Did the Ramzi theory NOT work for anyone? Can anyone debunk it?

Most women go crazy for this formula and swear by it but in my 20 week scan of my daughter the placenta was posterior right.

However, the Ramzi theory is basically a theory which states that if the placenta is detected on your right at 6 weeks gestation, then you're having a boy. If it's on the left, then you're having a girl. Apparently, it might not work if you go by your 12 week scan because the placenta "moves".

That's odd. Please correct me if I'm wrong but, even if the placenta "moves" it's not going move dramatically from left to right is it? It's not like a placenta detected on the left at 6 weeks is going to make a drastic switch to the right at 12 weeks? Placenta tends to expand upwards as the uterus grows.

Furthermore, the man behind the research; Dr. Saad Ramzi Ismail does not have a medical degree but does have a masters degree at medical ultrasounds. He also claims that a baby's gender can change after conception! The caveat is, however, that it's only possible no later than 40-45 days gestation.

Not only does he assert that the embryo can change gender within 45 days after conception, but he also states that if by a 3% chance the placenta is attached to the right, and it is a girl.. or the placenta is attached to the left and it is a boy, then there is probably something wrong with the fetus.

Not only am I trying to pick holes in this theory because if proven right I won't get the gender I'm wishing for, but it just seems so final, illogical and detrimental to me.

I know there are loads of women out there who have their hopes pinned on this theory but are there any it didn't work for?

I think its bull. My own kids proved it so. Changing sex by 45 days gestation? Ludacis! Hugs dear mama... he soynds lije a whack job to me!

Well I went back and checked my 6wk ultrasound reports after I first heard about this theory and it is documented that my daughter's was on the left and my boys were on the right so it held true for me. I read the full paper of his theory and it was very interesting, I also read of a much smaller study which tried to test his theory and they also found the same anomaly of girls on the left boys on the right but it was more in the high 70% nowhere near 97% as ramzi reported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SweetLily

I think its bull. My own kids proved it so. Changing sex by 45 days gestation? Ludacis! Hugs dear mama... he soynds lije a whack job to me!

---

Thank you SweetLily,
How many of your kids proved his theory wrong? At how many weeks gestation did your tech say where their placentas were?

The odd thing about this guy is that instead of saying that his theory could be wrong at times, he definitvely asserts that his forumula is bullet proof as even the supposed 3% his theory doesn't work for have some kind of defect. So by his reasoning, your children who you say proved it wrong must have some kind of problem. Can you believe that? He implies that I should take my perfectly healthy 2 year old daughter to a specialist to look for some undetected heart defect!

Here's the kicker, the guy also claims that this theory came to him in a dream in which Jesus hinted it to him. I can post these sources to you if you want.

Thank you MissyMc 7, I can't find any professional medical journal that has bothered to take him seriously enough to conduct a thorough study on his theory. Maybe the high number of stories in favor of Ramzi claims is due to the inadvertant advertising of his theory by those who it worked for and not enough people who don't give it any credence care to talk about it.

I was having a private scan of my daughter when I asked the sonographer where my placenta was to which he replied "in the back towards the right" so I told him that I'm going to guess that the baby's gender is a boy as that's what a theory online suggests. He said 'Hmm, ok lets test that theory" and showed me my baby's girly parts.

Cool, so the guy has alot of followers, but I'd like to see more people who this theory didn't work for come forward.

I also think it's inaccurate, have all along but i have never had the time it would require to learn enough to debunk it. I do know some people who have gotten Ramzi opposites.

I believe (strongly) that if it worked the way that he claims then it would be in wide use. We can see from how quickly the new blood tests have proliferated, that when a method works, it becomes widespread within a couple years' time.

All that having been said, please understand that there may actually be ~something~ to it, because some other studies done by very reputable researchers have shown that right sided ovulations are slightly more likely to be boys, left sided more likely to be girls, and that a 3 month series of ovulations L, L, R ended up boys 75% of the time. It may very well be the case that there is something to the side of ovulation correlating with what the baby's gender is, and also what side it implants on, but is is nowhere near the high success rates that Ramzi claims. Also, placenta previa (very low implantation) are more likely to be boys, tubal pg (very high implantation) are more likely to be girls, and so there may be some difference in the way that babies of different genders implant.

