When idiots attack (in which I have a wee angry moment)

I was riveted by this article in this article in The Herald today - IVF Without Hormones.

Until I got to paragraph 3.

Then, I'd quite happily have smacked Steve Conner upside the head.

Actually, to be honest, I was riveted by the heading, and then I started reading. It was about paragraph 3 that I uttered something unrepeatable and started having to re-read and re-read and re-read to see if I was missing something, but no. I wasn't missing it. It wasn't there to begin with.

The whole article is a gross over-simplification bordering on ... what? I can't think of a suitable word that quite captures the complete lack of ... what?

Suffice it to say that the writer spits in my face to simplify IVF like that.

Actually, that's just it. I think. It's too simplified. It's offensive.

Yes, ok, fine, it's accurate insofar as it does state some facts - one does take stimulating hormones for 2 or 3 weeks for example. But seriously?? One does a shite load more than that, I can blardy well assure you.

It's an article which does nothing to inform or educate, to address prejudice, and it most certainly does not show respect for the topic it approaches. It's ... ack. It's filler. I spit on you Steve Connor for spitting on me. IVF and variations of IVF are not a subject for filling.

The article tells me nothing other than IVM is being explored.

I mean, how exactly, or if that's too hard, don't even be that exact about it, does the process of IVM work in the context of the body's natural function? As in, how do they get around the natural ovulation process bearing in mind that before one is "given hormones for about 2 or 3 weeks" (Steve Connor is an arse) to stimulate the ovaries, one takes drugs to effectively shut one's natural function down for any number of weeks depending on how cocked up one is (we were for example 4 weeks worth of cocked up) and then continues to keep one's natural function shut down with drugs while artificially stimulating it with more drugs to make sure that nature did not interfere with science.

Quoting Sven Lindenberg as the final paragraph that it is "best suited to women who have regular periods" is not enough, for me or the next person. Why? Why is it best suited for women who have regular periods you fool? I know, but do you? And, if you know, the word 'because' is an excellent way to lead into explaining it to the lay person who has just read the article and learned nothing. And, again, it's over-simplified. My guess is that IVM is best suited to women who have regular ovulatory periods. Big ass difference, and the problem with quoting out of context.

Don't even get me started on the rest of its basic flaws. Why may younger women stand a better chance of getting pregnant with IVM? Why is the under 35/over 35 marker significant in the context of IVM? Is the significance any different than with conventional IVF? At what point are the immature eggs harvested? How much shorter is the process? Is paragraph 6 just smoke and mirrors? It looks to me, and I read it about 10 times, that paragraph 7 has the actual initial clinical pregnancy statistics (and incidentally, how many cycles were involved on average?) Then again, we've well established in the last few weeks (Hrrp hmmm ... months ...years) that my brain don't go so good, so maybe I'm just being vile. I get the impression (and that impression comes from my own knowledge, so it possibly wouldn't even occur to the lay person) that the selection criteria for IVM is significantly refined from the selection criteria for conventional IVF - how is it refined?

No wonder people don't get the whole IVF process. No wonder people don't understand the hell and the significance and the sacrifice and the ... ug! when what they are fed through mainstream sources is lacking in what I believe to be basic information. If you're going to dare write on a topic like IVF, educate yourself or stay the hell away.

I'd be staggered if the man had any background at all in this field. And yes, I know there is only so much you can say, and perhaps he had a word limit and included what he thought were the important bits, but this new IVF thing he writes about is huge and the article completely fails to project the significance of it.

If nothing else, imagine the accessibility aspect which is absolutely huge. The price tag for a straight forward ICSI cycle is in the vicinity of $12,000.00. In the course of the cycle you take follicle stimulating hormones for 14 days. The cost of each dose of that hormone is $500.00. Obviously there would be a set off between egg maturation and presumably increased monitoring (due to natural cycle variations) costs, against the eliminated drug costs, but you with me? $7,000.00 of that $12,000.00 is one drug.

Anywho. I go on. Just a little. The stupid article annoyed me a tad.

It's the most crappily handled article since, well, the one about the Huge Decline in Kiwi Sperm Count, which I meant to shred at the time, but forgot. Again, it lacks educative content. It doesn't provide the full picture.

Heh. Pregnancy hormones. 69 days till due date (AAARRGGHHHH!!!).

Imagine what I'll be like in a few more weeks ... not even pictures of John Key holding cute fluffy ginger kittens will be safe.