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, so we'd go through three consecutive cycles of this. And it's interesting. So, so, so there's two ways that this treatment could fail, right? The first is um each time we did the ultrasound, we just didn't see an egg. So, right, we were not responding to the follical stimulation, right?
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.
So, so we'd go through three consecutive cycles of this and it's interesting. So, so, so there's two ways that this treatment could fail, right? The first is um each time we did the ultrasound, we just didn't see an egg. So, right, not responding. not responding to the follical stimulation. Um, let's talk about what the implication is there. Alternatively, you could say, God, three out of 3 months we actually got ovulation. Uh, but we didn't get fertilization, right?