In-Gender.com

Misleading "Slate" article slurs PGD

Maureen — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:25:00 GMT

"Now you can design your own baby. But should you?" is the tantalizing teaser for this week's much-quoted article about preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the online magazine Slate. The inaccurate and sensational lead-in is entirely appropriate for the misleading, fear-mongering article. I guess this is what happens when an article about advanced reproductive technologies falls into the hands of your chief political correspondent (William Saleton): the facts get completely lost in the spin.

Let's get one thing straight: You cannot "design" a baby. No technology exists to doctor an embryo to create desired traits, nor repair an embryo to correct genetic flaws. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is simply a screening test that provides genetic information about an existing embryo -- an embryo which has the exact same genetic makeup, inherited from its parents, as it would if it had been conceived at home in bed.

Saleton's scary article covers the "slippery slope" and eugenics bogeys, following the well-worn template laid down by other journalists who are equally ignorant of the basic facts about getting pregnant using IVF. (PGD testing can only be done as part of an IVF cycle.)

Putting the brakes on the slippery slope

First, we have hand-wringing over the injustice of screening embryos not just for devastating childhood illnesses, but even for manageable health problems that don't occur until later in life, or perhaps not at all.

...an American patient who plans to screen her embryos for an arthritis gene. The probability that the gene will cause the disease is only 20 percent, and if it does, the disease is highly manageable. Once you screen for one gene, it's tempting to screen for others.

The notion that parents shopping for the perfect baby can present a laundry list of potential diseases, and only accept embryos that match their stringent criteria, ignores a very basic fact of IVF life: in any IVF cycle, a woman can produce only a limited number of eggs, which become a fewer number of viable embryos. Couples don't cull embryos on a whim or a genetic propensity for hangnails, because an IVF cycle typically results in only a small number of embryos to choose from (and sometimes only one, or even none). Parents who screened out embryos with various trivial genetic flaws would quickly run out of embryos and go home with no baby at all.

Screening for a particular disease is not a frivolous matter. While some might downplay a disease by calling "manageable", it's another story for those who have seen firsthand the suffering it causes their own parents or close family members, perhaps seeing what awaits in their own future.

Saleton seems to think the woman screening for arthritis just thinks it's too inconvenient to keep a bottle of ibuprofen handy, but her form of arthritis can cause fusion of the spine, may cause pain starting at 3 years of age, and has no treatment, other than painkillers and surgical joint replacement.

“My mother told me that the only worse thing than having cancer twice was having to give the gene to me.”

New York Times

But even if a woman could produce a hundred eggs in a cycle, in hopes of producing an embryo that meets a myriad of genetic requirements, PGD testing on a vast number of embryos for multiple conditions is simply infeasible. PGD is limited for several reasons: only one embryonic cell is available for testing, so only a few tests can be performed; analysis must be completed within 48 hours, because the embryo can't survive longer; and the cost is prohibitive. Adding multiple tests on dozens of embryos would send the normal PGD tab of around $3,000 soaring to maybe $30,000 or more, per cycle (on top of IVF costs).

So the only people in danger of sliding down this particular "slippery slope" are multi-millionaires with super-human egg producing powers.

Culling embryos

Another patient ... set out to scan his embryos for colon cancer and ended up chucking two more for Down syndrome. "You kind of feel like you shouldn't be doing it," his wife confessed.

Saleton gives us the impression that, were it not for the villian of PGD, all of these "chucked" embryos would go on to lead happy, healthy, lives, more or less. But again, this conflicts with the reality of IVF: extra embryos are created, and some are discarded. A woman usually hopes to conceive exactly one baby, and no matter how many children she would love to have, she cannot safely incubate a litter of 5 or 6 at once.

With or without PGD, a couple in an IVF cycle who winds up with 10 embryos must choose, typically, one to three to implant, and must discard (or freeze, or donate) the rest. In a case where some embryos must be selected, and some must be discarded, PGD is simply a tool used to select the embryos most likely to result in a successful pregnancy and a healthy baby.

Without PGD, embryos are selected after being examined under a microscope, and graded for quality. The "most beautiful" embryos are the lucky ones selected for implantation. But, because even though the healthiest-looking embryo may harbor devastating chromosomal abnormalities and with zero chance of survival, choosing embryos by sight alone is only a little better than a wild ass guess.

How is it that it is somehow moral to choose embryos by inaccurately predicting their future health based on their 3rd day "beauty", but immoral to choose embryos by accurately predicting their future health based on genetic analysis?

Taking a swipe at savior siblings

Another oft-criticized use of PGD is to select an embryo because it is a tissue match for an existing sibling, and the resulting baby becomes a donor to cure the sibling.

Once you start treating a child as a tissue bank, it's hard to stop. Last month, after a Swiss couple used PGD to pick a donor embryo for their ailing son ... the donor infant, having failed to provide enough cord blood, was subjected to a painful bone-marrow extraction as well.

Certainly, any person would be outraged at the idea of a helpless infant being tortured like a lab rat in order to rob its tissues. But actually, bone marrow extraction is performed under anesthesia, and although there can be some soreness and pain afterward, it goes away and the body swiftly naturally replaces the lost marrow; in the scheme of things it doesn't seem an enormous price to save the life of another person.

The issue, presumably, is that no matter how the scales tip when weighing saving a life against a harmless procedure, the baby cannot consent to that procedure. How often, I wonder, do people who are actually asked to be a bone marrow donor, and are able to give their consent, instead refuse? We know that people volunteer quite willingly to be bone marrow donors for perfect strangers, so it seems safe to assume that people usually step up to the plate when called upon by a family member. Certainly I wouldn't hesitate to be a donor even for my least favorite sibling. Second cousin, even. In a pinch I might even save a journalist.

Why then, would one assume on this baby's behalf, that rather than becoming a decent human being who would readily give his consent if he could, he will become a crass individual who would rather watch his sibling die than endure a few days with a sore hip?

Parents who seek to have a "savior sibling" have been vilified by the press as monsters looking to use a baby for spare parts. But if these people were really that heartless, they could easily choose a cheaper and easier route: just bury the first child and hop in bed and make a replacement. Instead, they have chosen a path that includes the exraordinary expense and inconvenience of IVF -- at a cost averaging $15,000 to $45,000, with no guarantee of a successful pregnancy. (And for those of us who know what it means to shed tears over an unsuccessful IVF cycle, try to imagine, for just a moment, what it must be like when a negative pregnancy test spells a death sentence.)

And beyond the birth of the savior sibling, there is still a matter of the bone marrow transplant for the ailing child, which involves a month-long stay in the hospital and perhaps a year of recovery. That is, if you're lucky, because there's a chance the transplant will be unsuccessful, and the child will die, or not be cured.

Why would anyone think that these parents, who are willing to go to such extraordinary lengths simply for the chance to save the life of a child, would view a second child as nothing more than a slab of meat? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suspect that such parents would treasure a second child just as much as the first? More reasonable, perhaps, but not very sensational.

Better than sex? The growing practice of embryo eugenics
Slate.com

World's first MicroSort baby celebrates 10th birthday

Maureen — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:00:00 GMT

Happy birthday to Jessica Collins! The first MicroSort baby, who was conceived after XSort and IUI, turns 10 today. It reminds those of us who have used MicroSort, and those who are contemplating it, what a new technology this really is.

India state plans to ban Baby Gender Mentor and other early prenatal gender tests

Maureen — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 03:54:00 GMT

I guess no one can accuse India's government of reacting too swiftly. When the Baby Gender Mentor was released, many were alarmed about how the early baby gender test might be misused in India. Today, over a year later and after the product has already been withdrawn from the market altogether, the Indian government announced that it may be banned.