Just to clarify, just because someone doesn't have a medical degree is certainly not any reason to doubt them (not sure why he calls himself DR. but whatevs LOL) and ultrasound techs have way more knowledge about ultrasounds than doctors do, as a general rule. And the reason why the placenta can "move" is because as the uterus grows and stretches, the placenta can grow in an entirely different direction and so it can go from being left or right to front, back, top, etc. The uterus when Ramzi is supposed to work, is still quite small and if you imagine a pinpoint on the side of a pear that grows to being a pizza on the side of a watermelon, it may be a little easier to picture how it could start off in one spot and sort of grow around to a different position.

So, to sum up, I also do not believe this works but it isn't quite as ridiculous as it seems at first blush. :)

If you search for one of our users Kaseybaby she has looked into it extensively and has some pretty eloquent posts about how it doesn't work. :)

here's one that was wrong, baby on left but it is a BOY http://genderdreaming.com/forum/ultr...zi-theory.html

Here is some more people who got Ramzi opposites in this thread http://genderdreaming.com/forum/ultr...appointed.html and also it is one where Kaseybaby chimes in, and she's studied it more extensively than I.

i checked on my ultrasound at 7 weeks then 20 weeks with the tech and placenta was on left both times! ramzi was wrong baby was a boy! xx

Thanks for the feedback ladies.

Atomic sagebrush, I will definitely check out those threads! Thanks for getting back to me and pointing me in the right direction.

Here's another study which proves that the theory is wrong:

P18.17: The role of placental location assessment in the prediction of fetal gender - The - 2010 - Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology - Wiley Online Library

As for there being *something*about the method, well yes, there is something about certain Old Wives Tales too. Like the way a woman is carrying for instance or which season she conceived. Farmers used to use these methods on horses and cattle which would prove accurate more than 50% of the time. I've read a newspaper artcile which also stated how Old Wives Tales became so popular and passed through generations, there was usually *something* to them at the time they were invented. I think the Ramzi theory is also 50/50 because many people who swear it worked for them didn't actually get a tech's statement as to the position of their placenta and others simply haven't even heard of it or give it any credence to try it out.

There are as many people who swear by the ring, biocarb, craving, hair growth and boob growth theory to name a few.


The placenta is implanted in a teeny tiny womb at the beginning of the pregnancy. Over time, the uterus expands, and in doing so, pulls the growing placenta up with it. Best way to "visualise"... If a pregnant woman has a tattoo on her stomach. Early on, it will look normal.
As her bump expands, that tattoo will also expand and "move". It's still in the same place on her skin, just, getting pulled out. If anything, the placenta grows and spreads.

The embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus around the third week after last period. By the fourth week (two weeks pregnant, possible curiosity starting to form as to "could I be pregnant?", if you're an early noticer), the embryo has "split" in two. The half that "separates" becomes the fetus, the half still attached to the wall becomes the placenta. He can sit there and say 45 days sex determination all he wants. He just stamped all over his own theory. If the placenta implants on the "girl" side, and then the mother "changes the baby's sex to male", the placenta does not move.
The Ramzi theory is said to be 97+% correct. He himself claims 1/20 women "change" the sex of the baby (I can source it here if anyone wants).
Those two numbers don't add up.

"just because someone doesn't have a medical degree is certainly not any reason to doubt them"

Concur! Absolutely. I don't subscribe to the arrogance of having a 'degree' as being a sign of inelligence. There is, however a reason to doubt someone when their claims are unfounded and lack professional merit. Most scientists and doctors produce their theories on findings after years of research and experiments while testing their predecessors findings and the outcome is never given a 100% accuracy. Mr. Ramzi, however, has decided that his very unreaslistic and conservative 97% prediction can only be broken by an anomaly. Plus, I'm not sure I'm ready to trust a self-appointed doctor who asserts that an embryo changes sex without any evidence to back it up. Especially when most of his research is implemented to support a vision rather than scientific endeavor.

Ultrasound techs do have more knowledge about ultrasounds than doctors do but they do not have the evidence or recources to back their theories. They don't have the expertise, experience or decades of education into the intricacies of the human anatomy.

I will look for Kaseybaby's posts.

If there's anyone else who thinks this theory is highly irrational or has failed for them, please post your stories or views here as I would love to hear them.

