Printable View
Hi ladies
Im 9 weeks 5 days , I had un ultrasound and I asked the Dr wheres the yolk sac , she said at the left of the uturs ( it was at the right of the screen) i swayed for a boy and I was confident with my sway
Could the yolk sac change place at this point? Cuz I thought I saw it at the left of the same screen at 5 weeks
Im so sad , if everything I did didnt work , then I dunno what will :(
according to the Ramzi, 9 weeks would be too late to tell. I don't believe a word of it anyway, but no matter what, yours wouldn't be an accurate guess that far along
Thank you kasey
I hope its wrong , 4 more weeks to know
Ramzi isn't accurate at all don't let you down by this. All your chances are still open!
:fx:
Sway is never 100 percent reliable, HT is....
I don't buy Ramzi, if it worked it would be in use by every ultrasound place by now.
Thnx alot , I feel more calm now
I will know after 4 weeks in 4th Jan
"Imagning its a boy"
Well, she's pregnant now, so no point in telling her that! :/ No one on this site has ever said swaying is anywhere near 100% reliable anyway. Never, ever, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by lisvna
Not everyone can do HT and it really makes hard feelings for those of us who cannot afford to go HT!
Ramzi is one of those "fun" things right now. Its kinda like shettles to me because its one of those cases they showed all this high success in the study and so far no one has tried or in Shettles case been able to duplicate the results to call it Shettles LAW instead of shettles method/theory. The other thing you have to remember is a tech can rotate and mirror the images. So one of your scans could have been mirrored and you didn't know it. The yolk sack can "move" but its not going to be all over the place as it is attached to baby.
So you have a better idea of how it is contained.
Attachment 22485
Thnx ladies !
That was so helpful Nahri ! In the picture the yolk sac is at the right and the baby atached to the left !
My first ultrasound looked very similar to this diagram the sac was firmly behind the head and baby attached at the right. With my DS the sac was dead middle and you could see the start of the villi on the right. But I knew nothing of ramzi at that time and do not know if that image was mirrored. This time I know I got a true image and the theory points to girl. Im sort of on the lets see how many I can disprove at one time. Moon phase, chinese gender, ramzi, and a couple old wives tales say girl for me. So in the end it will either be coincidence of the 50/50 shot or just wrong lol its going to be fun just to see :)
I hope its your girl Nahri !
Unfortunately for me the baby was in the middle at 6 weeks and the tech said we cant see where the baby atached ! (I guess she just didnt wanna bother herself to look)
So I cant prove Ramzi theory is correct for me or not !
The only reason I know is because I could clearly see the cord and followed it to the edge. Its hard at that gestation without super nice new expensive equipment. At this hospital it was definitely none of those LOL I could barely see a shadow of the yolk and on my DS ultrasound its a perfect outline with detail because they had top notch brand new equipment there. with a teeny tiny bean the older stuff just cant get that great of detail at that gestation. Sometimes you can tell by looking for an indent or thicker part of the wall but you can't always see it.
U cant realy tell alot from this shot , this was at 6w 6 days
Btw it was vaginal
You can't see the yolk sac in this 6 week U/S so you can't tell according to ramzi. It isn't where the baby is, but where the yolk sac/placenta is located.
update, businesswoman is having a BOY!
Hi,
Excuse for crashing the thread. Atomic sage has kindly referred me here due to my intensive questioning of the theory. I'm glad this method didn't work for you business woman.
I would also like to add that my daughter's placenta was attached to the right at my 18 week scan (even though this may be invalidated by Ramzi enthusiasts as being too late). I question this 'moving around' business and just about everything this gentleman has to say.
Please feel free to check out my thread on this site, if interested:
http://genderdreaming.com/forum/ultr...ne-debunk.html
Makali, I love it that you're quesitoning this - it is one of those things I've always meant to tackle and never had the time before.
Sorry to dig up an old thread but I don't see how this didn't work for OP, it seems like it was accurate for her. She said at her 5 week scan the yolk sac was on the left side of the screen, which would mean it's actually on the right, meaning boy. The scan where she saw it on the left of the screen was at 9 weeks 5 days, which is past the point where the Ramzi theory should be used. In the photo she posted above from 6w 6d, the placenta appears to be on the left side in the photo, meaning its actually on the right.