Worldwide, the normal birth rate is 51% boys, but in India, a gender imbalance has arisen due to a cultural preference for sons. Through the practices of sex selective abortion, infanticide, abandonment, and neglect of their daughters, some areas of India have only 41% to 47% female births.

In Punjab, the Indian state with the lowest female birth ratio, the health minister has announced he "will take all steps" to have the Baby Gender Mentor banned.

Punjab plans to ban US gender determination kit
Gulf News

Congressman urges FDA to investigate Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor, and to regulate similar baby gender tests

Maureen — Wed, 31 May 2006 14:16:00 GMT

After viewing an ABC report about Baby Gender Mentor's problems and lack of oversight for the test, Florida Congressman Jim Davis has urged the FDA to investigate Acu-Gen and to regulate similar baby gender tests, and the Florida Attorney General has opened an investigation against Acu-Gen.

Initially the issue that particularly concerns us is this unfair trade and deceptive practices.

Charlie Crist, Florida Attorney General

Although Acu-Gen has previously refused to provide any evidence from trials to support their accuracy claims, or to reveal sales figures or details behind their method, that may change as the company has now been subpoenaed by the Attorney General's office.

Clearly, something is going wrong here. When someone is paying the kind of money that's being paid here to get a laboratory test there needs to be some protection as far as the safety and effectiveness of the test, and there needs to be accountability.

Florida Congressman Jim Davis

Both officials were alarmed b the experience of Florida mother Erin Rivera, who purchased the Baby Gender Mentor test just to learn whether her unborn baby was a boy or a girl. Erin was told by Acu-Gen's Wang that her baby had Trisomy-18, and would likely die at birth. When questioned about Erin's case by ABC Tampa's Linda Hurtado, Wang said:

This baby going to have developmental problems, and it's probably going to cease to exist right after birth.

C.N. Wang, Acu-Gen President

Aside from the anguish endured by this frightened pregnant mother, there is very real danger in this sort of diagnosis: most babies diagnosed prenatally with a trisomy, such as Down's Syndrome, are aborted before birth.

Thankfully, Erin Rivera never considered that option, and in March delivered a perfectly healthy baby boy named Lucas.

Lucas does not have signs of Trisomy-18 or any other trisomies.

Dr. Raafat Hamzeh, Lucas' pediatrician

Congressman Jim Davis has sent a letter to FDA commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach regarding the Baby Gender Mentor; here are some excerpts:

I am writing to call on the FDA to investigate Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor test and provide oversight for similar gender tests to protect consumers from false medical diagnoses.

...There have been numerous cases where Acu-Gen predicted false and misleading results for the customers. Furthermore, Acu-Gen refused to give these customers their guaranteed refund after they showed proof the test results were wrong. The company cannot supply scientific data or proof of any clinical trials supporting the test's accuracy.

...It is my understanding that the FDA does not regulate this test, because they consider it a 'home brew' test. Dr. Eschenbach, this is very troubling and alarming that no one is monitoring what is happening with these companies...

Why is the FDA not monitoring these companies in the light of the claims being made? Is the FDA equipped to monitor these companies? Do you agree more oversight is needed for products like Baby Gender Mentor?

...I am very concerned with the lack of gevoerment oversight companies like Acu-Gen receive, especially in light that they are now making false medical diagnoses.

Florida Congressman Jim Davis in a letter to FDA Acting Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach

Excellent questions, Mr. Davis. Why doesn't the FDA monitor these companies? The answer is that, because of a loophole in FDA policy, a company may sell genetic testing as a lab service without FDA approval. Thus, there is no oversight to assure consumers that genetic tests are accurate, or even useful for the advertised intent.

If this seems like a bad situation to you, Mr. Davis, you aren't alone. For over a decade, federal advisory boards have been calling for regulation of genetic testing. Five years ago, the CDC promised to do so, yet still nothing has been done. So, although it's already been 8 weeks since you sent your letter to the FDA, don't be too surprised if you don't hear anything back soon.

How to Petition the FDA to change or create policy
Anyone may petition the FDA, and the FDA must respond within 180 days
ABC Tampa's Linda Hurtado reports Florida congressman urges FDA to investigate Baby Gender Mentor and similar products; Florida attorney general investigates Acu-Gen
Well done Linda!

Baby Gender Mentor retracts 200% money back guarantee, and PregnancyStore suspends sales of the gender test

Maureen — Wed, 24 May 2006 13:12:00 GMT

Baby Gender Mentor, the at-home DNA test claiming to reveal an unborn baby's gender as early as 5 weeks of pregnancy, convinced many customers that their claims of near-perfect accuracy were real by offering a 200% money back guarantee if your result was incorrect. "How can I go wrong?" many mothers asked.

The test's maker, Acu-Gen BioLabs, has now retracted the offer of a double-money-back guarantee, and a 100% guarantee is now offered instead on the BabyGenderMentor.com and PregnancyStore.com Web sites. PregnancyStore, the online retailer for the gender test, indicates that Baby Gender Mentor is currently "out of stock". (Perhaps until new orange boxes can be printed without the 200% warranty.)

The 200% money back guarantee is wonderful! The offer put that much more confidence in my decision to order your product!

Testimonial on PregnancyStore.com

While a money-back refund is usually a mark of a legitimate product, in a gender prediction or gender selection product it's highly suspect -- because the seller is assured of getting at least half the results correct.

While Acu-Gen formerly "stood behind" a 200% guarantee of the Baby Gender Mentor's accuracy, customer complaints about wrong test results, and the company's refusal to make good on the promised refund, have caused the Better Business Bureau to give Acu-Gen BioLabs an unsatisfactory rating.

Acu-Gen Biolab, Inc. has a pattern of complaints concerning advertising issues. Consumers state that the company promises a 99.9% accurate test result for the gender of their unborn child or a 200% guaranteed refund. Consumers state that the test result is often inaccurate. Consumers state that when they contact the company for a 200% refund... the company still does not provide the consumer with the guaranteed refund.

On 03/13/06 the Better Business Bureau wrote to Acu-Gen Biolab, Inc. and asked them to substantiate the following claims made on the company's website: We Guarantee that all test results will be absolutely 99.9% accurate, explanation of the company's 200% guarantee, Unsurpassed Accuracy, Unrivaled Earliness, Uncompromised Promptness, Undoubted Privacy and Totally Safe. As of 03/28/06 the company has not responded to the Better Business Bureau's request for substantiation or modification of the questioned advertising claims.

Better Business Bureau listing for Acu-Gen BioLabs, Inc.

Update: The BabyGenderMentor.com Web site has also stopped selling Baby Gender Mentor.

New Web site for IVF success rates

Maureen — Wed, 03 May 2006 19:59:00 GMT

If you're considering IVF, one of the important decisions you'll make is the choice of a clinic to perform the IVF procedure. The new Web site for the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) provides IVF success rates for clinics in the US. Fertility clinics are required to report the outcome of every ART procedure to the US CDC (Center for Disease Control), but getting those statistics published has generally lagged 2 to 3 years behind. The new SART Web site seeks to streamline reporting fertility statistics and making them available sooner. Statistics are currently available through 2004, putting the US far ahead of Europe, where it generally takes 4 years to collect publish ART data.

Begging the question of why, in the age of the World Wide Web, we do not have virtually up-to-the-minute ART statistics? Our local middle school updates children's grades via the Web once weekly, yet it takes YEARS to collate a few simple bits of data about a single IVF cycle?

In any case, you should beware of putting too much stock in a clinic's success rate alone, because it's far from telling the whole story. The pregnancy rate can be misleading if there are too few cases; for example, one clinic had an impressive 50% pregnancy rate for women over 40, but it turned out only 4 women over 40 had been treated. Some clinics are also guilty of "cherry picking", or treating only patients who seem to have a good chance of becoming pregnant, and turning away those who may have poor odds.