Like you said even some old wives tales have shown a high accuracy for success. The old heartburn means your baby will have a full head of hair has actually had studies done and they got an 80%. Mine were both correct for Ramzi theory but I would still never put 100% stock in it. There has not been a reproduction of his study to confirm his results and even his own results were not 100% conclusive. I always tell everyone take Ramzi as a fun guess just like any old wives tale and if it turns out to be right or wrong in the end its one of those moments you can joke about :)

I know, right. The 'craving' theory has always been accurate for me. It's determined by what you crave early on in pregnancy because cravings can change as pregnancy advances. I craved sweet, citrusy flavors with both my daughters and nothing or savory with my son.

Imagine there were threads about the accuracy of cravings. I could say it has worked 100% of the time for me and there could be hoardes of other women who could say it definitely worked for them. Still doesn't change the fact that the prediction lingers at 50%, regardless of the seemingly high accurcy of the coincidence. I am certainly not going to give it any more credit in determining gender in any subsequent pregnancy.

Oy. Ramzi drives me absolutely bonkers. Every time I see a post about Ramzi theory I cringe. You can look back through everything I have posted on the topic, but just because it was right for one person, or perhaps many people doesn't make it law. Of course he writes his research as if it is law. The man who linked vaccines to autism I am sure did the same, I can write and excellent thesis on how Shakespeare didn't write his own works, doesn't make it fact. Here is a fact, I have yet to find one doctor through myself, my relatives, people on the internet, my friends, who use Ramzi theory. Why is that? Because no one in the medical field takes it seriously. He clearly states that you can't do his theory after a certain gestation because of migration of the placenta. That you need to inject dye into the chronic villa, yet now, years later, he is (I suspect) charging money to make guesses on gender of babies. Doesn't anyone find it odd, that a "well respected" researcher is guessing genders on the internet? It like paying one of those psychics on Ebay. The people who they are correct for, they swear by them, the ones that they are wrong, well prove that it is a mere guess. Take this all as an old wives tale. It should be used in fun. I know many woman who his theory didn't work, just to put that out there.

It's been driving me bonkers too! I've been doing google searches and a lot of digging, shifting through loads of "Ramzi theory....reliable" hits to find posts or observations which debunk it. It's still reltively new and he is a "doctor" after all so women are all over it like hair on soap. Before I did the digging I was quite scared... "What if!"

He says:

And if the placenta sidedness and the gender do not match, it doesn’t mean there is something wrong with the method, but there is more than 60% chance that there is fetal pathology read my paper and to see the relation..but I don’t want them to be alarmed and stressed out; as long as you have a healthy baby thats all matter and if it works that the gender and the placenta do not match I want you to check the baby renals ( kidneys), the baby Brain, and the baby heart for any defect or mild pyelectasis, and other markers.”

Weird, huh?

And here's the bit about baby changing sex after conception:

"Yes it does and it is very controversial, many doctors dont believe in this yet but it will take time may be 50 years until some one prove to them that it does . but in my observation the sex chromosome can change before the 40 to 45 gestation days not after that.
and that depends on the uterus temperature in the right or the left side as they are different, the electric polarity and many other factors such as age , diet etc…i the male chromosome changing to female chromosome is more successful. some other studies indicate the effect of diet before the pregnancy, but i know it can be changed even after conceptions."


Here he claims how he had a dream about it and also covers his ass incase anyone does any freelance research into his study:

"nd one day in my dream i saw my self doing ultrasound on The virgin Mary , and Jesus was saying
I am here I am here on the right side …..when i woke up I was so happy and in peace
but i was wondering whats this dram all about, may be i was reading too much ,may be he is telling me he is in
the right side of God as he is. But when I start doing ultrasound and trying to
correlates the baby position withe the gender it only gave me no more than 54% correct.
after while i start looking at many other things in the baby but then i start thinking , what is the most important things
in the uterus beside the baby and the largest ….( the placenta of course) and i start correlating and it works
but only if you do allot of data ,it doesn’t work if you do 10 or 100 or 500 cases ,this research depend on power data
5000 cases and up . I did 8000 cases first with out research approval then when i was sure i start the
research with more than 5000 and the rest is history "

Do you have any more threads (including your posts) about this method not working you can link me to Kaseybaby? I tried looking through your posts but can't determine which ones relate to this topic.

Is he a genuine scientist inadvertantly misleading people while trying to help and can back up his claims? Or is he another snakeoils salesman targeting gullible and often hormonal women at a vulnerable time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

Thanks for the feedback ladies.

Atomic sagebrush, I will definitely check out those threads! Thanks for getting back to me and pointing me in the right direction.

