The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So what does this all mean? What this means is that if you are a woman who is in her 20s or 30s or 40s, whatever your age, if you are interested in conceiving in the future, it's very likely a good idea to go to your OB/GYN and get either your AMH levels measured or your follicle count measured and to do that several times in a given period.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I know personally a lot of OBGYNs who 100% will draw an amh blood task if you're at your annual and you ask and I recommend all of my OB friends because I see people at a different stage right when they see me they're struggling to get pregnant or they want to freeze their eggs