UK government advises "fertility tourists" to stay home -- but leaves no alternative for many

Maureen — Wed, 03 May 2006 18:38:00 GMT

Over-regulation of fertility treatment in the UK has created a boom in "fertility tourism" in other countries, as UK couples are driven abroad to seek fertility treatment that is not available at home. Now the HFEA, which regulates IVF in the United Kingdom, is wagging a stern finger at couples considering an "IVF holiday": you'd better "think twice and consider the risks and implications of going abroad for treatment."

If you live in the UK and you're considering IVF for gender selection, leaving the country is your only option, because sex selection is banned in the UK. But couples are fleeing England to undergo IVF in other countries -- even though IVF would be free of cost at home under the government health care system -- for many other reasons as well. In the UK, you may face a long waiting list for IVF; and often delaying IVF is tantamount to denying it altogether, because one of the most important factors in IVF success is the mother's age. Recent regulations denying anonymity to sperm donors has seen the availability of donor sperm dry up over the past year. Rules on who is eligible for IVF deny many couples. Strict, blanket limits on IVF procedures may reduce the chance that IVF will be successful. And the famous "IVF postcode lottery" in the UK means that treatment is wildly unequal from one county to the next.

Currently, a saga caused by the arbitrary rules imposed for the destruction of frozen embryos is being played out in the British press. The HFEA appears to be insisting on destroying frozen embryos -- against the wishes of the parents -- because the 5 years permitted to store frozen embryos has elapsed before the couple could find a surrogate mother. The mother, Michelle Hickman, underwent an emergency hysterectomy after the birth of their first child, and cannot carry a baby. The couple hopes to be allowed to move their embryos to another country, where they will be safe from the "embryo death row" in the UK. Michelle joins other families, like the Mastersons and the Whitakers, forced into two battles: one battle to overcome a medical issue, and another to convince their own government to permit needed treatment.

Yet, the HFEA urges couples to stay in the UK where "care and treatment is of the highest standard," and not to travel to another country where they might be able to make their own decisions regarding treatment, and retain control of their own embryos and gametes. The HFEA has taken away choices from its own citizens at home, until little other option remains to them but to risk seeking treatment abroad.

Good Morning America features PGD

Maureen — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:55:00 GMT

The ABC morning show Good Morning America features the Magill family of Grafton, Mass. The parents of 3 girls used PGD, or preimplantation genetic diagnosis, to conceive twin boys, now nearly one.

The segment includes comments by Dr. Mark Hughes, who developed the PGD technique and opposes its use for sex selection. Dr. Hughes repeats, as he does in every interview, that "The last time I checked, your gender was not a disease."

Boy or Girl? Couples Choose Unborn Children's Sex
Couples Use Technique Originally Used to Screen Genetic Disorders
ABC Good Morning America (includes video link)

MicroSort hikes prices

Maureen — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 04:47:00 GMT

If you're hoping to use MicroSort to conceive a son or a daughter, get ready for the sticker shock to get even worse. There's just been a significant price increase in the sperm sorting service.

Notes:

Service	March 2005	March 2006	Increase
MicroSort Sperm Sorting	$2,995	$3,400	$405
Extra sorted vial	$651	$700	$49
Patient Consultation (GIVF)	$265	$300	$35
Patient Consultation (Collaborator)	$133	$300	$167
IUI Procedure (1)	$329	$365	$36
Daily Monitoring for IUI (2)	$392/day	$475/day	$83/day
Full Monitoring for IUI (3)	$1,169	$1,650	$481
Review Outside Monitoring for IUI (4)	$496	$625	$128

Fee for IUI procedure only, does not include sort or ovulation monitoring.
If you choose to detect ovulation yourself using at-home ovulation prediction kits (OPKs), you can pay this fee for one day of testing to confirm ovulation.
Fee for complete ovulation monitoring at GIVF
Fee for GIVF to review the results of ovulation monitoring tests, and coordinate your cycle, with an outside doctor. You must still pay your doctor for the tests.

'The Family Man' TV drama addresses gender selection

Maureen — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT

Trevor Eve
"The Family Man"

An upcoming 3-part miniseries on UK television features a fertility expert facing ethical dilemmas in the world of IVF. One story line concerns parents of 3 daughters, who are devastated after the death of their son and want to use sex selection to conceive a boy -- against the law.

The story comes direct from the UK headlines. The Mastersons had four sons and one daughter, who died tragically as a toddler in a bonfire accident. The Mastersons unsuccessfully battled the UK government to be allowed to use sex selection to have a girl. Finally, the couple went abroad for several attempts with IVF/PGD, but failed to become pregnant. At last, they were forced to give up their dream of having daughter in their family once more. (See my previous blog posts for the Masterson's story.)

Trevor Eve to star in The Family Man for BBC One
BBC Press Release

TONIGHT on CNN's Paula Zahn: Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor

Maureen — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:45:00 GMT

Leila's lovely daughter Malia

A segment about Baby Gender Mentor airs tonight on CNN's Paula Zahn Now (8 eastern, 7 central). "The maker of the product says the problem is with THEIR babies, not HIS test," says the teaser. The story features three of our own members, Leila (leilawill), Melissa (melissa30), and Raylene (realtormom).

Baby Lucas is born perfectly healthy after Trisomy-18 diagnosis from Acu-Gen

Maureen — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:08:00 GMT

Lucas Kian Rivera
Minutes after birth

Just a few hours ago as I write this, a nightmare pregnancy came to an end for Erin Rivera. A time that was supposed to be filled with joy and expectation became instead an agony of anxiety and worry when the Florida mother received a phone call, early in her pregnancy, with bad news. Erin was told that genetic analysis had revealed "chromosomal abnormalities" in her baby.

But the call didn't come from Erin's doctor, and Erin hadn't requested or agreed to any genetic testing of this type. On the phone was a complete stranger, Chang-ning Wang, from a company called Acu-Gen. A few weeks earlier, Erin had sent the company three drops of her blood with the Baby Gender Mentor kit to find out her unborn baby's gender. She thought it would be fun to tell her husband, a soldier deployed in Afghanistan, their new baby's gender long before an ultrasound scan could reveal whether it was a boy or a girl. "Congratulations, you're having a boy!" was the result.

But the "fun" was replaced by fear and confusion when Wang's unexpected call informed Erin that his lab hadn't stopped with the gender test, but had gone on to perform additional genetic testing that, he said, revealed a chromosomal defect. He wanted Erin to know this information so that she could make a "choice" about her pregnancy. Erin says Wang would give no further details about what was supposedly wrong with her baby, and advised her to have an amniocentesis. When she burst into tears, she says Wang hung up on her.

Erin's obstetrician, however, told her that her pregnancy seemed normal in every way. Erin decided against risking her baby and did not have an amnio.

Nearing the end of her pregnancy, Erin would get another shocking "diagnisis" from Wang, but this time, it came from the television. Although Wang refused to provide Erin with details of her baby's supposed "abnormality", he told ABC's Linda Hurtado with utter conviction: Erin's baby had Trisomy-18, and would "cease to exist" soon after birth. "We don't make mistake. Period." he concluded. Erin had just received a death sentence for her baby on the evening news.

Erin spent the remaining weeks of her pregnancy under this dark cloud, wondering if her baby boy, now named Lucas, would be born healthy, or with devastating birth defects, or would even survive to come home.

On March 10, the verdict came at last, as Lucas Kian entered the world weighing 6 pounds, 15 ounces, and 20 inches long. "Is he normal?" were the new mother's first words. "Perfect!" declared the doctor, after checking him all over. "This baby does NOT have Trisomy 18," concurred the nurse. Erin's mother Nova would share the news in bold, capital letters: "MR. WANG WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!"