Here's another study which proves that the theory is wrong:

P18.17: The role of placental location assessment in the prediction of fetal gender - The - 2010 - Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology - Wiley Online Library

As for there being *something*about the method, well yes, there is something about certain Old Wives Tales too. Like the way a woman is carrying for instance or which season she conceived. Farmers used to use these methods on horses and cattle which would prove accurate more than 50% of the time. I've read a newspaper artcile which also stated how Old Wives Tales became so popular and passed through generations, there was usually *something* to them at the time they were invented. I think the Ramzi theory is also 50/50 because many people who swear it worked for them didn't actually get a tech's statement as to the position of their placenta and others simply haven't even heard of it or give it any credence to try it out.

There are as many people who swear by the ring, biocarb, craving, hair growth and boob growth theory to name a few.


The placenta is implanted in a teeny tiny womb at the beginning of the pregnancy. Over time, the uterus expands, and in doing so, pulls the growing placenta up with it. Best way to "visualise"... If a pregnant woman has a tattoo on her stomach. Early on, it will look normal.
As her bump expands, that tattoo will also expand and "move". It's still in the same place on her skin, just, getting pulled out. If anything, the placenta grows and spreads.

The embryo attaches to the wall of the uterus around the third week after last period. By the fourth week (two weeks pregnant, possible curiosity starting to form as to "could I be pregnant?", if you're an early noticer), the embryo has "split" in two. The half that "separates" becomes the fetus, the half still attached to the wall becomes the placenta. He can sit there and say 45 days sex determination all he wants. He just stamped all over his own theory. If the placenta implants on the "girl" side, and then the mother "changes the baby's sex to male", the placenta does not move.
The Ramzi theory is said to be 97+% correct. He himself claims 1/20 women "change" the sex of the baby (I can source it here if anyone wants).
Those two numbers don't add up.

"just because someone doesn't have a medical degree is certainly not any reason to doubt them"

Concur! Absolutely. I don't subscribe to the arrogance of having a 'degree' as being a sign of inelligence. There is, however a reason to doubt someone when their claims are unfounded and lack professional merit. Most scientists and doctors produce their theories on findings after years of research and experiments while testing their predecessors findings and the outcome is never given a 100% accuracy. Mr. Ramzi, however, has decided that his very unreaslistic and conservative 97% prediction can only be broken by an anomaly. Plus, I'm not sure I'm ready to trust a self-appointed doctor who asserts that an embryo changes sex without any evidence to back it up. Especially when most of his research is implemented to support a vision rather than scientific endeavor.

Ultrasound techs do have more knowledge about ultrasounds than doctors do but they do not have the evidence or recources to back their theories. They don't have the expertise, experience or decades of education into the intricacies of the human anatomy.

I will look for Kaseybaby's posts.

If there's anyone else who thinks this theory is highly irrational or has failed for them, please post your stories or views here as I would love to hear them.

---

Uh, ok, wow, I think you need to take a step back and reread this because I stated very clearly that I do not believe in Ramzi for gender prediction.

When I say there may be something to it, I mean SCIENTIFICALLY, based on research done by very reputable sources, in side of ovulation patterns and gender, and I stand by the 6 years of research I have done and hours of time and effort I put in debunking stupid old wives tales that do not work. It's kind of insulting for anyone to compare a word I say to Old Wives' Tales quite frankly, or explain anything to me in very simple terminology, whether you want to equate what I called a pizza on a watermelon to a tattoo on a woman's stomach, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways and not sure why you think you're taking me to school here LOL.

I am sure it's not your intent but this response came off very hostile to me. I'm going to step away and leave it at that. Hope you get the gender you're wihing for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

I know, right. The 'craving' theory has always been accurate for me. It's determined by what you crave early on in pregnancy because cravings can change as pregnancy advances. I craved sweet, citrusy flavors with both my daughters and nothing or savory with my son.

Imagine there were threads about the accuracy of cravings. I could say it has worked 100% of the time for me and there could be hoardes of other women who could say it definitely worked for them. Still doesn't change the fact that the prediction lingers at 50%, regardless of the seemingly high accurcy of the coincidence. I am certainly not going to give it any more credit in determining gender in any subsequent pregnancy.

---

Just sharing for anyone interested:

Early pregnancy cravings probably cannot predict gender and here is why. Baby boys and baby girls are hormonally identical in early pregnancy. The Y chromosome is dormant until about 10 weeks gestation when it "wakes up" and starts signalling XY to grow testes and make testosterone. Then and only then do the genitals differentiate and hormone levels change between XX and XY pregnancies.

