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

[Nahri]

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

[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.

[kaseybaby]

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.

[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?

[atomic sagebrush]

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.

[atomic sagebrush]

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.

[atomic sagebrush]

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.

[kaseybaby]

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.

[Makali]

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.

[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.