Recommend a doctor who listens, will look at BBT charts?

[Anonymous]

OP here: For everyone who chimed in essentially saying 'you're 40 and the only way you're going to have a baby is by IVF', well, I guess that's your opinion. I'm considering IVF, but IVF rates for women over 40 are terrible. It's generally around a 10-15% live birth rate, which equals 85-90% chance of failure for a given cycle. For those of us who have to self-pay and are looking at potentially 6 cycles to get pregnant (at 15-20k/cycle), along with the many risks of the meds used, I don't think it's so crazy to try and 1) identify factors besides age and 2) find and try the simpler possible solutions for a few cycles, before going to IVF. I got pregnant naturally a few months ago and miscarried, so I know it's not impossible, just less likely as we age. Books like 'making babies' (co-authored by a big-shot RE and a TCM practitioner) and TCOYF name routine tests to be done - like a post-coital test to see if the sperm are surviving in your CM or serial progesterone tests, to see if your progesterone is too low. These are two issues that can be dealt with fairly simply. Or assessing whether the luteal phase is too short. But fertility clinics have no interest in these simple sorts of tests and treatments. Factors like low progesterone also would make IVF less than optimal given that it would contribute to implantation issues. I'm not suggesting sitting around and staring at a BBT chart, but taking into account a spectrum of factors and looking at evidence a doctor collects and a woman collects about herself. It seems reasonable and, actually, responsible, but fall outside of RE's protocol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: For everyone who chimed in essentially saying 'you're 40 and the only way you're going to have a baby is by IVF', well, I guess that's your opinion. I'm considering IVF, but IVF rates for women over 40 are terrible. It's generally around a 10-15% live birth rate, which equals 85-90% chance of failure for a given cycle. For those of us who have to self-pay and are looking at potentially 6 cycles to get pregnant (at 15-20k/cycle), along with the many risks of the meds used, I don't think it's so crazy to try and 1) identify factors besides age and 2) find and try the simpler possible solutions for a few cycles, before going to IVF. I got pregnant naturally a few months ago and miscarried, so I know it's not impossible, just less likely as we age. Books like 'making babies' (co-authored by a big-shot RE and a TCM practitioner) and TCOYF name routine tests to be done - like a post-coital test to see if the sperm are surviving in your CM or serial progesterone tests, to see if your progesterone is too low. These are two issues that can be dealt with fairly simply. Or assessing whether the luteal phase is too short. But fertility clinics have no interest in these simple sorts of tests and treatments. Factors like low progesterone also would make IVF less than optimal given that it would contribute to implantation issues. I'm not suggesting sitting around and staring at a BBT chart, but taking into account a spectrum of factors and looking at evidence a doctor collects and a woman collects about herself. It seems reasonable and, actually, responsible, but fall outside of RE's protocol.

OP, if you were able to get pregnant naturally, why are you concerned about a post-coital test to check if sperm are surviving in your CM or your progesterone levels? Obviously there is no issue with the sperm getting where they need to be or with implantation. Nor is there a serious issue with your luteal phase.

IVF rates are poor for women over 40, but so are the chances of natural conception. That's why so many women are suggesting you try IVF, so your RE can assess the quality of your eggs and make as many embryos as possible. Women typically don't move on to an RE until they've tried on their own naturally and are not having any luck, and they are ready to move on to more medical interventions. I believe the recommended time for trying "naturally" at 40+ is 3 months. But there's no law that says you can't try on your own for longer if that is what you are comfortable with. You just assume the risk that you won't be pregnant a year from now and that your chances of success with IVF are even lower.

BTW, I believe the Making Babies doctor practices in Manhattan, so you could always make an appointment to visit his practice and get his thoughts if you're interested.

Best of luck to you, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: For everyone who chimed in essentially saying 'you're 40 and the only way you're going to have a baby is by IVF', well, I guess that's your opinion. I'm considering IVF, but IVF rates for women over 40 are terrible. It's generally around a 10-15% live birth rate, which equals 85-90% chance of failure for a given cycle. For those of us who have to self-pay and are looking at potentially 6 cycles to get pregnant (at 15-20k/cycle), along with the many risks of the meds used, I don't think it's so crazy to try and 1) identify factors besides age and 2) find and try the simpler possible solutions for a few cycles, before going to IVF. I got pregnant naturally a few months ago and miscarried, so I know it's not impossible, just less likely as we age. Books like 'making babies' (co-authored by a big-shot RE and a TCM practitioner) and TCOYF name routine tests to be done - like a post-coital test to see if the sperm are surviving in your CM or serial progesterone tests, to see if your progesterone is too low. These are two issues that can be dealt with fairly simply. Or assessing whether the luteal phase is too short. But fertility clinics have no interest in these simple sorts of tests and treatments. Factors like low progesterone also would make IVF less than optimal given that it would contribute to implantation issues. I'm not suggesting sitting around and staring at a BBT chart, but taking into account a spectrum of factors and looking at evidence a doctor collects and a woman collects about herself. It seems reasonable and, actually, responsible, but fall outside of RE's protocol.

People are suggesting IVF because at 40 its the most immediate way to ensure your cycle is an attempt that has a chance of taking and at this point every cycle that doesn't take is just another month older you are. You first posted on July 1, you're already through half a cycle just since asking this question. At this point every month is another month closer to 41, optimizing your chances is critical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want a natural approach to fertility go to Tepeyac Family Center.
They will closely examine BBT charts, test hormones, etc.