It is believed y some researchers that early pg cravings are for foods that your body may need or "fear" (things that may be more likely to be contaminated, are less likely to be craved/consumed) and so in cases where a person might have been low in Vit. C they may have craved citrus foods, people who are a bit dehydrated might crave salty/savory foods, and in still other cases, people might crave some foods they believe "safe", so carbs or fruit instead of meats. No one really knows, but it's interesting to speculate about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

It's been driving me bonkers too! I've been doing google searches and a lot of digging, shifting through loads of "Ramzi theory....reliable" hits to find posts or observations which debunk it. It's still reltively new and he is a "doctor" after all so women are all over it like hair on soap. Before I did the digging I was quite scared... "What if!"

He says:

And if the placenta sidedness and the gender do not match, it doesn’t mean there is something wrong with the method, but there is more than 60% chance that there is fetal pathology read my paper and to see the relation..but I don’t want them to be alarmed and stressed out; as long as you have a healthy baby thats all matter and if it works that the gender and the placenta do not match I want you to check the baby renals ( kidneys), the baby Brain, and the baby heart for any defect or mild pyelectasis, and other markers.”

Weird, huh?

And here's the bit about baby changing sex after conception:

"Yes it does and it is very controversial, many doctors dont believe in this yet but it will take time may be 50 years until some one prove to them that it does . but in my observation the sex chromosome can change before the 40 to 45 gestation days not after that.
and that depends on the uterus temperature in the right or the left side as they are different, the electric polarity and many other factors such as age , diet etc…i the male chromosome changing to female chromosome is more successful. some other studies indicate the effect of diet before the pregnancy, but i know it can be changed even after conceptions."


Here he claims how he had a dream about it and also covers his ass incase anyone does any freelance research into his study:

"nd one day in my dream i saw my self doing ultrasound on The virgin Mary , and Jesus was saying
I am here I am here on the right side …..when i woke up I was so happy and in peace
but i was wondering whats this dram all about, may be i was reading too much ,may be he is telling me he is in
the right side of God as he is. But when I start doing ultrasound and trying to
correlates the baby position withe the gender it only gave me no more than 54% correct.
after while i start looking at many other things in the baby but then i start thinking , what is the most important things
in the uterus beside the baby and the largest ….( the placenta of course) and i start correlating and it works
but only if you do allot of data ,it doesn’t work if you do 10 or 100 or 500 cases ,this research depend on power data
5000 cases and up . I did 8000 cases first with out research approval then when i was sure i start the
research with more than 5000 and the rest is history "

Do you have any more threads (including your posts) about this method not working you can link me to Kaseybaby? I tried looking through your posts but can't determine which ones relate to this topic.

Is he a genuine scientist inadvertantly misleading people while trying to help and can back up his claims? Or is he another snakeoils salesman targeting gullible and often hormonal women at a vulnerable time?

---

Some of the stuff he mentions like egg polarity and the babies having defects if his method seems wrong does seem to harken back to some other people who really are proven charlatans charging $$$$ to women particularly in Asia as a method of gender swaying. The trouble is, they couch what they say in "science-ese" and I have sadly seen several medical doctors who are in leagues with these people and recommend them to couples for family balancing. I have the same question, are these people inadvertently misleading desperate people or are they snake oil salesmen? We don't know.

PURE SPECULATION ALERT: It would be interesting to find out if he is in with the "Urobiologics" people (who charge hundreds/thousands of dollars to people based on "science" that doesn't work) and possibly came up with this "method" as a way to support them. I don't know that he is, just makes me wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

It's been driving me bonkers too! I've been doing google searches and a lot of digging, shifting through loads of "Ramzi theory....reliable" hits to find posts or observations which debunk it. It's still reltively new and he is a "doctor" after all so women are all over it like hair on soap. Before I did the digging I was quite scared... "What if!"

He says:

And if the placenta sidedness and the gender do not match, it doesn’t mean there is something wrong with the method, but there is more than 60% chance that there is fetal pathology read my paper and to see the relation..but I don’t want them to be alarmed and stressed out; as long as you have a healthy baby thats all matter and if it works that the gender and the placenta do not match I want you to check the baby renals ( kidneys), the baby Brain, and the baby heart for any defect or mild pyelectasis, and other markers.”

