Posts Tagged ‘NFP’

MedTech Investor: Check Out the Assumptions of Our Minimum Viable Product Scenario

August 2, 2016

Warhol, Andy, Dollar Sign, 1981Some time back, I published here a blog post titled “The Ovulona is not another ovulation kit, my dear” in response to a Jennifer K. who had written: How is this different from the other ovulation kits on the market today? It seems very similar to products I have seen before. At the time, my blog posts were addressed to all the fertility info-seeking Jennifers (and Jeffreys, too) out there in the social networks but not particularly to the women’s healthcare technology investors.

Now it’s the latter I am reaching out to. See the bioZhena pitch at

And I refer to Home Page of bioZhena’s Weblog to be reviewed in connection with the business assumptions. (Or, for a quicker and probably lighter intro, go to Reproductive Health IQ Does Matter, a LinkedIn post.)

In the present post, we present the bioZhena Business Assumptions in terms of the Total Available Market (TAM), the Serviceable Available Market (SAM) and the Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM). This is to draw attention to the big picture that emerges even in the Minimum Viable Scenario (MVS), the detailed assumptions of which have been worked from bottom up (with due attention to the TAM, SAM and the SOM) and will be shared when appropriate. bioZhena Corporation’s goal is to implement the Full Value Scenario that was constructed based on the MVS. More on this in the closing paragraph of this post.



US Trying-To-Conceive (TTC) Serviceable Available Market $$ (at the TTC mean cost of $2,600 p.a.) is $21,320,000,000

US Serviceable Available Market $$ (at the TTC minimum cost of $200 p.a.) is $1,640,000,000

US Initial Off-Label Birth Control Serviceable Available Market (SAM) $$ is $82,492,000


FIRST PRODUCT SALES IN MONTH 16 POST FUNDING (first product application already FDA-cleared)


Summary Comparison of Minimum Viable Scenario (MVS) with Full Value Scenario (FVS)

FVS compared with MVSClick on the image for better legibility

(the URL is: )


And now for the assumptions – with pictorial embellishments for dividers.

Listing sources of market data (with some comments) followed by the resulting numerical market size assumptions.

‘Satyre et Bacchante’ by Jean-Jacques Pradier, marble, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille.

‘Satyre et Bacchante’ by Jean-Jacques Pradier, marble, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Lille.


Birth Control (BC) Market

CDC 2014 survey: 61.7% of the 60.9 million US women ages 15-49 practice contraception (= 37.6 million contraceptors), and of these 48.1% use the most common methods (the pill, sterilization, condoms, and long-acting reversible contraceptives). That leaves 38.3% or 23.32 million non-contracepting women. Trends in Contraceptive Use Worldwide 2015 Report, Annex Table II: Number of US married or in-union women using contraception = 28,600,000. Number of US women who have an unmet need for family planning = 2,560,000. Worldwide number of women using contraception is 758,000,000 and the number of women who have an unmet need for family planning is 142,000,000 (these are median data as of 2015). Couples often desire to control not just the number of children, but also the timing. We address this desire or need by design.

Next, per Guttmacher Institute 2016 fact sheet, nearly half (45% or 2.8 million) of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended in 2011 (and 42% of those ended in abortion). Contraceptive failure rate plays a big role in this. Meaning that, for 2.8 million of the 37.6 million contracepting women, their method fails (and they seek a solution). 43 million US women were at risk of unintended pregnancy in 2008. (Public expenditures on unintended pregnancies nationwide were estimated to be $21.0 billion in 2010.)

For this Minimum Value Scenario, the conservative assessment of the number of US women in the birth control market is to choose between the 43 million at risk in 2008 and the 2.8 million of unintended pregnancies in 2011 plus the 2,560,000 who have an unmet need for family planning. We choose the latter, which is much smaller, i.e. 2,800,000 plus 2,560,000 = 5,360,000 as the number of US women in the family planning (BC) market segment for our Serviceable Available Market. Indisputably conservative.

US costs of personal birth control average $1,006/year (Health Aff (Millwood) 2015 and 2012). Since average ACA saving was 20%, then 100% = $ 251.5 times 5 = $ 1,257.50.  So, $ 1,257.5 – $ 251.50 = $1,006. (ACA = Affordable Care Act.) Double-check the reasonableness via this tweet.

Hence Our Birth Control (BC) Numerical Assumptions For the Minimum Value Scenario Are:

Number of US Women in the family planning (BC) market is 5,360,000

US Serviceable Available Market (SAM) $$ is $5,392,160,000

Worldwide Number of Women in the family planning (BC) market is 758,000,000

Worldwide Total Available Market $$ is very large even with only the unmet-need number of 142,000,000 women

E.g. if the estimate is based on the above US cost average, TAM is $142,852,000,000

Oh joy  Found on


Initial Off-Label BC Market Upon the Ovulona Launch Assumed At 1%

Commercial market research compendium reports: The Trying-To-Conceive (TTC) tests are utilized for the unauthorized off-label use of aiding women’s natural birth control practice.

Quote: “About Half Who Use Tests Do Not Want Pregnancy”.


Here we assume only 1% of the 8,200,000 US Fertility-Impaired Women Ages 15-44 (see below the CDC data on the TTC market), which is 82,000 women, translating at the assumed mean annual BC cost of $1,006 into an off-label $82,492,000 SAM upon the Ovulona launch into the TTC Market. To reiterate, we assume that 1% of those in the market for a tech tool aiding conception are in fact in the market to help themselves to avoid pregnancy by fertility awareness and will be off-label Ovulona users as soon as the Ovulona becomes available in the marketplace.