Lucas was, in fact, a normal, perfect, healthy baby boy in every way -- and had been so from the instant of his conception. His mother, his family and their friends had worried needlessly throughout a pregnancy that should have been filled only with joyful expectation.

A deluge of bad press about Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor

Maureen — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 02:46:00 GMT

Melissa Russell and baby Violet Faith

"As featured on ABC's World News Tonight" are the first words on PregnancyStore.com, referring to last summer's story about a revolutionary new test called Baby Gender Mentor that promised to reveal your unborn baby's gender at just 5 weeks after conception.

The baby gender test appears again on ABC World News Tonight, but this time the story is different. Instead of an amazing medical breakthrough, tonight's story is about a lawsuit filed by angry mothers against the test's maker, Acu-Gen BioLabs.

Melissa Russell, of Texas, isn't just upset that Acu-Gen got her baby's gender wrong. When her Baby Gender Mentor result was a boy, but ultrasound revealed she was carrying a girl, Acu-Gen insisted the test was correct, and warned Melissa to expect a baby boy with "ambiguous genitalia".

I was crying, and I called my family, and I called my pastor, and I asked for prayer.

Melissa Russell, Baby Gender Mentor customer

Melissa's baby girl, Violet Faith, was born in December with completely normal female genitals. Melissa paid out of pocket for genetic testing to confirm that her daughter's chromosomes are normal as well.

Other women have shared their Acu-Gen woes with the press as well; links below.

These women feel that they've been taken for a ride, at a very emotional and special time in their life.

Nell Boyce, NPR

Revisiting the Baby Gender Mentor
NPR (includes audio)
Conversation with Nell Boyce
Parents Sue Over Pregnancy Test Said to Tell Baby's Sex
ABC World News Tonight
Fetal Test Errors (Video)
ABC World News Tonight
With Melissa Russell and baby Violet Kate
Note, video may include an ad at the beginning
Controversial Baby Gender Test Causes Concern
KBTX-TV, CBS Affiliate, Texas
With Raylene Lewis (RealtorMom)
Woman Feels Ripped Off After Paying Hundreds For Gender Test
ABC News Cleveland Affiliate
With Trinity Lazanis
Lowell firm is sued on fetal gender test; Plaitiffs allege guarantee unmet
Boston Globe, Carey Goldberg
16 Women File Lawsuit Against Boston Lab
Associated Press / The Boston Globe
Anger, lawsuit over lab's botched baby-gender tests
Lowell (Mass.) Sun Newspaper
With Gena Ceneri (MikeysMom)
Moms sue company over test accuracy
The Oklahoman Newspaper (Free registration required)
With Leila Willingham (leilawill)

ABC News airs follow-up to Baby Gender Mentor controversy

Maureen — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:41:00 GMT

Tampa's ABC News affiliate reveals that no government agency regulates sales of gender tests like the Baby Gender Mentor. The FDA does not require oversight of the test because it's a "home brew" -- a test sold as a service.

Women are saying, "Wow, that's really neat, I'm going to get that!" And every time that they sell a test, that woman is potentially putting herself and her family at risk for heartbreak.

Danielle Hardy, mother whose Baby Gender Mentor test was wrong

Linda Hurtado reports that women are banding together to file a class action lawsuit, alleging that their Baby Gender Mentor result was wrong, and that the company won't honor their promise of a refund.

I think some of this has got to be looked into, and hopefully stopped. You are not supposed to make misrepresentations when selling a product to the public.

Barry Gainey, Gainey and McKenna Law Firm

Acu-Gen, however, maintains that their baby gender test works as advertised. Acu-Gen's president, Chang Wang, says, "We have done thousands of tests. I think if you want to do a fair comparison, do a fair report, you should check thousands of them before you make any comment."

I have to disagree. The 99.9% accuracy claimed by Acu-Gen (never mind statements about "never" being wrong) means that only 1 in 1,000 customers should get a wrong result. Yet over 70 women have reported here on In-Gender.com that their gender test was wrong, according to ultrasound results, not to mention numerous reports on other pregnancy forums. For these 70 cases to represent the 0.1% error rate claimed by Acu-Gen, sales of at least 70,000 kits would be needed. In November, the kit's retailer, Sherry Bonelli, stated that 4,000 kits had been sold, with half those being sold in the first few weeks after the product debuted on NBC's Today Show in late June.

Although Bonelli maintains that ultrasound is unreliable at determining a baby's gender, so far over 20 women on this site alone have delivered babies that confirm their ultrasound was right, and Baby Gender Mentor was wrong.

Experts call for regulation of baby gender tests
ABC News, Tampa, Florida
(Story and video)
Baby gender test spawns lawsuit
ABC News, Tampa, Florida
(Video link)
Baby Gender Mentor Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
Gainey and McKenna Law Firm
Includes questionnaire for Baby Gender Mentor customers

ABC News asks if Baby Gender Mentor is "inaccurate, or worse?"

Maureen — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:56:00 GMT

Erin Rivera bought the Baby Gender Mentor to find out her baby's unborn gender at just 10 weeks of pregnancy. She thought it would be fun to surprise her husband, stationed in Afghanistan, with their baby's sex much earlier than possible by ultrasound. "Congratulations, it's a boy!" was the result from Baby Gender Mentor.

But Erin's "fun" turned into fear when she got a call from Acu-Gen's president, Chang Wang, with a different kind of news. He told her she should have genetic testing because her baby had a chromosomal abnormality.

"He just kept saying, 'Well, most people would like to know so they would have a choice.' And I got very upset and started crying and he laughed at me and hung up on me."

Erin Rivera

But Erin soon found there was reason to doubt information from Acu-Gen. Here on In-Gender.com, she found reports from dozens of other pregnant women who were confused and upset after purchasing the Baby Gender Mentor. Not only did ultrasound indicate that their baby was not the gender predicted by the gender test, but a few had also received disturbing news about possible fetal abnormalities from Acu-Gen.

One was Danielle from Kentucky. After repeated testing by Acu-Gen insisted her baby was a boy, and suggestions that her baby could have chromosomal abnormalities, she gave birth to a healthy daughter in December. Yet, Wang still contends there has never been an error.

We don't make mistake. Period.

Mr. C N Wang, Acu-Gen President

Yet over 20 women have reported here that after giving birth, their baby is not the gender they were told to expect by Baby Gender Mentor.

Linda Hurtado of ABC Tampa interviewed Erin and Danielle and visited Acu-Gen BioLab in the first part of a two part series. The second part will air tonight.

Baby gender test leads to great concern for some mothers-to-be
ABC News, Tampa Florida
(Story and video)
Baby Gender Mentor Forum

Class action lawsuit against Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor is investigated

Maureen — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:04:00 GMT

A New Jersey law firm is investigating claims from customers dissatisfied with Baby Gender Mentor. The investigation is detailed at www.babygenderinvestigation.com. According to the Web site, allegations being investigated include:

Baby Gender Mentor's 99.9% accuracy claim is disputed. No data has been provided by the company to support this claim.
The 200% money-back guarantee is not fulfilled. Women have reported that Acu-Gen changed the terms of the refund after the product was purchased, making it unreasonable or impossible to receive a refund.
Unwarranted medical advice and diagnoses. Women say they have experienced emotional distress after being contacted by Acu-Gen's Dr. Wang and informed that their baby has a chromosomal abnormality or other defect, and some have undergone unnecessary medical treatment based on this "advice".

Gender selection? Most Americans just aren't interested.

Maureen — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:47:00 GMT

Even if choosing your baby's sex were as easy as taking a pink or blue pill, most Americans would prefer to leave it up to chance, according to a new study.