Weird, huh?

And here's the bit about baby changing sex after conception:

"Yes it does and it is very controversial, many doctors dont believe in this yet but it will take time may be 50 years until some one prove to them that it does . but in my observation the sex chromosome can change before the 40 to 45 gestation days not after that.
and that depends on the uterus temperature in the right or the left side as they are different, the electric polarity and many other factors such as age , diet etc…i the male chromosome changing to female chromosome is more successful. some other studies indicate the effect of diet before the pregnancy, but i know it can be changed even after conceptions."


Here he claims how he had a dream about it and also covers his ass incase anyone does any freelance research into his study:

"nd one day in my dream i saw my self doing ultrasound on The virgin Mary , and Jesus was saying
I am here I am here on the right side …..when i woke up I was so happy and in peace
but i was wondering whats this dram all about, may be i was reading too much ,may be he is telling me he is in
the right side of God as he is. But when I start doing ultrasound and trying to
correlates the baby position withe the gender it only gave me no more than 54% correct.
after while i start looking at many other things in the baby but then i start thinking , what is the most important things
in the uterus beside the baby and the largest ….( the placenta of course) and i start correlating and it works
but only if you do allot of data ,it doesn’t work if you do 10 or 100 or 500 cases ,this research depend on power data
5000 cases and up . I did 8000 cases first with out research approval then when i was sure i start the
research with more than 5000 and the rest is history "

Do you have any more threads (including your posts) about this method not working you can link me to Kaseybaby? I tried looking through your posts but can't determine which ones relate to this topic.

Is he a genuine scientist inadvertantly misleading people while trying to help and can back up his claims? Or is he another snakeoils salesman targeting gullible and often hormonal women at a vulnerable time?

---

This whole thing right here speaks volumes to his "science". I was once in a chat with him, on the internet. When people came at him and said "Hey the placenta of this baby is on the right, but it is a girl" he kept harping that you can't do it properly without the dye, past 8 weeks, on and on and on and on. How they flip images, you need to be trained in his method. It was ridiculous. Everything was an excuse to the people it didn't work for. But now all the sudden he can tell just by looking at ultrasounds that are emailed to him? He doesn't need the dye? He can do it at any gestation? Don't waste your time researching this. I did with my first. I wish I could get those hours back. It was completely wasted time. The baby is what the baby is, and the side of the placenta isn't changing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush

Uh, ok, wow, I think you need to take a step back and reread this because I stated very clearly that I do not believe in Ramzi for gender prediction.

When I say there may be something to it, I mean SCIENTIFICALLY, based on research done by very reputable sources, in side of ovulation patterns and gender, and I stand by the 6 years of research I have done and hours of time and effort I put in debunking stupid old wives tales that do not work. It's kind of insulting for anyone to compare a word I say to Old Wives' Tales quite frankly, or explain anything to me in very simple terminology, whether you want to equate what I called a pizza on a watermelon to a tattoo on a woman's stomach, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways and not sure why you think you're taking me to school here LOL.

I am sure it's not your intent but this response came off very hostile to me. I'm going to step away and leave it at that. Hope you get the gender you're wihing for.

---

I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way, I wasn't being hostile, angry, condescending or antagonistic when I wrote it although reading it back I can understand why it may have come across that way. Nor did I imply that you believed in the Ramzi theory or Old Wives Tales. Sometimes, when you're just spontaneously typing whatever comes to your head the way you would express thoughts naturally to a friend in real life, it comes across in an entirely different tone because it's very 2 dimensional. No voice frequency, body language or facial expression, etc.

Not sure I subscribe to gender being linked to ovulation patterns but would love to see the literature. There is an interesting thesis about the ovum choosing which sperm to let in which I think has some merit though.

" When people came at him and said "Hey the placenta of this baby is on the right, but it is a girl" he kept harping that you can't do it properly without the dye, past 8 weeks, on and on and on and on. How they flip images, you need to be trained in his method. "

He was essentially giving a very similar feedback in a long reply to an article which I copied that excerpt from. The 'they flip images' doesn't apply to everyone. He's insulting our intelligence here if we tell him we specfically asked the tech which side the placenta is located, i.e which side of our body in relation to us. Furtermore, in order for a sonographer to keep their job they have to know where the placenta is in relation to your body so of course they are trained! It's essential for them to identify certain problems such as placenta accreta and increta etc and determine it for the analysis of the surgical team.