This is a reasonable conservative assumption in view of the 69.5 million US Catholics (the largest religious body in the United States) comprising 22% of the population[1] as of 2015. The assumed 82,000 women represent a mere 0.1% of the Catholic population. See an example of unsolicited expression of interest in the Ovulona from a US Catholic. Ovulona market research with 5,000 US women revealed that 70% of those who would buy the Ovulona would switch from their present contraception method.

The assumed SAM number of $82,492,000  represents 30.5% (but read on) of the annual retail sales of ovulation prediction kits (OPKs or LH kits) in the U.S. as they were reported in 2008/2009 when OPKs outpaced the annual sales of home pregnancy tests. The NYT article at cited the annual OPK sales data of $270 million from IRI (Information Resources, Inc.). They derived it from in-store scanners at the retailer level for all of their major CPG clients (Consumer Packaged Goods companies) except for Wal-Mart. This info courtesy of Edward Saettone (via Linkedin Answers).

At annual growth rate of over 10% for personalized diagnostic tools (per PricewaterhouseCoopers), this suggests a SAM over $560,000,000 in 2016, and the assumed off-label SAM of $82,492,000 then represents ~15% of this documented and extrapolated figure for annual sales of OPKs in 2016. The SAM percentage (~15%) will be further reduced by the sales of the electronic ovulation predictor tests that have entered the market in the last decade or so.

For the worldwide assumption we take as base 6% of the worldwide number (758,000,000) minus the number in least developed countries (60,800,000) because: 1.  Only 6 per cent of married or in-union women worldwide used rhythm or withdrawal in 2015 (per …/trendsContraceptiveUse2015Report.pdf), and 2. it is well known that especially this sub-population of women (and men) keep looking for a better tool to help them practice fertility awareness/natural family planning.  6% of 697,200,000 = 41,832,000.

Hence Our Numerical Assumptions For the Minimum Value Scenario Are:

Number of US Women off-label users upon device launch into the TTC Market segment (below) is 82,000

US Off-Label Serviceable Available Market $$ is $82,492,000

Worldwide Number of Women off-label users upon device launch is 41,832,000

Worldwide Total Available Market $$ is very large

E.g. if the estimate were based on the above US cost average, TAM is $42,082,992,000

 pregnant 2


Trying-To-Conceive (TTC) Market

CDC PUBLIC HEALTH GRAND ROUNDS 2015, slide 36 titled “Impact of Lack of Insurance on Decision-Making”: Non-ART: $200 – $5,000 (and IVF: $10,000 – $15,000). Out-of-pocket costs can be substantial and impact patient decision-making and risk-taking – referring particularly to the IVF. (ART stands for Artificial Reproductive Technologies such as IVF, In Vitro Fertilization). We take $2,600 as the mean annual cost of TTC (Trying-To-Conceive, non-ART).

CDC Reproductive Health data last updated 2015: Number of US women ages 15-44 with impaired ability to get pregnant or carry a baby to term: 6.7 million or 10.9%. Number of US married women ages 15-44 who are infertile (unable to get pregnant after at least 12 consecutive months of unprotected sex): 1.5 million or 6.0%. The sum of the primary and secondary infertility sufferers in the U.S. is 8.2 million women.

NIH Analysis of 277 Surveys 2012: Worldwide in 2010, 48.5 million couples were unable to have a child, of which 19.2 million couples were unable to have a first child (primary infertility), and 29.3 million couples were unable to have an additional child (secondary infertility, and the figure excludes China). Due to population growth, the number of couples suffering from infertility has increased since 1990, when 42.0 million couples were unable to have a child. Also, from WHO Evaluation Of Surveys 2004: More than 186 million ever-married women of reproductive age in developing countries were maintaining a “child wish”, translating into one in every four couples or 25%. We note this but opt for the NIH data, above.

Hence Our TTC Numerical Assumptions For the Minimum Value Scenario Are:

Number of US Fertility-Impaired Women Ages 15-44 is 8,200,000

US Serviceable Available Market $$ (at the TTC mean cost of $2,600 p.a.) is $21,320,000,000

US Serviceable Available Market $$ (at the TTC minimum cost of $200 p.a.) is $1,640,000,000

Worldwide Number of Women Who Are Unable to Have a Child is 48,500,000

Worldwide Total Available Market $$ is very large

E.g. if the estimate were based on the US non-ART cost average of $2,600 (see above), TAM is $126,100,000,000

Boatswain is piloting the Eagle to the dock


In closing, the reader is reminded that the above are the Assumptions for the bioZhena Minimum Value Scenario (Minimum Viable Product Scenario), which scenario represents the proverbial “low hanging fruit”. This is because our core product’s first application has FDA 510k clearance for aiding conception & generating diagnostic menstrual profiles for physicians. Our goal is to pursue the Full Value Scenario of the bioZhena Business Plan because of the potential of the bioZhena technology – summarized in the single slide here (the URL is ). Aiming to go well beyond personal reproductive management (which is, admittedly, where it all started, as evident from the whole bioZhena’s Weblog and other web presence).

And for Investors – PPM at

Might check out first  Home Page of bioZhena’s Weblog

How baby-making late in life evolved into subfertility and infertility, difficult conception, too long TTC

December 28, 2012

Way back, in the pre-contraceptive Pill days, the difficulty to become pregnant was not a widespread phenomenon, and mums were  younger than many are nowadays. If you want to see graphical proof of how the phenomenon came about in the previous century, review the attached paper Google evidence of increasing prevalence of subfertility. Should you not be a subfertility or infertility sufferer, and therefore not familiar with the acronym, TTC stands for Trying To Conceive.

The evolution of subfertility and infertility (as a big-time societal phenomenon) in the U.S. can be summarized based on data from  [Information Please® Database, © 2007 Pearson Education, Inc.] as follows.

