As successful as IVF

[nimnom1]

This article appeared in the Australian media recently so I'm posting it here in case it helps anyone:

www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/babies/the-free-infertility-cure-thats-as-successful-as-ivf/news-story/829a1828a1ef853e59494dc48e9ebd35

It talks about a recent study that showed flushing the Fallopian tubes with poppy seed oil results in 40% of previously infertile women getting pregnant!

It's just an hsg. Routinely offered on the NHS. Plus only helps women with blocked tubes obviously. Sorry, there's no miracle cure

I had this done two and a half years ago at a cost of around £500-600 at a private hospital. Did jack shit.

it doesn't actually clear tubes either it just shows up any blockages and it hurts for days.

Fair enough. Just thought it might be of interest. Is 1100 people a very big data set anyway? That's how many women were in the study.

The trial just compares two kinds of dye. Yes op 1100 is a reasonable number! However these preg trials are hard to assess as reasons for infertility are multiple and most these couples won't have a diagnosis yet, so it's hard to know what caused the change , iyswim

40% of women getting pregnant within 6 months is pretty average even without flushing the tubes... (and nowhere did the article say that the women in his study were infertile in the first place...)

I think there is a bit of anecdotal evidence that it might help in a very small minority of infertility cases. However, vast majority of infertile couples wouldn't not benefit from it whatsoever...

Frankly, the article is a pathetic attempt at attention grabbing.

I probably should have posted the information from a more reputable source but I the study was done on infertile women, actually, JoJo. Here is a better article:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170518174013.htm

Also, I agree you sceptical about these things. In the other hand, it's good to be open to new information

depends on why they are infertile. blocked tubes? fine if its a case of flushing debris out but if its adhesions, hormonal imbalance, lack of eggs, bad quality eggs, etc then it won't make a blind bit of difference. If you know for sure the reason behind the infertility then that will be your biggest and best step forward.

I got pregnant after a HSG. I'd had ectopic pregnancies though so it probably flushed some debris out. Think they dye wasn't going through to start with and then did after a flush.

I've just read the actual study and can see how it has been turned into gimmicky articles in the press but actually isn't all that impressive.

The women in the study were under 39. Other exclusions were of women with PCOS or other hormonal problems or moderate/severe male factor (mild was included). 20-25% received IUIs and most of those involved stimulation to produce 2-3 eggs(!). And a few had an IVF or even ICSI... (all included in the stats).

The authors did note that they followed up with the couples that had originally been excluded from their study and... pregnancy rates were the same (!).

Looking at ttc statistics, out of the couples who aren't successful in their first year, about 40% go on to conceive in their second or third year.

Given the pregnancy rates in the study and the proportion of couples that met inclusion criteria for the study, I think HSG only made a small difference that to me seems in line with the anecdotal evidence that I read about here and there. So I'd guesstimate at more like 4% than 40%.

Wow! That's such irresponsible reporting then. I'm such a fool with these things because I have to have hope. Thanks for dispelling it, JoJo. They should be more honest - as should the people running the study. Their quotes were pretty misleading too ☹️