I do feel this is a waste of time but it really did get my goat that he made some ludicrous and potentially harmful claims and that there's hardly anyone out there calling him out on it.

You need the dye/you don't need the dye..pffft. And the whole embryo changing sex after fertilization business... All fertilized eggs mimick 3.5 billion years of evolution on this planet throughout their development into a fetus, and start off with female traits. However, depending on whether it was an xx or an xy sperm which fertilized them do they become male or female. It's encoded at the moment of conception as far as current scientific understanding goes. He's going to need a lot more than an impeccable degree in sonography to dispute that.

He has an excuse for every person his theory doesn't work for. And quite frankly, no one is injecting my baby with dye to prove gender, so I would really love to know who and where he got the "samples" from.

He probably figured that most women aren't desperate or stupid enough to have as intrusive a method as dye injected into a perfectly healthy pregnancy just to find out placental location for a possible gender prediction, so it was a safe bet in covering his ass.

I didnot know if it worked for me or not , under its rules at 6 weeks baby was in the middle and I couldnt tell where the placenta is

But , at 9 weeks the yolk sac was at the left and Im having a boy !!

Congratulations on your boy! According to your signature you're getting what you want sans x2.

I understand that there are certain genetic conditions that are passed down to one specific gender in some families which may warrant an early test for gender but A) they're not that common and couldn't be used to conduct a thorough research. B) Most of those families opt for the sure method of blood tests and amniocenthesis to ascertain the gender because i)they don't know about the Ramzi theory and ii)most would prefer to be absolutely sure rather than leave it to the guess of a pseudo scientist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaseybaby

He has an excuse for every person his theory doesn't work for. And quite frankly, no one is injecting my baby with dye to prove gender, so I would really love to know who and where he got the "samples" from.

---

ooo good point. :agree: I wouldn't either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way, I wasn't being hostile, angry, condescending or antagonistic when I wrote it although reading it back I can understand why it may have come across that way. Nor did I imply that you believed in the Ramzi theory or Old Wives Tales. Sometimes, when you're just spontaneously typing whatever comes to your head the way you would express thoughts naturally to a friend in real life, it comes across in an entirely different tone because it's very 2 dimensional. No voice frequency, body language or facial expression, etc.

Not sure I subscribe to gender being linked to ovulation patterns but would love to see the literature. There is an interesting thesis about the ovum choosing which sperm to let in which I think has some merit though.

---

I totally get "internet tone" and I read and answer hundreds of posts a day and have replied to nearly 50,000 questions on this site alone, so when something comes off as "hot" to me I don't think my tendency is to overreact. I believe that it was unintentional and I'm not concerned about it. Happens to the best of us sometimes when we feel passionately about something, and like I mentioned above, I like the enthusiasm as this is def. something I'd love to tackle but don't have the time.

Here is the abstract for the study I refer to, this group of researchers has done quite a lot of interesting study into gender ratio The ovulation pattern during three consecutive menstrual cycles has a significant impact on pregnancy rate and sex of the offspring

I am certainly not saying this "proves" Ramzi, or any such thing BUT simply that sometimes, it is better to be "lucky than good" and researchers may stumble onto a real phenomenon but are mistaken on some aspect of how or why it works, and that the above study ~might~ end up to explain some of Ramzi's (alleged) observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

Congratulations on your boy! According to your signature you're getting what you want sans x2.

I understand that there are certain genetic conditions that are passed down to one specific gender in some families which may warrant an early test for gender but A) they're not that common and couldn't be used to conduct a thorough research. B) Most of those families opt for the sure method of blood tests and amniocenthesis to ascertain the gender because i)they don't know about the Ramzi theory and ii)most would prefer to be absolutely sure rather than leave it to the guess of a pseudo scientist.

---

There are some actual charlatans out there charging hundreds to thousands of dollars for gender swaying and "early gender prediction" methods that don't work. The reason why it is hard for me to get super worked up over Ramzi is a) he actually published his findings for review by other researchers which most of these scam artists do not, and b) he has not really profited hugely off doing this. He hasn't opened up a bunch of "Ramzi Ultrasound Clinics" all around the world and charging people thousands of dollars for ultrasound (which he could and there would be lines around the block) I think he's wrong, but I don't think he's evil like some of these people are.