In 1940, births to mothers over 29 years old (30 to 49) were apparently almost as numerous as births to mums of the optimal fertility age 20-24: The ratio of 30-49 years old to the optimal-age group was 0.91 [here referred to as ratio a) =  data for 30–34 plus 35–39 plus 40–44 plus 45–49, this sum divided by data for 20–24], and the number of births in the most fertile age group of mums represented 31% of all births in the U.S.

In case you did not check out the above-linked attachment : The high number of 1940 births to older mothers [high ratio a)] is not so surprising in view of the growing number of books on subfertility and infertility in the 1940s, as seen in the respective Google Ngrams shown here and discussed in the attached PDF paper.

Ngram 3: infertility and contraception

Ngram 3: infertility and contraception

In the present analysis of the historical birth rates, the age group of 25-29 is considered kind of neutral (neither optimal nor too old) whereas the 30-34 years old group is included among the too old ages for optimal fertility. This inclusion could be disputed – if we did not face the subfertility/infertility phenomenon, in which age is a significant factor. In any case, excluding the 30-34 age group from the aged-motherhood definition only delays the trend reversal – observed below in 1980 – by a decade.

I interject here a citation from the post referenced and linked at the end of this post, so that you’ll be well aware of the link between conception difficulties and advancing age, and of the adverse effect of the use of the Pill.

QUOTE: People have a hard time accepting that getting pregnant is not as easy as expected, when they finally decide to want a baby – usually way too late, and after her use of the Pill. The drug makes healthy young women in their best years to postpone family- and baby-making, it damages their cervical S-crypts thus causing difficulty to conceive and, by encouraging promiscuous sex life, it has caused an enormous increase in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases that also lead to infertility. Not just a double whammy, a triple whammy on womankind.  Sad, sad, sad. … Advanced age of the would-be Mum works against her on account of the Mother Nature’s Probabilistic Rules and Regulations of Baby-Making… END QUOTE.

An obgyn’s article on female subfertility in the Lancet invokes “two main factors that determine subfertility: duration of childlessness and age of the woman”. It is not likely that an obgyn would be as critical of the Pill as yours truly, although there have been exceptions. No further comment on this is needed or offered in this blog post. Instead, I share that another medical article from Britain reported that “the incidence of infertility was 0.9 couples per 1000 general population. The average age of women was 31 years, and the average time attempting conception was 18 months… At 12 months, 27% of all couples in the study achieved a pregnancy spontaneously and a further 9% with treatment.”

Here are the 1940 US birth statistics data from the referenced source:



Under 15


















And this is the calculation for the present analysis of the data:

a) 729,310/799,537 = 0.912

(ratio a is the sum of births to age groups from age 30 to age 49 divided by births to age group 20 – 24)

b) 799,537/2,558,647 =  0.312

(ratio b is births to age group 20 – 24 divided by total births in 1940)

By 1950 and 1960, the trend was good because ratio a) declined from 0.91 to 0.86 and then to 0.80 while the number of optimally aged young mothers rose slightly to 32% and then to 33.5%. These pre-Pill years were good years from this perspective, and the trend continued – even after the contraceptive Pill was introduced (in the 1960s), at least initially.

In 1970, there was a drop in the total number of births from the total of 1960 (4,257,850 births) and a dramatic drop in the number of births by aged mothers [ratio a) was 0.47] – and the births by the most fertile age group were up to 38% of all births. As though the contraceptive Pill worked in this sense (but only if we do not look at the significantly increased births by underage girls, especially the under 15)… Here is the 1970 data from the above source:



Under 15


















Unfortunately, in 1980 – that’s some 20 years after the Pill was introduced – the trend started to reverse while the total births continued to drop (and underage births dropped, too): Ratio a) of the number of aged mothers’ births to the most fertile age group’s births rose to 0.58 and births by the most fertile 20-24 year old mums represented now only 34% of total US births. The bad trend toward older-age motherhood continued.

By 1990, there were even more births to aging mothers than births to the most fertile age group, with ratio a) standing at 1.15 and the number of births to mothers of the optimal age group having dropped to a mere 26%.

The bad trend continued so that in 2000 advanced-age mothers exceeded the optimal-age group with ratio a) at 1.45, and with the optimally aged mums at 25% of total births. The trend continued further so that in 2009 advanced-age mothers exceeded the optimally aged mums by a factor of 1.53 [= ratio a)] and the optimal age group’s births dropped to 24% of total births. Data for 2009 are the most recent available data.

Tamara de Lempicka Quattrocento, 1937

Tamara de Lempicka Quattrocento, 1937

Is the difference between way back and now the reason for one other elevated readership statistic here on bioZhena’s Weblog? It is intriguing to see that during the months of the highest numbers of US births/deliveries (late summer and autumn, well before the year-end Holiday Season), a highly viewed post this year was the one published around the time of Mother’s Day: Why too many young and not so young ladies could NOT receive flowers on Mothers’ Day. Why so many trying-to-conceive, why so much infertility = Say thank you to the social and medical advances of the twentieth century – primarily those of chemical birth control, the Pill.

What do you think of all this?

Instant detection of pregnancy and of Early Pregnancy Loss, EPL – the adversary of Trying To Conceive, TTC – especially after age 25

November 11, 2010

Early Pregnancy Loss is also known as #stillbirth or #miscarriage, or Early Embryonic Mortality (EEM), and the Ovulona™ is a tool of evidence-based personalized medicine.

After the optimum fertility age of the early twenties, achieving motherhood gets more difficult. It becomes even more essential than before to know your three fertile days, during which – and only during which – conception can occur.

The simple basic principle is: Fertility status detection must be easy and reliable. PLUS early pregnancy detection is really important, and it should be built-in, an integral part of the conception-aiding tool.