I'm not trying to overanalyze this but it seems in so many cases that this theory is right, even though it's been said here that its been debunked. I had my first scan today and based on Ramzi's theory, it looks like I'll be having my third boy so I'm looking for hope that Ramzi could be wrong, but it just doesn't seem to be the case. I mean I know there are cases where this hasn't been 100% accurate (I know XX said her DS3 was on the left) but it definitely seems to be right in the majority of threads I've looked at where actual scan photos are posted from the correct gestation period. So many people say it's wrong but who knows if they had their scan later, should have flipped the image, etc... But if the photo is posted along with the info, its seems to be right more often than not.
I know several people who have paid money to have Ramzi himself read their images and have been told wrong! Some of those people are members of this forum and some are friends IRL. I’m telling you- it’s not accurate at all. At my last 2 children’s scans I’ve asked the techs which side the placenta is on and both times I was told that the theory is a joke and to wait for a nub shot from my NT scan. No joke! I can say that intuition is also way wrong! My “feelings” were only right for my DS1, haha! I had a strong feeling I was pregnant with our 4th boy and my DD is very much a she!
Hang in there!
[emoji170]8/2010 [emoji170]6/2013 [emoji170]11/2015 [emoji170]
[emoji178]10/2017[emoji178]
[emoji254]Thank you Gender Dreaming for our precious little girl![emoji254]
Thank you for letting me know all of that XX, that really does make me feel better! That's quite interesting that they had Ramzi himself look at them and they were still wrong. I did find a few more examples online today of examples with photos that were wrong as well. I'm done stressing over that for now :D Thanks again.Quote:
Originally Posted by XXforhubby
:agree: totally with what XX is saying. And additionally - just from sheer common sense, if that method worked, every tech has heard of it by now and they'd ALL be using it for gender prediction. That they aren't, indicates to me that it simply does not work. Lots of ultrasound places would love to have the ability to tell gender on early ultrasounds but they don't - since they can't.
That's a good point. But then why does it seem like on many of the baby boards, when the actual photo is posted from the right time frame with the confirmed gender, that this theory is correct more often than not? Maybe not the claimed 97% but honestly it seems to be about 85% which is pretty high (there are tons of people claiming it didn't work for them but it seems that so many are not looking at the photo right or within the correct timeframe). I've also seen ultrasound techs commenting on baby boards saying its been about 90% accurate in their experience. My ultrasound was done by the same RE as my last one, and looks exactly the same as DS2's so it is so hard for me to not assume boy #3. Like I said, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but I really want to understand why I should ignore this when it seems to be accurate for so many people. I thought I was done stressing over it but I guess I'm not :( Sorry to keep persisting with this!Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush
I have no idea since I"m not on any of those boards but I have seen literally thousands of these be wrong.
Believe what you'd like, I honestly don't care, I'm trying to prevent people from having heartache over ultrasounds that are simply too early to be reliable.
Ok sorry, just trying to make some sense of that theory since it seemed to be more than an OWT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No need to apologize at all, that was overly snippy on my part and sounded totally different in my head when I wrote it.Quote:
Originally Posted by YayBaby678
I find that many other sites have complicating factors that mislead people (on a variety of issues) and I do not like to speculate on what those things may be without having firsthand experience with them. So it may be that I am totally wrong, Ramzi is the greatest thing since sliced bread and for whatever reason the people I've seen with wrong ultrasounds and who paid him to guess wrong on their ultrasounds are the anomalies. And the reason why the ultrasound places don't use Ramzi is some other thing that I do not know about. Just hate to speculate on the whys and wherefores involving sites I don't have any experience using, is all.
No problem Atomic, I know you answer a kazillion questions everyday and it probably gets old when we obsess over certain things! I really hope that once we find out the gender that it doesn't match Ramzi and you are telling me "I TOLD YOU SO" :happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush
haha me too! :)