One of the main concerns usually mentioned by opponents of preconception gender selection is the possibility of upsetting the birth ratio -- usually under the assumption that since boys are preferred, too few girls would be born. This is the current situation in China and India, where a cultural bias for sons is so strong that the birth of a daughter is always considered "bad news".

The study's authors point out that whether widely available gender selection could cause a sex ratio imbalance in the US "cannot be answered by intuition, but only by evidence," which is now provided in a survey of nearly 1,200 Americans. Here are the survey results (paraphrased by me).

If you could choose the gender of your first child, what would you choose?

39% Boy, 19% Girl, 42% Don't Care

This question shows a strong preference for a son as the first born. Because some studies on birth order have shown firstborns are higher-achieving (more likely to go to college than siblings, for example), some opponents of gender selection have argued that this preference could result in a "nation of little sisters".

However, although the survey results show this preference to be widespread, we don't know whether it is a mild or a strong preference. Is the desire for a firstborn son strong enough to result in the use of assisted gender selection, or is it merely strong enough to affect a survey response? Is it a passionate wish or simply a pleasant image of a big brother watching out for little sister?

As we'll see in following questions, even though Americans may express a gender preference, few are willing to take any action to fulfill that preference.

If you would like to have more than one child, what would you like your children's gender to be?

50% Equal boys and girls
5% Boys only
7% More boys than girls
4% Girls only
6% More girls than boys
27% No preference

Half want the same number of girls and boys, while nearly 1/4 preferred one gender over the other. But those with a preference were almost evenly split in preferring a boy or a girl, with 12% wanting only boys or more boys, and 10% preferring only girls or more girls.

Overall, 73% did express a preference for their children's gender, but again, few of them would be willing to interfere with nature to fulfill that preference.

Would you be willing to use artificial insemination to choose your baby's sex, if it cost $2,500 per attempt and 3 to 5 attempts would be needed?

8% Yes, 73% No, 18% Unsure

The majority would be unwilling to choose their baby's gender if it involved going to a fertility center, and undergoing 3 to 5 cycles of artificial insemination at a cost of $2,500 per attempt.

Only 8% were willing to use gender selection under these conditions. Although this is an excellent question for survey purposes, it probably paints a far too optimistic picture of the true state of gender selection technology, because it implies that you're guaranteed the gender of your choice if you're willing to spend a maximum $7,500 on 5 attempts. The truth is, it's likely to cost far more and there's no guarantee you'll get pregnant -- and there's still a chance of having the opposite gender in the end.

Would you be willing to use artificial insemination to choose your baby's sex, if it required only one procedure in your doctor's office and was covered by your health insurance?

12% Yes, 64% No, 24% Undecided

Even if gender selection involved only one doctor's visit, only 12% would be willing to take advantage of it. This seems to indicate that for most people, the unwillingness to use assisted medical gender selection is not due to its cost or inconvenience.

If you could choose your baby's sex by taking a pink pill or a blue pill, would you?

18% Yes, 59% No, 22% Undecided

And finally, even if gender selection required virtually no effort at all, only 18% would be willing to take any action to interfere with nature to ensure the gender of their choice, with the majority preferring to leave it up to chance.

The conclusion? Even if there were a gender selection clinic on every corner in the US, most Americans prefer to leave their baby's gender up to chance. And of those who would like to choose, about half would choose a boy and half would choose a girl. There seems to be little threat to the US sex ratio as the result of assisted gender selection.

Preconception sex selection demand and preferences in the United States
FEB-2006, Fertility and Sterility
Edgar Dahl, PhD, et al.
Americans Prefer to Leave Child's Sex to Chance, Survey Finds
AScribe Newswire

New research shows that X and Y sperm have the same shape and size

Maureen — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:06:00 GMT

This is going to come as a shock to followers of the Shettles gender selection method: research using the most reliable and advanced techniques for analyzing human sperm has revealed that there is no difference in the size and shape of X and Y sperm -- a finding in direct conflict with Shettles' main principle.

The study appears in the latest issue of Fertility and Sterility, the respected journal of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). The conclusion agrees with some previous studies showing that X and Y sperm cells have the same morphology (size, shape, and structure).

So what does this mean for the Shettles method? In his book, Dr. Shettles claims the size difference between the two types of sperm -- X and Y, with the X's responsible for the conception of a girl and the Y's causing the conception of a boy -- is the key to swaying the odds in favor of conceiving the gender of your choice. Because the Y chromosome is smaller than the X chromosome, Shettles theorized, the Y-bearing sperm should be smaller and faster. The greater mass of the X sperm, on the other hand, should make it slower but hardier and better able to overcome obstacles to fertilization.

There's no dispute that the X chromosome is bigger than the Y chromosome, as this photo clearly shows. But the sex chromosome is only one of the 23 chromosomes carried by a sperm -- in total, an X sperm carries only 2.9% more genetic material than a Y sperm. As you can see, the difference isn't that great.

Total DNA in X Sperm
Total DNA in Y Sperm (2.9% less)

Data from the study shows that, not only are X and Y sperm indistinguishable from one another, even abnormal sperm cells with the wrong number of chromosomes -- too many or too few chromosomes -- cannot be identified by having a different shape or size.

Shettles describes how he observed two distinct populations of sperm: smaller, pointier sperm that he assumed were Y sperm, and bulkier, rounder sperm that he assumed were X sperm. However, Shettles never proved that the different-appearing sperm cells he saw actually corresponded to X and Y sperm. We now know for a fact that it is impossible to identify a living X from a Y sperm just by looking at it with a microscope, no matter how powerful the microscope is. (If it were, we'd have a reliable method of gender selection without resorting to PGD.)

The truth is that at the time Dr. Shettles conducted his interesting sperm experiments -- more than 4 decades ago -- there didn't exist an accurate method of detecting X and Y sperm in a semen sample.

Two sperm at different stages of maturity

What has been shown by recent research is that sperm shape indicates maturity, not whether the sperm is carrying an X or Y chromosome. Sperm cells which have undergone "capacitation", which occurs after ejaculation and enables a sperm cell to fertilize an egg, are pointy. Sperm cells which have not undergone this process are round and enlarged, and cannot fertilize an egg.

It seems clear that Dr. Shettles sincerely wanted to find a method that would help parents choose the sex of their baby. But was his theory founded on wishful thinking? Did his dream of finding a useful difference between X and Y sperm lead him to make a false assumption when he saw differently-shaped sperm cells under the microscope?

Dimensional assessment of X-bearing and Y-bearing haploid and disomic human sperm with the use of fluorescence in situ hybridization and objective morphometry
Fertility and Sterility, JAN-2006
Lack of significant morphological differences between human X and Y spermatozoa
Journal of Andrology, JAN-2001
X-ray microscopy of human spermatozoa shows change of mitochondrial morphology after capacitation
Human Reproduction, APR-1999
The Shettles Method for gender selection

Baby Gender Mentor named a "best product of the year" by DataMonitor, obviously a very on-the-ball company

Maureen — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 04:34:00 GMT

No, you're not accidently reading "The Onion" by mistake, this really happened.

Baby Gender Mentor has been selected as one of the top 10 best products of 2005 in Datamonitor's "Build a Better Mousetrap" report, according to the Glasgow Daily Record.

Datamonitor is actually a well known market analyst, not, as you are probably thinking at this point, a bunch of crackheads. Datamonitor describes itself as a "premium business information company specialising in industry analysis" providing "unbiased expert analysis".

"Next time maybe do a little research."

Apparently "expert analysis" in this case translates to "watching Katie Couric on the Today Show and counting how many other media outlets copy the story" because this company sapiently selected a Top 10 product which has resulted in an avalanche of complaints from pregnant mothers, been the subject of critical articles by NPR, Boston Globe, and Newsweek, and its online retailer is under investigation by the state attorney general for consumer fraud.