Why? Because:

1) early in pregnancy the conceived baby would be harmed by some of the medications taken by the woman, e.g. by a psychiatric medication with teratogenic effect (harmful to the fetus, causing a congenital disorder);

and 2) because of the annual 600,000 miscarriages – per CDC statistics – out of the 6 million US births, which means that at least some 10% of pregnancies are lost to early pregnancy loss (EPL), miscarriage, stillbirth.

Many EPLs go unnoticed. The EPL is a part of the TTC [Trying To Conceive] or subfertility/infertility problem. Our Ovulona monitor of FOLLICULOGENESIS IN VIVO™ is the prospective solution for managing the problem.

The Ovulona™ detects the 3 fertile days for conception, and it will also automatically detect pregnancy immediately upon conception. Similar to early pregnancy loss — its detection is the inverse of pregnancy detection, which both involve the follicular waves. Like this:

Follicular waves disappear = pregnancy detected


waves reappear in early pregnancy =  early pregnancy loss detected.

Furthermore, the cyclic profile data captured by the Ovulona can be used by your healthcare provider to assess what is going on, and provide more effective help.

DIFFICULT USE OF EXISTING OPKs [Ovulation Prediction Kits] is shown in the following tweet by a @WannaBeMom: “1st month using opk. Do the lines usually start light and then get darker day by day or do they ever go back & forth b4 ovulation?”

Our electronic device will take the WannaBeMoms into a different world of baby-making. See = a pictorial “Pregnancy and birth control how-to by bioZhena”.

Honey is Sweeter than Blood by Salavador Dali, 1941

Honey is Sweeter than Blood by Salavador Dali, 1941

For a woman in her 30s who’s had a miscarriage or even two or three, “any delay in attempting conception could further decrease the chances of a healthy baby”, says CNN reporting on a medical study, .

Study: Women who conceive within six months of miscarriage reduce risk of another.”

November 2016 review and meta-analysis (data on more than a million women): “With an Inter Pregnancy Interval of less than 6 months, the overall risk of further miscarriage and preterm delivery  were significantly reduced.”

These are fundamental principles.

And another principle, not brought up by the CNN or by the study itself, is that a tool for monitoring the early stage of pregnancy for EPL is most desirable. We’d say, mandatory. The Ovulona device monitors (or tracks the process of) folliculogenesis in vivo, which includes the follicular waves that occur after ovulation. The waves disappear upon conception because the reproductive system does not go into another menstrual cycle – it’s pregnant.

In case of EPL, Early Pregnancy Loss (miscarriage), the waves will come back. Early Pregnancy Loss, or Early Embryonic Mortality, is quite a common sad experience of many of us.

The essential point made here is that the woman’s and her physician’s decisions should be guided by the folliculogenesis cyclic profile (and/or its distortion due to distress of any kind). The woman and her doctor should not make decisions or pass recommendations working in the dark, and the data, on which any decision should be based, must be personal to the given patient.

That’s what the Ovulona from bioZhena is for. Personalized medicine. Evidence based medicine. Should you be new to this, is an introduction.

Automatic pregnancy detection is inherent  in the Folliculogenesis In Vivo™ cyclic profile

Automatic pregnancy detection is inherent in the Folliculogenesis In Vivo™ cyclic profile (follicular waves disappear).

This is a screen shot of one of my narrated slides about “what’s going on here”, and you can view (and hear) the slide at

Note specifically that: The follicular waves, which occur after ovulation [when the body prepares for the next menstrual cycle], cannot remain in place after fertilization succeeds and conception takes place [because the post-ovulation regime change is even more profound]. That is the principle of instant detection of pregnancy. As opposed to the waiting for the HPT [Home Pregnancy Test] result.

HCG or Human Chorionic Gonadotropin laboratory signature

HCG or Human Chorionic Gonadotropin laboratory signature of the biomarker – detected in a pregnant woman’s urine about 2 weeks into her pregnancy by a HPT home-use urine test – as a color change (into which color the HPT reduces the illustrated complex lab signature)

Should the conceptus [product of conception, early embryo] be lost to EEM, Early Embryonic Mortality (miscarriage), the follicular waves come back to be seen by the Ovulona. That’s the principle of early detection of the miscarriage, and of detecting the return of the non-pregnant condition.

Trying to conceive again should be based on the personal FIV™ [FOLLICULOGENESIS IN VIVO] cyclic profile data generated by the patient, that is, by the woman trying to have a baby. This is a principle of evidence-based medicine. Personalized medicine.

Entre Les Trous De La Memoire by Appia

The Ovulona is intended to help people such as those writing in a forum as follows:

My partner and i started trying for a baby in jan And Concieved in the first month. Unfortunately in march at 8 weeks I had a miscarriage. We have been trying since with no luck. Could something be wrong. Please help this is really getting me down.

We got pregnant the first cycle with both my ds and dd. I am most likely moving to cycle #11 with this baby. We did conceive on the second cycle of trying with baby #3 but we miscarried a week later. Nothing since then. I’m not sure why this time is taking so much longer.

Can anyone advise? My daughter has been trying to get pregnant for several years. Her husband is fine. My daughter has now been asked to go for a scan which scared the life out of me (you automatically think something is horribly wrong). Can someone tell me what the scan is about – what sort of scan is it?

The information contained in the folliculogenesis cyclic profile, as illustrated in the slide captured above, is meaningful and can help the healthcare provider to answer questions such as these.

How follicular waves will be used for early detection of pregnancy, and for early detection of miscarriage, EPL – to TTC again asap

August 25, 2010

In this post we talk again about the feature introduced in an earlier post, .

This time we focus on the importance of the utilization of the follicular waves not only for practically instant pregnancy detection, but also for a similarly early detection of miscarriage or early pregnancy loss (EPL, also known as spontaneous abortion, SAB). Refer to Early Pregnancy Loss, . Note: Chief Editor is Professor Lee P. Shulman, MD, FACOG – one of bioZhena Corporation’s Board of Medical Advisors.