Just FYI, this is a Catholic practice, so you get all of the complications that come with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: For everyone who chimed in essentially saying 'you're 40 and the only way you're going to have a baby is by IVF', well, I guess that's your opinion. I'm considering IVF, but IVF rates for women over 40 are terrible. It's generally around a 10-15% live birth rate, which equals 85-90% chance of failure for a given cycle. For those of us who have to self-pay and are looking at potentially 6 cycles to get pregnant (at 15-20k/cycle), along with the many risks of the meds used, I don't think it's so crazy to try and 1) identify factors besides age and 2) find and try the simpler possible solutions for a few cycles, before going to IVF. I got pregnant naturally a few months ago and miscarried, so I know it's not impossible, just less likely as we age. Books like 'making babies' (co-authored by a big-shot RE and a TCM practitioner) and TCOYF name routine tests to be done - like a post-coital test to see if the sperm are surviving in your CM or serial progesterone tests, to see if your progesterone is too low. These are two issues that can be dealt with fairly simply. Or assessing whether the luteal phase is too short. But fertility clinics have no interest in these simple sorts of tests and treatments. Factors like low progesterone also would make IVF less than optimal given that it would contribute to implantation issues. I'm not suggesting sitting around and staring at a BBT chart, but taking into account a spectrum of factors and looking at evidence a doctor collects and a woman collects about herself. It seems reasonable and, actually, responsible, but fall outside of RE's protocol.

Yes, but it could also be something different. Like a polyp preventing implantation. Or your thyroid. Or Ashermans. Or something else. Charts and postcoital tests dont tell you any of that. You need a full diagnostic with an RE. Books are for those who would probably be able to conceive anyhow given enough time. I (at 41) needed a surgery before I could conceive and carry a pregnancy. You can read books, but you also need to be fully tested, not just pick-and-choose whatever you happen to read about it.

Getting fully tested is your best bet. What you do with that info is up to you. If you can't afford IVF you can do Clomid and/or IUIs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a natural approach to fertility go to Tepeyac Family Center.
They will closely examine BBT charts, test hormones, etc.

Just FYI, this is a Catholic practice, so you get all of the complications that come with that.

and all the benefits. They won't do anything that involves conception taking place outside of 'the marital act.' But they will do everything possible to get your body working as best it can. RE's can be quick to go to IVF.

[Anonymous]

Yes IVF rates are low for women over 40. Because women over 40 who can conceive easily don't get IVF. Only women who struggle or have other issues pursue IVF, so the data is skewed.

Look at rates of natural conception for women over 40. It's not great. I think you have a 5% chance each month?

So you are paying to triple your chances. It sucks it's so expensive. But it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a natural approach to fertility go to Tepeyac Family Center.
They will closely examine BBT charts, test hormones, etc.

Just FYI, this is a Catholic practice, so you get all of the complications that come with that.

and all the benefits. They won't do anything that involves conception taking place outside of 'the marital act.' But they will do everything possible to get your body working as best it can. RE's can be quick to go to IVF.

So they would do a medicated cycle with timed intercourse but not IUI, right? What about genetic testing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want a natural approach to fertility go to Tepeyac Family Center.
They will closely examine BBT charts, test hormones, etc.

Just FYI, this is a Catholic practice, so you get all of the complications that come with that.

and all the benefits. They won't do anything that involves conception taking place outside of 'the marital act.' But they will do everything possible to get your body working as best it can. RE's can be quick to go to IVF.

So they would do a medicated cycle with timed intercourse but not IUI, right? What about genetic testing?

yes to the first- I did multiple medicated cycles with timed intercourse. In terms of genetic testing- would they do genetic testing prior to conception? I'm sure they would if medically indicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: For everyone who chimed in essentially saying 'you're 40 and the only way you're going to have a baby is by IVF', well, I guess that's your opinion. I'm considering IVF, but IVF rates for women over 40 are terrible. It's generally around a 10-15% live birth rate, which equals 85-90% chance of failure for a given cycle. For those of us who have to self-pay and are looking at potentially 6 cycles to get pregnant (at 15-20k/cycle), along with the many risks of the meds used, I don't think it's so crazy to try and 1) identify factors besides age and 2) find and try the simpler possible solutions for a few cycles, before going to IVF. I got pregnant naturally a few months ago and miscarried, so I know it's not impossible, just less likely as we age. Books like 'making babies' (co-authored by a big-shot RE and a TCM practitioner) and TCOYF name routine tests to be done - like a post-coital test to see if the sperm are surviving in your CM or serial progesterone tests, to see if your progesterone is too low. These are two issues that can be dealt with fairly simply. Or assessing whether the luteal phase is too short. But fertility clinics have no interest in these simple sorts of tests and treatments. Factors like low progesterone also would make IVF less than optimal given that it would contribute to implantation issues. I'm not suggesting sitting around and staring at a BBT chart, but taking into account a spectrum of factors and looking at evidence a doctor collects and a woman collects about herself. It seems reasonable and, actually, responsible, but fall outside of RE's protocol.

No, that is not correct. You can't say that 10-15% live birth rate means that IVF has a 85-90% chance of failure. A woman can successfully become pregnant with IVF BUT then go on to miscarry. The IVF procedure would be a success meaning pregnancy was achieved. If the eggs aren't good, it doesn't matter whether conception was with or without intervention. Miscarriage will follow.

Why folks are suggesting IVF is that it INCREASES the number of good eggs that are available for conception. With natural conception, you get a shot at one, maybe two eggs. With IVF, you increase that number, often dramatically, and get a shot at the best quality eggs.

Again, you're free to read and post everything you can that slams fertility clinics and doctors. That's definitely your prerogative. Posters here (myself included) were just trying to help you get to what was considered your end goal: a baby. If you have a different goal, then go forth and best wishes in achieving it.