What will they think of next?
Researchers have come up with a list of the best innovations from last year, ranging from a 'healthy' whisky to a kit for would-be parents to find out the sex of their baby
Glasgow Daily Record
Datamonitor's 2005 "Build a Better Mousetrap" New Product Innovations of the Year
Datamonitor Press Release

Fertell: A new at-home fertility test for men and women

Maureen — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:08:00 GMT

A new at-home fertility test for men and women called Fertell goes on sale today in the UK, and is scheduled to be available later this year in the US. Some fertility experts have praised the product, saying that it will help couples identify fertility problems before spending a year trying "fruitlessly" to get pregnant, as many doctors advise.

I think this is a nifty product, but I'm not sure it's worth the hefty price of $140 (£80 in the UK), because you could obtain the same tests at a medical lab for about the same price.

Female fertility test: A urine test measures the level of FSH hormone. By comparison, the cost for a more exact test in a lab is about $100.
Male fertility test: A semen test determines if sperm are able to swim through a barrier that simulates the cervix. By comparison, the cost for a complete semen analysis in a lab is about $50.

Fertell female fertility test -- Testing your FSH level

About FSH testing: FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) is a hormone in your urine, and it communicates the message each month to your ovaries that it is time to ovulate, or release an egg.

If this level is elevated, or too high, this indicates a fertility problem, meaning that you may have too few eggs, or poor quality eggs. This happens as women grow older, so an FSH test is of interest to you if you are 35 or older and trying to conceive. Any woman who is preparing to get pregnant by IVF will have an FSH test, and if your FSH level is too high, you may be rejected for treatment because you are considered to have a poor chance of getting pregnant.

How to take the test: It's a simple POAS (pee-on-a-stick) test, taken on cycle day 3.

Test results: The test shows a reference line, which represents an FSH level of 10. If your test line is lighter, that means your FSH level is lower than 10, and that's good. If your line is darker, your FSH level is higher than 10, and it might mean you're going to have a hard time getting pregnant.

Is it accurate? Fertell says this test is 95% accurate when used by consumers.

What you should know: A high FSH level indicates a problem, but on the other hand a low FSH level doesn't necessarily mean "everything's okay". You may still have other fertility problems that prevent pregnancy. Also, I would be very wary of interpreting a good FSH level as meaning, "hey, I'm in great shape, it's okay to wait 5 more years to try to get pregnant". When it comes to fertility, time is your enemy; don't be fooled into forgetting that.

Alternatives to the Fertell female fertility test

A Day 3 FSH test performed in a lab, $100. This test will tell you your exact FSH level (not just whether it is over/under 10). If you are approaching 35, talk to your OB about an FSH test; this could be an extremely important test for your future fertility.
At-home FSH test strips cost just a few dollars, but they are much less sensitive than the Fertell test. These will only tell you if your FSH level is very elevated (25 or higher). Your FSH level can still be way too high to be accepted for IVF, for example, and not be detected by these strips. However, if you are concerned about your fertility because you are 35 or older, it may be worthwhile to spend $2 to make sure that your FSH level is at least below 25 before spending $100 or more on another test.

In summary, the Fertell female fertility test is less precise than the same test performed in a lab, but it's far more useful than other at-home FSH tests, because it can tell you whether you have a close to normal FSH level, or a borderline level.

Fertell male fertility test -- testing sperm

The Fertell male fertility test is an amazing gadget that determines whether a man's sperm are likely to be able to swim to the egg.

How to take the test:

A semen sample is collected right in the test cup.
At the press of a button, the test device measures a specific amount of semen, then layers a column of fluid over the semen. This fluid mimics cervical mucus (CM), the fluid found in the vagina through which sperm must swim to reach the egg.
The test unit also automatically heats the fluid to normal body temperature. Wow!
Motile sperm (good swimmers) travel up through the fluid. If enough sperm complete the journey, a line on the test strip gives a positive result.

Alternatives to the Fertell male fertility test

A semen analysis performed in a lab, about $50. And NO, you do not have to produce the semen sample by yourself in the clinic, you can do it at home if you can get it to the lab within 30 minutes or so. There are even special condoms used to collect semen for a semen analysis. A semen analysis will give you more information than a simple Yes/No result like the Fertell test; you will get actual numbers for sperm count, motility, morphology, etc.
The FertilMarq Male Fertility test, about $40. Despite the fact that the media has been calling Fertell the "world's first over-the-counter home fertility test for men," the FertilMarq test has been available for about 2 years. FertilMarq simply measures whether your semen has a high enough sperm count. The kit includes two tests and condoms for semen collection. This test only measures how many sperm are present, unlike the Fertell test which also tells you whether they can swim.

In summary, the Fertell male fertility test is a fascinating contraption, and it provides one interesting and useful measurement of whether your sperm are likely to get the job done. However, semen quality is quite variable, and if you have poor semen quality, there's a good chance you can improve it by changing your lifestyle; improving your diet, taking vitamins, reducing stress, and quitting smoking and drinking, can all improve your sperm quality. But unfortunately you can't buy the male test alone, so if you'd like to test again to see if you've improved using the Fertell test, you'll be out the full $140 again.

What Maureen really wants to know...

What I really want to know is whether that semen test gizmo is reusable, because it would be interesting to fill it with real cervical mucus. Many women have trouble conceiving because their cervical mucus isn't hospitable enough to the sperm, and it would really be useful for couples to see if YOUR sperm can swim through MY cervical mucus, perhaps at different points in the cycle.

And another thing I'd like to know... was it really a great idea to use this picture on the Fertell web site, as an illustration of a product that uses urine and semen? Yuck.

How to buy Fertell

Currently Fertell is available only from Boots the Chemist Web site and stores in the UK. It is planned to be sold in the US in Q3 of 2006.

Links

Fertell Web Site
Male fertility kit goes on sale
BBC News
Men's fertility test available over the counter
The Independent (UK)
DIY male fertility test may cut couples wait for a baby
The Times Online (UK)
First ever DIY fertility test for men
UK Daily Mail

Does your unborn baby's heart rate predict gender? An old wives' tale debunked (again)

Maureen — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:29:00 GMT

A new medical study confirms, yet again, that fetal heart rate can't tell a pregnant woman if her baby is a boy or a girl.

As the old wives' tale has it, if your unborn baby's heart rate is higher, above 140 beats per minute, that means you're carrying a girl. A lower heart rate below 140 bpm means you're having a boy.

It's hard to resist such an easy test, because for nearly every woman in the early stages of pregnancy, the baby's heart rate is just about the only thing we can find out about it. So it's easy to try to over-analyze this little bit of information we can get.

But don't get your hopes up, or have your hopes dashed, based on your baby's heart rate, because it has absolutely nothing to do with what your baby has between its legs. This was proven beyond question 20 years ago, by a senior sonographer who analyzed thousands of births to establish that fetal heart rate did not correlate with the baby's sex. (See link to study below.)

Quite convincing data, but still I decided to conduct my own experiment to see if fetal heart rate could indicate a baby's gender. To do my experiment, I first became pregnant with boy/girl twins. Then, I underwent a LOT of fetal heart monitoring, including one week of almost constant monitoring while hospitalized for preterm labor, as well as twice-weekly non-stress tests in which both babies heart rates were tracked for 30 minutes. (You can see I am quite dedicated to the interests of science.)

The result? Sometimes the boy's heart rate was higher, sometimes the girl's heart rate was higher. No pattern, except that when one of the babies seemed to be more active, kicking and moving around alot, that baby's heart rate would tend to be higher. It makes sense, that a baby's heart rate might vary a good bit depending on whether it's active or at rest at the time the heart rate is checked.

As if my own research weren't convincing enough, a new study, published in Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, tells us that analysis of over 500 births proves again that fetal heart rate cannot predict whether a baby is a boy or a girl.