Sonography scene. Some contrast vis-à-vis the Ovulona™!

Sonography scene.   Some contrast vis-à-vis the home-use Ovulona™!

Excerpted from said Medscape overview: Early pregnancy loss is unfortunately the most common complication of human gestation, occurring in at least 75% of all women trying to conceive. Most of these losses are unrecognized and occur before or with the next expected menses. Of those that are recognized, 15-20% are spontaneous abortions (SABs) or ectopic pregnancies diagnosed after the pregnancy is clinically recognized.

The incidence of spontaneous miscarriage is 10-15%, whereas the rate of recurrent miscarriage is 3-5%. Approximately 5% of couples trying to conceive have 2 consecutive miscarriages, and approximately 1% of couples have 3 or more consecutive losses.

Early pregnancy loss is defined as the termination of pregnancy before 20 weeks’ gestation or with a fetal weight of below 500 g. An article in summarized the conclusion that “any delay in attempting conception could further decrease the chances of a healthy baby”.

This is a fundamental concept. Further they write, with reference to the original BMJ publication, “Study: Women who conceive within six months of miscarriage reduce risk of another… The women who conceived within six months also had better overall outcomes. They were about 10 percent less likely to have a C-section or a preterm delivery, and about 15 percent less likely to have a baby of low birth weight than the women who waited up to a year.”

This is a highly suggestive conclusion, implying the need to know as soon as possible. The sooner the better for attaining happiness.

Angelo Bronzino - Allegory_of_Happiness, 1564

Angelo Bronzino – Allegory_of_Happiness, 1564

Another fundamental principle, not brought up by CNN or by the study itself, is that a tool for automatic monitoring of the early stage of pregnancy to watch out for EEM [Early Embryonic Mortality] is desirable, to put it mildly. Our Ovulona™ device is perfect for that. The Ovulona monitors folliculogenesis in vivo, which includes the follicular waves occurring after ovulation. The waves disappear upon conception (the pregnant system does not go preparing for another menstrual cycle, which the follicular waves signify).

The follicular waves disappear as soon as conception takes place and the woman is in early stages of pregnancy. In case of miscarriage, the waves will come back. The point made here is that the woman’s and her obgyn’s decisions about trying for pregnancy again should be guided by diagnostic data. The data on which any decision should be based must be personal to the given patient – not based on statistical outcomes of studies such as the one referenced above.

That’s what the Ovulona™ from bioZhena is for, the tested and the putative uses of which are discussed throughout the bioZhena’s Weblog.

For a pictorial overview with a written narrative, you can go to ( ) and peruse the 6 pictures with brief written explanations of the basics of FIV™, the ovulographic™ monitoring of folliculogenesis in vivo™.

This one of the 6 illustrations,, is about “what’s going on here”.  In other words, what is FOLLICULOGENESIS IN VIVO™, the mechanism of the cyclic profiles, the mechanism of menstrual cycles as detected (and passed on to the Ovulona sensor) by the cervix uteri. Should you want to listen to my spoken narrative, click on the image or on the link below.


The unprecedented wealth of information inherent in the FIV™ cyclic profile

The bottom line is this: The multitude of repeatable features of the cyclic pattern makes it possible to determine the boundaries of the fertile window for every individual menstrual cycle.

A key distinction of our technique is that the “dynamic range” of the cyclic profile data (the vertical span) is the same in all cycles and in all women. This – in addition to the repeatable features of the pattern – facilitates electronic interpretation of the data. Only the timing of the various features varies from cycle to cycle, and we work with that.

The cyclic pattern exhibits a number of well-defined peaks and troughs, with the first post-menstruation minimum (or trough, nadir) occurring typically already on cycle day 6, 7 or 8. That’s the selection stage of folliculogenesis (which follows on the stage of recruitment, days 1 – 5). The signal then rises to a maximum (long-term predictive peak, driven by the maturation of the dominant follicle), the highest reading level of the cycle. Over the next several days, the readings fall toward the minimum before the short-term predictive peak. We have found the ovulation-marker minimum after this short-term predictive peak to correlate with urinary LH and FSH peaks (hormones).

Based on data, we interpret the ovulation marker to be an instantly detected effect of the steroid hormone switch that occurs at ovulation (estrogen to progesterone dominance). The follicular waves, which occur after ovulation [when the non-pregnant system prepares for the next menstrual cycle], cannot remain in place after conception takes place [the regime change is even more profound].

That is the principle of instant detection of pregnancy. Should the conceptus be lost to EEM, Early Embryonic Mortality (miscarriage), the follicular waves come back. That’s the principle of early detection of miscarriage also known as spontaneous abortion [SAB], and of detecting and monitoring the return of the non-pregnant condition.

059q Book of hours

059q Book of hours

Trying to conceive again should be based on the personal FIV™ [FOLLICULOGENESIS IN VIVO™] data generated by the patient, that is, by the woman trying to conceive. This is a principle of evidence-based medicine. Personalized medicine.

STOP PRESS And now, go and check out the 2012 post “The fallacy of ovulation calculators, calendars and circulating-hormone detectors” at

About atrophy, reproductive aging, and how it’s really not nice to fool Mother Nature – or with

June 27, 2010

I have taken it upon myself to popularize Prof. Erik Odeblad’s classic findings about the biophysics of the tissues and secretions of cervix uteri, and how they translate into reproductive physiology and hence to reproductive medicine – at home and in the doctor’s office.

