgroup of women with unexplained infertility of 5 or more years’ duration had a 2-year adjusted pregnancy rate of approximately 30%, compared with 53% in our study.

Hope that helps!

Dr Tracey · 26-10-2008 1:03am

Grawns wrote: »

It It sounds like a load of church baloney to me.

I checked and I had a friend who went to an NPT clinic in Galway. Waste of time , money and a total head wreck as it was very church religous driven. She was desperate fo a child. She then tried IVF and luckily that worked. She then conceived naturally so maybe she was stressed or something and that was stopping things as she was under 30.

These people think IVF is a sin so their research is very biased.

http://www.catholic-today.co.uk/latest-news/infertile-couples-celebrate-natural-conception/

Actually, the study was conducted by an external agency, the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine with no religious connections and certainly no such bias. We're largely academic research physicians who are simply trying to better understand and treat infertility. IVF certainly can work for some (as does superovulation and artificial insemination), but these approaches don't address the underlying medical conditions that cause the infertility. NPT is focussed on diagnosing and correcting these conditions; our hope is to be able to actually CURE many causes of infertility in the future.

Dr Tracey · 26-10-2008 1:19am

tdavfc wrote: »

Dr Boyles methods will only work in unexplained cases of infertility. It's not going to work for anyone suffering with tubal infertility or if the couple are dealing with male infertility, which put together cover about 60% of all infertility issues. The above doc is making it sound like the natural method can get anyone pregnant. The fact is it can't in most cases. Take it with a pinch of salt is my advice.

Mrs tdavfc.

PS. Stress does not cause infertility.

NPT works well for many types of infertility, not just unexplained infertility. There's a Table in the study that may be useful (www.jabfm.com). The reality is that after standard infertility workup nearly half of all patients are told they have "unexplained" infertility and this is reflected in the numbers seen in the Galway clinic. NPT can work for almost any type of infertility, with the exception of women with no reproductive organs, established menopause, or bilateral tubal occlusion that can not be corrected by specialized NPT surgery. Patients with sperm counts as low as 1 million are considered candidates for treatment. There are in fact reports of success with levels much lower than this, though we need to analyze a larger patient population before we can confirm this.

Hope this helps clarify things for you!

Dr Tracey · 26-10-2008 1:32am

tdavfc wrote: »

Congratulations on your success!

It would be interesting to know how severe your friends male infertility was. Maybe he can do things for borderline cases, which is brilliant but I would imagine in a lot of severe male conditions (were an op has to be done to get even one sperm) it just wouldn't work. Otherwise IVF clinics would be asking their patients to try this before they start down the IVF route.

I just don't think the doc gives proper facts. It gives a lot of details of age, how long they were ttc but yet doesn't mention a very important fact when it comes to IVF and that's the condition that brought you to IVF in the first place. It says that one in four got pregnant with natural methods you can be sure none of those women had blocked tubes and this should be stated. I do agree that this approach should be considered if you are suffering from unexplained infertility and you have time on your side to hang about for a year trying.

Good to see he's brought joy to the posters above though.

Mrs tdavfc

Please see Table 2. It should address the issue of diagnoses that you raise. The study does make it clear that NPT isn't an option for established menopause, uncorrected tubal occlusion or men with an absence of sperm production. Please remember that surgical NPT was not available during the study, but it can address many surgical conditions including tubal and pelvic reconstruction. You are correct in assuming NPT may take time to work...this is also discussed in the paper as some couples may weigh this when making their decision.

IVF clinics focus on the techniques they are familiar with and good at...largely superovulation, artificial insemination, and IVF. NPT takes a different approach, focussing on restoring natural reproductive function. Patients just need to know about the choices they have so they can make an informed choice...that's what this study starts to do.

Dr Tracey · 26-10-2008 1:40am

LadyMP wrote: »

Hi everyone

Just surfing on in here from Wales, UK

Its my view that, except in cases where there is no sperm, tubes are blocked, etc etc people should be encouraged to try natural methods. We're living proof that even those who are told "you'll never do it without IVF" can do it naturally.

Hope I haven't offended anyone but I do feel very strongly about this.

On another note, has anyone got a link or any further info about Dr Boyle's clinic? I'd definitely like to look into getting some help from him . . .

Hi!

There are also clinics in the UK that may be of assistance to you. I do agree...we have a number of patients who have been told repeatedly that their only option was "ICSI" or "egg donation" that now have beautiful NPT babies! Our hope is to restore natural reproductive ability and we find that this is helpful for the majority of patients who present for care.

For patients seeking help, you may wish to take advantage of the international referral service offered by the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (www.reproductivemedicine.com). Just look under patient, and then patient inquiries.

Hope that's helpful!

Sincerely,

Tracey

Dr Tracey · 26-10-2008 4:29am

Dr Tracey wrote: »

Hi!

There are also clinics in the UK that may be of assistance to you. I do agree...we have a number of patients who have been told repeatedly that their only option was "ICSI" or "egg donation" that now have beautiful NPT babies! Our hope is to restore natural reproductive ability and we find that this is helpful for the majority of patients who present for care.

For patients seeking help, you may wish to take advantage of the international referral service offered by the International Institute of Restorative Reproductive Medicine (www.reproductiveinstitute.com). Just look under patient, and then patient inquiries.

Hope that's helpful!

Sincerely,

Tracey

Correction. The website is www.reproductiveinstitute.com or www.iirrm.org.

Sorry!

Nevyn · 28-10-2008 3:34pm

Please be aware that this site can not be seen to publish medical advice
and that if someone as dr in thier sig or says they are a dr this does not mean that they are.

Dr Tracey · 28-10-2008 6:38pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Please be aware that this site can not be seen to publish medical advice
and that if someone as dr in thier sig or says they are a dr this does not mean that they are.

Thanks Thaedydal! You are absolutely correct...just someone saying they're a doctor doesn't mean they are and absolutely no medical advice should be given on a website like this. If you have medical issues, the best way to address them is with a doctor who can see and assess you in person. These sites are great for general information and discussion, but individual circumstances still need to be assessed for each person!

Somehow I lost my introductory post...I was directed to this site in hopes that I would be able to answer some of the questions posted about the study. As one of the study author's I was happy to do so. For further information, readers can go to www.reproductiveinstitute.com. There is an opportunity there for general questions and information.

I am happy to answer questions about the study or NPT research!

Thanks,

Tracey

navan01 · 09-01-2013 12:34pm

hi, i'm new to boards

my hubby and i are going to start IVF early spring. it will be our 1st shot. i'm very nervous. Wondering if anyone has used Merrrion Fertility for IVF? did they find them good?

Natural fertility methods better than IVF ?

Comments