Contrary to beliefs commonly held by many pregnant women and their families, there are no significant differences between male and female fetal heart rate during the first trimester.

Medical study, link below

So the next time you see a post in a pregnancy forum from a mother "proving" this theory is right because her two girls had high heart rates and her three friends had boys with low heart rates, you can set the record straight on this old wives' tale: it's false.

Gender-related differences in fetal heart rate during first trimester
Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy, 2006
Sex, Heart Rate, and Age
OBGyn.net Publications

Acu-Gen balks at giving refunds for birth certificates showing Baby Gender Mentor was wrong

Maureen — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:38:00 GMT

Dozens of mothers who have complained that their Baby Gender Mentor results are incorrect according to ultrasound, CVS or amnio have been told by Acu-Gen's C.N. Wang to "reserve judgment" until the baby is born. Sherry Bonelli, online retailer of the Baby Gender Mentor prenatal gender test, maintains that Acu-Gen "stands behind" their 200% money back guarantee and claims that no refunds have yet been issued for a wrong Baby Gender Mentor result after the birth of a baby.

However, now that many women who paid $275 for the gender test that went on sale in June are due to deliver, or have just given birth, the conditions for the 200% refund have suddenly been changed.

Lauren Elizabeth
Born 11-11-2005
9 lb., 5 oz.

After an 18-week ultrasound clearly showed that Jeanne's baby was a girl -- not a boy, as her Baby Gender Mentor result claimed -- Jeanne waited patiently until her baby girl was born, and sent one of the three original birth certificates provided by the state to Acu-Gen. To her surprise, she received a letter from Acu-Gen stating that meeting the original requirements of the refund offer wasn't good enough.

We have received your request for the refund and are currently processing the case. We have also received your access code, registration number, and birth certificate. However, in order to complete the refund process, BabyGenderMentor requires the additional following items as outlined in our 200% guarantee.

1. An original birth certificate with your current address that must match your original mailing address at the time of the test.

2. A blood samle of your baby for kinship confirmation. You can obtain an archived sample of your baby's blood from the hospital of birth, or if necessary, Acu-Gen Biolab will provide a heelstick kit for you.

If you have any further questions, feel free to contact our customer service or refer to our 200% money-back warrantee at www.babygendermentor.com. Thank you.

Letter from Acu-Gen, 12/27/05

However, these requirements didn't exist when Jeanne bought her Baby Gender Mentor kit. Here's a scan of Jeanne's Baby Gender Mentor box:

Nothing about maintaining the same place of residence throughout your pregnancy in order to be eligible for a refund, and certainly no requirement to jab your newborn's foot to obtain an additional blood sample.

Previously, the conditions for the Baby Gender Mentor refund were stated on the BabyGenderMentor.com Web site as follows:

We guarantee that all test results will be 99.9% accurate. If your test results are legitimately incorrect, Baby Gender Mentor warranties a 200% refund of both the laboratory and purchasing expenses. A valid registration number and an original birth certificate are required for the refund.

Baby Gender Mentor Web site, September 2005

The Baby Gender Mentor Web site has now been changed to this:

Baby Gender Mentor warranties a 200% money-back refund for both the laboratory fee and purchasing expense of the kit. An original birth certificate and a valid registration number are both required to claim the refund. In order to be eligible for the 200% money-back guarantee you MUST read and adhere to all the recommended procedures. In addition, the parent’s name on the original birth certificate MUST match exactly the name on the blood specimen collection card, and your current address MUST match your original mailing address at the time of the test. To substantiate your claim, you MUST agree to submit the blood sample of the baby for kinship confirmation if requested by the lab. Baby Gender Mentor is not responsible for any consequences resulting from failure to follow kit instructions and will deny the 200% refund to cases deemed fraudulent. Furthermore, Baby Gender Mentor is not liable for the successful outcome of your pregnancy. In the advent of a miscarriage, no refunds will be granted. Baby Gender Mentor will not accept any gender discrepancy claims citing ultrasound image, karyotyping/FISH analysis, or any other indirect, low-resolution gender-determining techniques.

Baby Gender Mentor Web site, December 2005

What a ridiculous and pathetic attempt by this company to avoid honoring their refund promise for an incorrect result.

To get a refund, you can't move during your pregnancy

...and your current address MUST match your original mailing address at the time of the test...

This means, even though your Baby Gender Mentor test was in fact wrong, just because you move during your remaining 8 months of pregnancy, you are no longer entitled to a refund. Preposterous. At least two women have mentioned that they had their Baby Gender Mentor kit delivered to a female friend or relative with no males in the household, to reduce the chances of contamination by their husband or sons.

To get a refund, you can't maintain your privacy

Although Baby Gender Mentor's online retailer, PregnancyStore.com, assures customers that "you remain anonymous and private throughout the entire process", confidentiality goes out the window when matching names and addresses are needed for a refund.

Anonymous and Private: Baby Gender Mentor Home DNA Gender Testing Kit gender test results are guarded by secure transmission protocols. To protect your identity, your baby gender test results will only be identified by the Acu-Gen Access Code Number included with your kit. Privacy and confidentiality is VERY important to us. (For instance, when you're filling out your kit registration, you don't even need to provide your name or address -- you can remain anonymous!) You remain anonymous and private throughout the entire process. Your personal information is kept separate from the Acu-Gender test -- the lab knows only your access code and the administrator knows only the registration number. Only YOU know both the Access code and registration number to retrieve the data. Also, credit card information is also kept private and is not given to the lab – your credit card information is between your credit card company and the automatic credit card verification process. Your blood sample will be archived 12 months to prevent any refund dispute related to discrepant result, after that time your blood sample will be destroyed.

PregnancyStore.com

To get a refund, you must submit a blood sample from your baby

...you MUST agree to submit the blood sample of the baby for kinship confirmation...

I'm running out of synonyms for "ridiculous" here, let's go with "absurd". Although Acu-Gen is at fault, rather than offering an apology and a quick refund, they demand that you jab your newborn in the foot to get a blood sample! Why should your baby have to suffer getting pricked in the foot, and why should you have to endure a squalling newborn, because of Acu-Gen's mistake and ineptitude?

And why on earth would we believe that Acu-Gen would be able to make a valid "kinship confirmation" when they got the baby's gender wrong in the first place?

To get a refund, you must first give birth

...Baby Gender Mentor will not accept any gender discrepancy claims citing ultrasound image, karyotyping/FISH analysis, or any other indirect, low-resolution gender-determining techniques...

In fact, several refunds have been issued on the basis of ultrasound and CVS or amniocentesis. Several women on this site have reported receiving refunds after complaining to Acu-Gen that these tests did not agree with Baby Gender Mentor, and a retest by Acu-Gen suddenly produced the "correct" result.

To get a refund, you must deliver a live baby

...In the advent of a miscarriage, no refunds will be granted...

In the event of an early miscarriage, where the baby's gender cannot be determined, I don't see any reason why Acu-Gen should provide a refund, since the service was provided. However, if the baby's gender is determined by genetic testing or otherwise, and the Baby Gender Mentor result was incorrect, why wouldn't the company stand behind their results and refund the bereaved parent's wasted money for a wrong result? Here is a message from a mother whose daughter was stillborn in December.

What is even worse is that I called Acu-Gen since they would not respond to my e-mail and was told that they only refund for healthy babies, he didn't even know what stillborn meant. I had to explain what it was. I called back and asked to speak to the boss. He was rude!!!!!!!!!!! He said I could send my proof but their test was 99.9% accurate and didn't see how they could possibly make a mistake.