Emeritus Professsor Erik Odeblad

  Emeritus Professor Erik Odeblad    “The cervix is a precision organ as complex as the eye”

My ulterior motive is that I want to be understood when harking back to the British commercial’s exclamation that warned about too arrogant an attitude towards Mother Nature. Or, maybe I aim at the wisdom of the saying (“It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!”) to be appreciated particularly within the given field of endeavor and/or endeavour – that is, reproductive management. Even if it were only in a segment of it.

In the Alphabet of bioZhena (which is no Alphabet of Ben Sira, though we model on it somewhat), , there is an entry about Atrophy and what it does to a woman as years go by, how “atrophy of mucosal surfaces takes place, accompanied by several problems.”

Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius) Says Farewell to...

Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius) Says Farewell to…

In this blog post I focus on aging – and thus atrophy – of the cervix, leaving aside the inevitable corresponding phenomena in other parts of the reproductive system.

The focus on the cervix is due to bioZhena’s focus on the cervix… which in our scheme of things is the supreme monitor of the complex reproductive goings on that Mother Nature designed in order to cope with all that complexity. After you’ve read the Alphabet article on atrophy, you might scroll down to the entry there about the cervix, which will take you also through cervical cancer and cervical mucus, besides a couple of other things cervical. That will or would be a nice preparation for, or introduction to, what follows.

Prof. Erik Odeblad's sketches from 13 February 2008

Two sketches by Emeritus Professor Erik Odeblad to illustrate his saying, “The cervix is a precision organ as complex as the eye”. Click (right-click) on the image to see the details. And read on about the details. The fine structure of the cervical canal wall, schematized on the right, is based on examination of mucus samples obtained with a suction syringe from the various parts of the cervical canal of human volunteers for physico-chemical examination.

When, at the inception of the project, we decided to focus on the given part of the anatomy, Erik Odeblad’s work logically and inevitably became a part of the background. He used the NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) technique of physical chemistry to perform the complicated investigation of cervical mucus, and he produced the classical evidence for the difference between the “fertile” mucus macromolecules that allow the passage of the sperm, and the “infertile” cross-linked glycoprotein molecular network that does not. (To this day I remember his usage of “undulations”…)

In fact, this early information, which involved the thiol-disulfide (sulphydryl-disulphide) redox couples in the glycoprotein macromolecule, had much to do with our early hypothesis of the mechanism of our measurements. Never mind that his work was in the context of the subjective self-examination used in NFP, which did not work for the female member of the team! Had it worked for her, there would probably not be any Ovulona™ for monitoring folliculogenesis in vivo (FIV™ – which has utility well beyond fertility status determination)!

With atrophy being the general biological aspect of aging (and with the initially very large number of ova or eggs in the young female’s ovaries decreasing as she matures and ages), the cervix similarly “undergoes a natural process of development and aging. The surface area of the cervix that is given over to the mucus secreting glands [“crypts”] gradually diminishes with age.”

Odeblad defines three types of the (endo)cervical glands, which he (and others too e.g. Embryology.CH and Eurocytology.EU since at least the 1970s) calls the “crypts”:

  • S crypts produce S mucus, which forms string-like channels and provides transport (“swimming lanes”) for sperm cells. (“Produces a wet, lubricative sensation at the vulva.” That’s for the NFP sympto-thermal method use, the Billings method and/or the Creighton Model NaProEducation Technology method, the classical NFP or FAM – the latter, Fertility Awareness Method, publicized by Ms. Toni Weschler’s 2002 book Taking Charge of Your Fertility .)
  • L crypts produce L mucus, which eliminates low-quality sperm and provides a structure to support what he calls the S and the P mucus. P is a reference to the so-called Peak mucus of NFP or FAM.
  • G crypts produce G mucus, which is “an impenetrable gestagenic mucus formed in the lowest cervical crypts. Prevents sperm entry to the cervix and is part of the immune system which protects the woman’s reproductive system from infection.” A remark from gestagen (jěs’tə-jən, -jěn’) n. A substance, such as a steroid hormone, that affects the uterus in a manner similar to progesterone. And a remark from a scientific commentator: This G mucus is characterized by the oxidized state of the mentioned redox couples, causing cross-linking in the glycoprotein mucin, which prevents microbes including sperm from entering. Visualize this as closed -S—S- gates (as opposed to the open gate form -SH   HS- of the “reduced” state of the redox couples; “reduced” meaning “electronated and hydrogenated”, the opposite of “oxidized”).


There are three fundamental principles at work.

1. Natural baseline aging, and this is fundamental – a more or less linear decrease in the number of all three kinds of these glands or crypts, at somewhat different rates: S the fastest, L somewhat slower, G slower still.

2. Slow-down of the aging atrophy by pregnancy.

3. Acceleration of the aging atrophy by the Pill [and/or by other endocrine-active compounds, EACs – this is a logical extrapolation, speculative, but must be assumed].

Now, then.

1. Natural baseline aging, fundamental – a more or less linear decrease in the number of all three kinds of these glands or crypts:

“The number of S crypts decreases from teen age. They are first replaced by L crypts starting at the base of the cervix. Later G crypts replace the L crypts.”

Thus, from Odeblad’s graph [rate reckoned from 15 yrs old to 40 yrs old]:

S crypt baseline decrease or diminution (or atrophy) rate:

50% / 25 years = 2% per year.

At 50 years old, S crypts are at some 10%.

Profile crypts baseline never pregnant never on the Pill

Profile of cervical crypts of a baseline woman – never pregnant & never on the Pill

Representative profile of cervical crypts

(percentage of cervix occupied by active crypts)

for a woman who goes through life without pregnancy or use of the Pill.

This is a baseline profile.

