daily mail headline today

[Mrs T]

Did any of you see todays daily mail ?
"IVF BABIES IN HEALTH ALERT"
I bought the paper today because of the headine... didnt notice any other paper carrying the same headline!
If you did read it.... would it/does it put you of IVF?
...... I start my IVF treatment on Monday...

 

[Mrs R]

I did see the headline but didn't buy the paper. What was the story about hun?

 

[Mrs T]

said 30% of ivf babies are more likely to suffer from birth defects and that ivf could lead to life threatening disabilitys, esp if ICSI techique is used. HFEA will be publishing guidlines by October and fertility speciliasts must advise clients by then. Sounded a bit scary but it also mentioned that many ivf are perfectly healthy too.

 

[Caroline]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...en-30-cent-likely-defects-warns-watchdog.html


Link to article if anyone wants it.

 

[CurlySue]

It makes sense though doesn't it? If we were to conceive naturally then the best egg and the best sperm would create the best embryo. With IVF the eggs are force produced and placed in an unnatural environment with the sperm. The whole natural selection process is bypassed.

 

[Mrs T]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...en-30-cent-likely-defects-warns-watchdog.html


Link to article if anyone wants it.

wow your hore hi-tech than me!!

 

[Mrs T]

It makes sense though doesn't it? If we were to conceive naturally then the best egg and the best sperm would create the best embryo. With IVF the eggs are force produced and placed in an unnatural environment with the sperm. The whole natural selection process is bypassed.

very true

doesnt put me off going for my IVF!

 

[Caroline]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...en-30-cent-likely-defects-warns-watchdog.html


Link to article if anyone wants it.

wow your hore hi-tech than me!!

Give it time.

I'm not brillant, but getting there slowly.

 

[Lilly123]

honey like they say the risks increase from 2.5% to 3.5% - thats so small - life is a risk..I would not worry about it... and what heartless comments from some the readers of the article - made me so angry...ignorance...

Good luck for monday

xxxx

 

[Caroline]

I din't read the comments 'cos normally on these things there are some really ignorant people commenting.

Sometimes I think they do it on purpose just to provoke a response/ got nothing better to do than post a comment that they know will upset people.

As it says in the article it is only research & with all these things no doubt someone else will disprove it @ a later date.

I wouldn't let it but you off.

Could luck with your apppointment. Hope all goes well.

 

[Mrs T]

oh I've not been put off our dream of a family

 

[x_Rainbow_x]

I think its quite bad they just publicly announce it. Its a tough subject that should be discussed with the patient by their doctor when the time comes. for some ppl IVF is the one and only way of a child and i can see it putting some people off because of the way its put..

TBH theres risk with every pregnancy natural or IVF. i just dont think it should be published in the paper like its nothing.. its a provate and delicate subject.. damn media

 

[Mrs T]

I think its quite bad they just publicly announce it. Its a tough subject that should be discussed with the patient by their doctor when the time comes. for some ppl IVF is the one and only way of a child and i can see it putting some people off because of the way its put..

TBH theres risk with every pregnancy natural or IVF. i just dont think it should be published in the paper like its nothing.. its a provate and delicate subject.. damn media

well said... thank you

 

[Mynxie]

It makes sense though doesn't it? If we were to conceive naturally then the best egg and the best sperm would create the best embryo. With IVF the eggs are force produced and placed in an unnatural environment with the sperm. The whole natural selection process is bypassed.

Thanks, I was wanting to say the same thing but like most of you know my words are a bit naff sometimes so couldn't put it as delicately as you.

TBH though ladies, take it all with a pinch of salt. The chances maybe more than that of natural conception but the way it's worded, it makes a very slight chance seem alot more drastic.

Disabilities, deformities etc etc are the chance you take with any pregnancy not just assisted conception pregnancies. Typical media scare tactics - they do it all too often to promote a response, shame they don't do it enough over politics!

 

[FJL]

I personally think its more of a ploy to sell newspapers

Every now and then some sort of off putting IVF article surfaces and 99% of the time they have NO solid evidence, statistics (an exception for this artical since they do seem to have done some research) etc...its all anecdotal or made up BS usually by someone who has NO clue about IVF.

I have seen numerous accusations about IVF children - that they're more violent, they're smarter blah blah blah.

CS - as for nature picking the best sperm and egg...yes and no. Almost 90% of genetically deformed embyros will not implant and if they do, 95% of those ones will miscarry within the first 8 weeks. That would have to be fairly similar to natures statistics. I do get what you mean though, but I think the embryo decides the 'survival of the fittest' thing for us.

And if IVF babies are prone to have birth defects (again, I don't really see how more so than naturally conceived babies) you can always opt for the 12 week NT scan and decide if you would like to accept the problem...no it doesn't always pick up everything, but same goes for natural conceived babies.

Articles like this just annoy me and absolutely NO it does not put me off one little bit.

 

[FJL]

And I wish they'd fucking well stop referring to it as 'test tube babies' ITS A PETRI DISH NOW YOU MORONS!!!

 

[maz]

I heard this headline on the breakfast news yesterday morning and thought - here we go again!!!

My clinic have already made me aware of the 'slight' increase in risk of a baby with birth defects. I can't quite remember the figures - it's either 0.2% in nature to 0.3% with IVF, or 2% in nature to 3% with IVF - but whatever, it isn't that big a deal to me. I had concerns about this before we started treatment, and my FS and embryologist both told me about the 'potential' increase in risk before we started our first cycle. The way the embryologist put it to me was that with IVF - where the egg and sperm are put into the petri dish and the strongest and fittest sperm wins, there is no real increase in risk - but with ICSI - where the sperm is forced into the egg - there is a chance of a very slight increase in birth defects, although there is not enough data to confirm or refute an increase due to it being a relatively new technique in the world of fertility treatment. Having said that, with ICSI the embryologist's select the strongest, healthiest, and fittest looking sperm to inject anyway - and even when that has been done, there's still no guarantee that fertilisation will still take place ...

We had this conversation around 6 months ago, so perhaps this latest article is what my FS was talking about, but now they've got the 'evidence' they need. Anyway, I certainly wouldn't be put off by the latest claims against IVF - it seems that every couple of weeks there is something on the news about IVF and generally speaking it's not good news ...

 

[CurlySue]

Thing is, though, every person has to be fully informed. if they DIDN'T print such things, it would look like some big taboo secret and might actually scare people even more.

There are a lot of risks for those undergoing IVF. The risk of miscarriage, for example, is supposedly slightly higher. It's just the way it is. IVF is actually quite an unnatural procedure in itself, therefore it is only natural that the risks are slightly higher.

They don't print these things to piss us off. They print them because it's a recent study and this is the study's results. Nothing more than that. So, the risks are slightly higher. I doubt, entirely, that it's going to put anybody off. Hiding such studies, however, might.

 

[HAYS]

Good luck for monday lovely xx

 

[Naya69]

theres risks with every pregnacey not just consisted conception so that wouldnt bother me if i was infertile, and ive just read the commnets and some of the people so annoy me maybe they should walk a mile in someones shoes who have trouble concieving naturaly and see if they bitch then. all sperm and eggs are screened first anyway. i have a little boy and cant imagin what you ladies are goin through my heart goes out to you all. maybe they should all bitch about the girls who just pump child after child out and scrange off benefits and have no intensions of getter a job and not decent couples who want to give a child a life they desearve i hope you all get your very soon. i hope you dont mind me commenting it just angers me xxxxxx

and good luck with your appointment fingers crossed for you.