Thanks for posting Jodles! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
I maintain that they "borrowed" the one attempt info from us regardless of whether or not they then went out and tracked down a study that claimed to prove it. But I really appreciate the detailed info that you uncovered. Excellent breakdown and I really appreciate your time in writing it all down - because I'd be darned if I was going to pay $12 for the privilege of reading what I've already known since 2012 - one attempt sways pink!
I will also point out that the information in the McSweeney study is from Nigeria and while it may be politically incorrect I don't find it to hold as much water as if it had been done at Harvard, for example. As in, I don't think it holds any water at all. Studies done even by the most prestigious sources are wrong a good percentage of the time
Believe It Or Not, Most Published Research Findings Are Probably False | Big Think and let's just say there are a lot of red flags in that study - small sample size, results too good to be true, possible financial benefit for the person who did the study, and so on.
When scientists use actual technology (bloodwork and ultrasound) to pin down the day of ovulation instead of any method that can be miscalculated or misinterpreted, they found 50-50 boys and girls conceived every cycle day. The only studies that have seemed to find otherwise are highly flawed (self-reported O Day, the women who wanted girls were given Clomid while the ones who wanted boys were given IUI's without Clomid, miniscule sample sizes, so few people could get pregnant that practically all of them dropped out before conceiving). Timing is by far and away the most studied area of gender swaying and if it worked 94% or heck, even 75% like Shettles claimed, we'd know that beyond a shadow of a doubt right now.
Additionally we know that using Billings method to pinpoint day of O is only accurate 1 out of 3 times even in highly trained volunteers using cutting edge technology (and we know this because again, it's been demonstrated in studies where scientists used blood tests and/or ultrasounds to actually pin down O. Natural family planning methods are great at preventing and achieving pregnancy. They CANNOT tell you what day you ovulated on any better than one out of three days. This is enough to get you pregnant or keep you from getting pregnant but anyone who says you can know the day you ovulated on, using NFP methods is not being honest.
I have had several people who have come to me for help after 9-12 months not conceiving with Babydust - particularly for girls. (that is how Babydust first attracted my attention is because so many people were showing up here desperate because they had been swaying for a year and hadn't conceived and when I read about people swaying for a year without getting pregnant, the hackles on my neck rise) So even if there isn't manipulation of the data happening directly, it is indirectly because a method that makes it so few people conceive while using it, is useless. I'll give an example using made up numbers. Let's pretend that it really is 90% effective. But only 20% of people can get pregnant using it. In 100 people this would end up being 18 people getting their desired gender and everyone else is just SOL, they either give up without getting pregnant or give up on what they consider "swaying" and just get pregnant and take their chances at that point. But if, by doing a more laid back, conception friendly sway, all those same people get pregnant. Even if it was only 66% successful, that is 66 out of 100 people who get their desired gender. So even IF (and that is a BIG IF, like the hugest IF in the history of IFkind) this method could be 90% successful, if people aren't getting pregnant doing it, then it is a useless method and you may as well just take a birth control pill and pray for a miracle. :)
Great discussion, ladies, and thanks again Jodles! I'll add this to our Complete Index.