Here is Erik Odeblad’s schematic of the crypts on the surface of the cervical canal:

Cervix of a 20 year old virgin

Carefully mapped lateral wall of the cervix of a 20 year old virgin           (reported by Emeritus Professor Erik Odeblad, Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Umeå, S-90187, Umeå, Sweden)

This is Professor Odeblad’s artist’s impression of cervical mucus secretions:

Mucus secretions

Schematics of cervical mucus secretions

Key to colors:

Blue         = S mucus

Yellow     = L mucus

Red          = G mucus

Green      = P mucus of which there are several sub-types

Pink         = Z granules

Professor Odeblad’s explanatory notes:

Z granules – the enzyme in the Z granules combines with the P mucus to create a liquefying effect.

P mucus – there are a number of sub-types of this mucus, the most relevant for fertility are P2 and P6. P2 could be present as early as the beginning of the fertile phase possibly having a role in liquefying the G mucus. P6 is mostly confined to the upper part of the cervix, occurring close to the Peak of fertility, and having a role in conveying sperm. It creates a very wet and lubricative sensation at the vulva.

F mucus – comes from the cells scattered throughout the length of the cervical canal and has no known special function.

For a recent evidence of four different morphological mucus types, namely L, S, P and G, see “Morphological characterization of different human cervical mucus types using light and scanning electron microscopy” by M. Menárguez, L.M. Pastor and E. Odeblad, Human Reproduction, Vol. 18, No. 9, 1782-1789, September 2003 –

Citation: “The distribution of crypt zones in the cervix depends on age, number of pregnancies and use of contraception. In a non-pregnant woman, aged 25–30years and not having used contraception, the cervix averages 22 mm in length and 6 mm in diameter at ovulation. The crypt distribution starting from below and moving upwards is as follows: the G crypts dominate in the lowest 4–5 mm; then there is a zone of L crypts occupying the next 9–10 mm; this is followed by the S zone, for 5–6 mm; and the highest 3–4 mm contains the P crypts.”

When you read the paper, you detect that he has a very special knack for sampling the respective mucus types from the said crypts. Hat off! Work with human experimental subjects is no stroll in the park, to put this mildly.

2. Slow-down of atrophy aging by pregnancy:

Profile crypts 4x pregnant

Profile of cervical crypts of a 4x pregnant woman

Representative profile of cervical crypts

(percentage of cervix occupied by active crypts)

for a woman who goes through life with four pregnancies and no use of the Pill.

Pregnancy – S crypt diminution rate from Odeblad’s graph

[4 pregnancies, no Pill, rate reckoned from 15 yrs old to 40 yrs old]:

30% / 25 years = 1.2% per year.

At 50 years old, S crypts are at some 20%.

3. Acceleration of atrophy aging by the Pill [and/or by other endocrine-active compounds, EACs – a logical extrapolation]

Profile of cervical crypts of a woman on the Pill

Representative profile of cervical crypts

(percentage of cervix occupied by active crypts)

for a woman who goes through life without pregnancy and uses the Pill for 10 years

Pill – S crypt diminution rate from Odeblad’s graph

[no pregnancy, Pill for 10 years (18 to 28 yrs old), rate reckoned from 15 yrs old to 40 yrs old]:

60% / 25 years = 2.4% per year.

At 50 years old, S crypts are at some 5%.

This includes the slow down of the diminution gradient during the last 12 years of no Pill.

Compare this with diminution/atrophy rate during the 10 years on the Pill:

65% – 25% = 40% / 10 years = 4% per year.

This is double the baseline rate of cervical atrophy.

It’s more than 3 times higher than the pregnancy-slowed atrophy rate.

Three concluding remarks by Prof. Odeblad:

“Regression when taking the Pill is different for estrogen-dependent crypts (L and S) and progesterone-dependent crypts (G) which may in part overdevelop.”

“The study of the effects of contraceptive pills on the cervix is a difficult task. A considerable amount of work is required for each patient and the time required spans many years, up to 10 years or more. Many women also want to change to other pills or to other methods of contraception, or perhaps now want to become pregnant. It also happens that some pills are withdrawn from the market. To these difficulties are added the normal age changes in the cervix and the dynamic processes which are of constant occurrence. After 3 and up to 15 months of contraceptive pill use, there is a greater loss of the S crypt cells than can be replaced.” (“Some Notes on the Cervical Crypts”, Dr E. Odeblad, Bulletin of the Ovulation Method Research and Reference Centre of Australia, Vol 24 No 2 June 1997, p31)

Citations and graphics reproduced from .

“Complications arising from the use of the Pill are very frequent. Infertility after its use for 7-15 years is a very serious problem. S crypts are very sensitive to normal and cyclical stimulation by natural oestrogens, and the Pill causes atrophy of these crypts. Fertility is impaired since the movement of sperm cells up the canal is reduced. Treatment is difficult.” He also wrote: “After 3 to 15 months of contraceptive pill use, there is a greater loss of the S crypt cells than can be replaced … A pregnancy rejuvenates the cervix by 2-3 years, but for each year the Pill is taken, the cervix ages by an extra year.” Web reference: .

Comment on implications for treatments of certain symptoms

For example, the suggested method [Weschler, Toni (2002). Taking Charge of Your Fertility (Revised ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 52] of thinning cervical mucus to help achieve pregnancy by taking the OTC expectorant drug guaifenesin, which is thought to act by increasing the volume and reducing the viscosity of secretions.

The drug is also used to treat the symptoms of primary dysmenorrhea [severe uterine pain during menstruation ] where another treatment of choice is combined oral contraceptives [COCs]. Such treatments are administered to adolescents as well as to mature women because dysmenorrhea is a very common and serious problem (25% of women and up to 90% of adolescents ).

In both cases, the expectorant and the contraceptives are administered without knowledge of their mechanism of action in the given problem. Focus is on treating symptoms, not the underlying causes. The patient is the detector of any effect. How does the expectorant drug use correlate with the secretions of the different types of cervical mucus on the one hand, and with the folliculogenesis cyclic profile on the other? Is there any connection? If not, what does the drug do to the different crypts? And what the COCs do to them?