There are literally dozens of "windmills in need of tilting at" in this universe and of all of them, Ramzi is really pretty harmless. Yes, gals do obsess unneccesarily over their ultrasounds but if they don't have an ultrasound to obsess over, they obsess over symptoms and cravings and ring tests and psychics and the way they're carring their baby.

RE pseudoscience, it is possible to be scientific and wrong - Dr. Shettles was wrong about timing intercourse as a method of gender swaying, but he was a scientist (and a darn good one). I agree that dreams about the Virgin Mary (IMO) are not necessarily reassuring or scientific, but at the least Ramzi has published his findings for independent review and to me, that's more scientific than a lot of those schmucks out there who take people's $$ without doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Makali

" When people came at him and said "Hey the placenta of this baby is on the right, but it is a girl" he kept harping that you can't do it properly without the dye, past 8 weeks, on and on and on and on. How they flip images, you need to be trained in his method. "

He was essentially giving a very similar feedback in a long reply to an article which I copied that excerpt from. The 'they flip images' doesn't apply to everyone. He's insulting our intelligence here if we tell him we specfically asked the tech which side the placenta is located, i.e which side of our body in relation to us. Furtermore, in order for a sonographer to keep their job they have to know where the placenta is in relation to your body so of course they are trained! It's essential for them to identify certain problems such as placenta accreta and increta etc and determine it for the analysis of the surgical team.

I do feel this is a waste of time but it really did get my goat that he made some ludicrous and potentially harmful claims and that there's hardly anyone out there calling him out on it.

You need the dye/you don't need the dye..pffft. And the whole embryo changing sex after fertilization business... All fertilized eggs mimick 3.5 billion years of evolution on this planet throughout their development into a fetus, and start off with female traits. However, depending on whether it was an xx or an xy sperm which fertilized them do they become male or female. It's encoded at the moment of conception as far as current scientific understanding goes. He's going to need a lot more than an impeccable degree in sonography to dispute that.

---

:agree: it all reminds me of Dr. Ericsson and the "sperm spinning" method - no one can replicate his findings except for people in his clinics who were "specially trained" - even the best trained people on the planet couldn't get it to work unless they worked at one of his clinics! But like I said, he bugs me way more than Ramzi does because he opened clinics around the world and charges people tons of money for the priviledge.

Well, I'm unable to debunk him this time. My daughter is attached to my left and my son to my right. But I'm certainly not going to take my 2 year old for MRI's to try and find some kind of fault with her because her placenta was attached to my right.

Pseudo scientist or legitimate researcher - it's unprofessional for him to make claims that his theory is 'right' or there's something wrong with your baby.

I just hope that there aren't any other women with a more vulnerable disposition who may potentially freak out over his claims. LoL

You kind of do tho because he says "my method doesn't work on twins" ;)

:agree: that he should not say that to people.

Thank you for updating! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush

There are some actual charlatans out there charging hundreds to thousands of dollars for gender swaying and "early gender prediction" methods that don't work. The reason why it is hard for me to get super worked up over Ramzi is a) he actually published his findings for review by other researchers which most of these scam artists do not, and b) he has not really profited hugely off doing this. He hasn't opened up a bunch of "Ramzi Ultrasound Clinics" all around the world and charging people thousands of dollars for ultrasound (which he could and there would be lines around the block) I think he's wrong, but I don't think he's evil like some of these people are.

There are literally dozens of "windmills in need of tilting at" in this universe and of all of them, Ramzi is really pretty harmless. Yes, gals do obsess unneccesarily over their ultrasounds but if they don't have an ultrasound to obsess over, they obsess over symptoms and cravings and ring tests and psychics and the way they're carring their baby.

RE pseudoscience, it is possible to be scientific and wrong - Dr. Shettles was wrong about timing intercourse as a method of gender swaying, but he was a scientist (and a darn good one). I agree that dreams about the Virgin Mary (IMO) are not necessarily reassuring or scientific, but at the least Ramzi has published his findings for independent review and to me, that's more scientific than a lot of those schmucks out there who take people's $$ without doing that.

---

I have to update this old post now nearly 10 years later - I have since come to find out that Dr. Ramzi actually NEVER DID publish his research for independent review. I was told otherwise and even forwarded articles that looked like they came from scientific journals and didn't. I now believe Ramzi is a very sketchy guy, operating out of some sort of weird motives (attention??) but I still have to say that he has not turned this into a vastly profitable moneymaking scheme as some of the charlatans have done, so I still vote him a kook to be avoided rather than an actually evil person.