Tina

Another woman, Lisa, was told by Baby Gender Mentor that her twins were both boys -- but an amnio confirmed she wasy carrying twin girls. Sadly, Lisa's twin girls were stillborn earlier this month at 22 weeks. Lisa is sending the death certificates, indicating that both babies are female, to Acu-Gen in hopes that the refund she is entitled to will help with burial costs.

"Standing behind" a guarantee, or running away from it?

Many women with incorrect Baby Gender Mentor results have worried that by the time their baby is born, Acu-Gen will no longer be in business, or will have simply disappeared. This new set of preposterous refund requirements seems to confirm their fears that Acu-Gen will not honor their original guarantee.

Baby Gender Mentor...will deny the 200% refund to cases deemed fraudulent.

Baby Gender Mentor Web site

It's really ironic that Acu-Gen is so worried about being the victim of fraud, isn't it?

Having trouble conceiving? Your odds may be higher of having a boy.

Maureen — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:43:00 GMT

New research that shows that among women who tried to conceive for over a year, 58% of the babies born were boys, compared to the normal 51% birth ratio. Researchers concluded that for each year of trying to conceive, odds of having a boy increased by an additional 4% compared to a girl. The study included 5,000 Dutch women, of whom 500 had taken longer than 12 months to become pregnant. All of the women conceived naturally.

What's the cause for the increased male birth ratio among women who TTC over a year? The researchers put forth the theory that it has to do with a woman's cervical mucus (CM), the fluid in the vagina that sperm must swim through to reach the egg. What's known for sure is that if the CM is plentiful and slippery, sperm glide through it towards their goal; but if the CM is sticky and viscous, sperm become entangled and conception is prevented. The study suggests that the women who had trouble conceiving had poor quality CM, and that Y-bearing sperm can more quickly make their way through the viscous CM, and thus more boys are conceived.

This is going out on a pretty long limb, in my opinion. First of all, the researchers are assuming that the reason most women didn't conceive easily was due to poor CM quality. Certainly, this is a common reason many women don't conceive right away (and easily corrected), but is it the most common reason? And more to the point, was it the most common reason among this specific group of women? Perhaps many of the women just didn't know the right time to have sex, which is another frequent reason many couples don't get pregnant right away, because many women just don't recognize the signs of ovulation.

Secondly, the researchers state the assumption that Y sperm (which produce boys) swim faster in more viscous cervical mucus. The research on this topic isn't convincing to me, in that the study cited is by Dr. Ronald Ericsson, the originator of the Ericsson sex selection method. The study is from 1973, and uses a technique later shown to be inaccurate to prove that Y sperm can be isolated using the Ericsson method. Subsequent studies, using accurate testing methods, showed that in fact, the method did not increase the numbers of Y sperm. However, it is apparently based on this apparently very flimsy bit of evidence that the BMJ chose to list this study under the heading "Y sperm may swim faster than X sperm".

So I'm not really buying this theory that a long time conceiving is equal to poor CM which thus gives Y sperm an advantage.

However, this study does provide some interesting evidence which seems to be contrary to the Shettles theory -- which, in a nutshell, states that conditions most favorable to conception will cause a boy to be more likely, while conditions least favorable for conception will more likely result in a girl. Yet here we see that when conditions were unfavorable for conception, for whatever the reason, boys were significantly more likely.

Time to pregnancy and sex of offspring
Luc J M Smits, Rob A de Bie, Gerard G Essed, Piet A van den Brandt
BMJ.com (British Medical Journal)
Women who struggle to conceive more likely to have sons
NewScientist.com
Slow-to-conceive parents 'have more boys'
Scotsman.com

Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor now for sale in Australia

Maureen — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 04:00:00 GMT

Down Under moms can now get have their unborn baby's gender predicted by Acu-Gen using the Baby Gender Mentor at-home test. Although media coverage surrounding the test's launch in June included a number of interviews stating that the product would only be available in the US due to concerns over its use for sex selective abortion in other parts of the world, it was recently reported that Baby Gender Mentor is being sold in the UK, and now in Australia.

Are India and China far behind? Parents in those countries often abort babies when an ultrasound reveals the baby is a girl, instead of the hoped-for son; even though revealing a baby's gender by ultrasound is banned, the practice continues at such a rate that the birth ratio has been significantly skewed. The use of Baby Gender Mentor in those countries is particularly frightening given that there is little doubt that parents would undergo sex selective abortions based on the results, which have not been proven to be accurate -- and may, in fact, be far from it.

DIY kit to tell baby's gender
Herald Sun, Australia

Acu-Gen reports chromosomal abnormalities to pregnant mothers who paid for gender test

Maureen — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:22:00 GMT

Some mothers who paid for the Baby Gender Mentor at-home blood test, which claims to detect an unborn baby's gender just 5 weeks into pregnancy, have gotten a lot more than they bargained for.

Pregnant mom Erin Rivera just thought it would be fun to tell her husband, who is stationed in Afghanistan, the gender of their third child. Instead of "fun", Erin got a shock when a call from Acu-Gen's scientific director, C.N. Wang, informed her that additional tests of her blood sample indicated the possibility of chromosomal abnormalities.

I was crying and crying. I never paid him to find that out.

Erin Rivera

Wang advised Erin to have genetic testing, which would require an amniocentesis to obtain samples of the baby's cells for testing. Because this procedure is expensive and carries a risk of miscarriage, it is only carried out in high risk cases. Following her doctor's advice, Erin decided not to have an amnio, because all other tests indicate that her baby is healthy.

Melissa, another expectant mother, has posted here in the Baby Gender Mentor forum that she, too, got a call from Wang with bad news. Melissa's Baby Gender Mentor test indicated her baby is male, but multiple ultrasounds show that the baby is a girl. After repeated testing, Wang told Melissa that there is "no doubt" her baby has male DNA, but may have a chromosomal defect that can cause malformed genitalia. When the terrified mother asked about the accuracy of this result, she was told only that Acu-Gen's testing is "far more advanced" than other prenatal diagnostics currently available. Rather than enjoying the end of her pregnancy and preparing for her baby girl, Melissa has 10 weeks of agony and worry over her baby's health to endure.

Danielle was also told by Acu-Gen that she should have chromosomal testing performed, after her Baby Gender Mentor result of a boy didn't match several ultrasound exams that showed a girl.

Many other women, who purchased the Baby Gender Mentor test just to satisfy curiosity or to get a head start on decorating the nursery, have found themselves plagued with worries about their baby's health as well. They're asking themselves, "If this gender test is perfect, and 'DNA doesn't lie', what does it mean if Acu-Gen says my baby is a boy but there are no male genitals?" Several have said, "I wish I'd never heard of this test!"

Is this legal?

The question some women are now asking is, why did this lab provide a medical diagnosis when the product is advertised only as a simple gender test?

The US Food and Drug Administration told the company that it did not need approval because the test would not be used for a medical diagnosis.

According to Acu-Gen's C.N. Wang, Boston Globe

Now, however, the test's maker has gone far beyond the original intent, to determine gender only, and has provided a diagnosis on which women might base important healthcare decisions. Faced with the news of a chromosomal or genetic defect, a woman might decide to risk an amniocentesis that would otherwise be deemed unnecessary; worse still, the possibility exists that a woman could choose to terminate a pregnancy based on this "advanced" and supposedly infallible testing.

Yet Acu-Gen has not revealed the methods behind their testing for scientific scrutiny, nor provided any research data that would prove accuracy or provide a false-positive rate. How can a woman's own obstetrician, responsible for the care of mother and unborn baby, have any idea how to evaluate such a claim?

There's no published data as to how well this works. The techniques we used are nowhere near as encouraging as people are being led to believe. It is fraught with potential complications.

Mark Evans, lead investigator of a National Institutes of Health trial on fetal cells in maternal blood

Prenatal test reveals more than gender
New Jersey Star-Ledger
(Article free through 14-NOV-05.)