.funkyblue { color:#0000AF; }
According to my naturopath who was intrumental in helping me achieve a successful pregnancy, you can take drugs (of the IVF variety) while on herbs, but according to my doctor you can not take herbs while on the drugs. Who is right and who is wrong? Both and neither.
What it comes down to is that when you've put an exorbitant amount of money (equivalent to the down payment on a BMW) in the pocket of a doctor and their clinic but only paid fifty dollars for a bottle of herbs, the strong inclination is to go with what the doctor said. It's a form of looking after your investment, making sure it gets a return. You can gamble with fifty dollars but not five thousand.
There's also the emotional investment. To undertake the rigorous and demanding IVF drug routine and procedures takes a lot of inner strength from you, unlike putting a tablespoon of herbs in a glass of water. So when subjected to the former the inclination is to do it as the booklet requires.
However, in terms of success rates for either approach on its own, there is overwhelming research to support either. It is what you feel comfortable with. I couldn't have thrown myself into the rigors of IVF in the early stages of my struggle to conceive, I just wasn't psychologically prepared for it and, whatever approach you choose, it is extremely important for you to feel right with it, to believe in it.
I have no doubts whatsoever that the herbal regime that I was on until succumbing to IVF played a major role in the success of IVF. The herbs cleaned out and toned out my reproductive system and in that way were immeasurably helpful.
So, IVF herbs vs IVF drugs - both have their usefulness and to my mind both played a role in the conception of my daughter.
To find out how herbs can help prepare for a successful IVF cycle, do have a look at Stacey Roberts' aka "The Baby Maker's" eBook ‘Herbs and IVF' here »
I'm convinced it was her ground-breaking formulas that got me across the line at my first attempt at IVF.
Jodi Panayotov
.
What's wrong with this sentence? ‘Fertility Treatments may not produce more babies'.
Well for starters, as the reproductive equivalent of ‘Osama Bin Laden may not have caused September 11', it instantly upends everything those of us struggling to reproduce have believed until now.
In news fresh (9 August 2008) out of Scotland Aberdeen to be specific, researchers studied 580 couples and came to that conclusion. But how did they go about it?
They divided the group into three.
First a placebo group who received no treatment, except, and I can hardly stand this, they were counselled on "the need to have regular sex".
‘And what, doctor, do you mean by regular sex?'
‘You know, sir, the, ah, penis in the, how shall I put it? Er, vagina..yes, vagina. That method.'
Stunned silence as couple look at each other, thinking, who would have thought?
So there was a second group who took Clomid and the other who had IUI (artificial insemination where the sperm is sent kicking and screaming into the womb via syringe).
At this point it must be pointed out that all of the couples had been diagnosed with ‘unexplained infertility', otherwise known as ‘the too-hard-basket'.
It was the results that surprised, well, everyone. Especially the doctors. There were twenty-six babies produced with the help of Clomid, forty-three by IUI and an encouraging thirty-two produced by the people who'd apparently forgotten to have sex until they were reminded.
According to Allan Pacey, from the University of Sheffield, secretary of the British Fertility Society and king of the understatement, "It's not in the realm that you would expect it to be if these treatments were really performing."
Still, he conceded that IUI was useful in certain situations, especially with donor sperm.
Could this mean the end of Clomid as a fertility treatment? No, as it has long been linked to the successful pregnancies of women who have problems ovulating. Yet for others it may be more useful to spend the money on lingerie instead of filling a Clomid script.