Is the expectorant so selective that it might do the right thing? Reduce type G? Enhance type S mucus? Does oxidation of the guaifenesin help reduce the cross-linked mucin type G in the cervical canal? As simple and pretty as that? (Even prettier if guaifenesin were not to be an EAC, an endocrine-active compound … which inactivity does not look likely – .)

Would it not be nice to have a rationale for how the small guaifenesin molecule can have a good effect on both sub-fertility/infertility and dysmenorrhea?

Could it be that guaifenesin works bioelectrochemically in the same oxidation-reduction (redox) manner on the enzyme cyclooxygenase in the prostaglandin cascade, which is a cascade of redox reactions – producing an anti-inflammatory effect that translates as suppression of pain? (On a personal note, why not capitalize here at least conceptually on our ancient Wellcome Research Labs work, even before receiving – presumably – the first pension money from Glaxo Smith Kline?)

It’s easier to contemplate in general the effect of the contraceptive drug, which will presumably depend on the contents of the estrogenic and gestagenic components (modeling on Odeblad’s findings)…

Is there a connection between pain, cervix and ovaries, ovarian reserves? Maybe an abnormal depletion of, via ovarian cysts? Will the number of follicular waves and/or other features in the Ovulona cyclic profile – and correlated with ultrasound and MRI – show any such abnormality? Might the Ovulona be useful for diagnosis here, convenient, simple (inexpensive)? Wouldn’t that be nice?

Is cyclooxygenase inhibition detected by the cervix, does it show in the cyclic profile? Does said prostaglandin synthesis inhibition alter the number of follicular waves – while reducing the pain?

Answers to questions like these are needed. Keep in mind that ovulation is an inflammatory process, and since we detect it in the cyclic profile, it is reasonable to pose the above prostaglandin theory questions about the COX-2 (cyclooxygenase) inhibition.

Summarizing Odeblad’s results and the take-home message:

Baseline outcome of cervical S crypts aging: S crypts down to 20% at 40 years of age. Here you have the reason why mature age leads to sub-fertility and to infertility.

Atrophy slow-down effect of 4 pregnancies: S crypts down to 40% at 40 years of age. Here you see Mother Nature’s design in action. Pregnancy slows down the inherent rate of cervical aging (atrophy, deterioration). Naturally, this is not to argue for 4 pregnancies per lifetime – it’s merely how the effect was made measurable.

Atrophy acceleration effect of 10 years on the Pill: S crypts down to 10% at 40 years of age. Here is why it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature, why it’s not good to mess with her design. The Pill is an archetypal anthropogenic Endocrine-Active Compound [man-made EAC], and it was brought up in the previous post how there are very many of these EACs, all insulting the female body and health, some – like chemical contraceptives – by design.

While the story of Laodamia and Protesilao is touching, I merely want to ask that girls, ladies and their physicians do not moon the messenger.



And now, go and check out the 2012 post “The fallacy of ovulation calculators, calendars and circulating-hormone detectors” at

About Clomid, Serophene or, generically, clomiphene citrate. A critical look, part 1.

June 23, 2010

In relation to folliculogenesis, the mechanism of menstrual cycling, which we monitor in vivo – to get away from drugs as much as possible.

Last night I re-tweeted this:

RT @FertilAidAmy What is Clomid…? = it’s NOT recommended to take it for >6 cycles, and it causes decreased fertile mucus

Then I found that there is no entry about Clomid in the Alphabet of bioZhena. Yet, Clomid is a very frequently administered medication for women with difficulty conceiving, “prescribed to women that are trying-to-conceive to induce ovulation. Clomid is often prescribed to women with irregular cycles that either experience irregular ovulation or don’t ovulate at all” ( ).

30% of women or couples cannot get pregnant

Clomid was also involved in a peculiar episode when a business-incubator director took me once to a local hospital’s young lady gynecologist thinking that, because she was written about in the local newspaper, she was just right for bioZhena Corporation’s quest for good people and/or “strategic allies”. Instead, the take of the young physician, who took several calls from upstairs during the “interview”, was something along the lines, “I don’t see what’s in it for me with your technology. When they [subfertility sufferers] come to us, we put them on Clomid, and that’s that…”.

dali - longlegs_large

Dali - Longlegs

Well, let’s look at what the “that’s that” is about. The referenced tweet mentioned, within the allowed 140 characters, two features. One, that Clomid should not be taken for more than 6 menstrual cycles. And two, that it is known to reduce the amount of the all-important fertile mucus, which is the cervical mucus form occurring only during the run up to ovulation. This essential temporary change is for the purpose of opening the cervical canal for the penetration of the sperm and, in fact, for what is called the capacitation of the sperm. At all times outside of the fertile window, the fertile mucus is replaced by the protective type of cervical mucus, which prevents the entry of microbes including sperm into the uterus and beyond.

For a concise overview of this essential mucus, read the article Cervical mucus (under C) in the Alphabet of bioZhena, at . There we cite a noted expert on the subject, Dr. Erik Odeblad, and the gist of his message is: “Complications arising from the use of the Pill are very frequent. Infertility after its use for 7-15 years is a very serious problem. S crypts are very sensitive to normal and cyclical stimulation by natural estrogens, and the Pill causes atrophy of these crypts. Fertility is impaired since the movement of sperm cells up the canal is reduced.”

You can imagine that this will have something to do with the reason why the woman becomes a patient and is now prescribed the fertility drug.

One other thing about the drug is the issue of the official “10-per-cent possibility that Clomid could produce twinning”, described by a physician’s blog post at about “one of the largest malpractice awards in Canadian history. At issue is how the patient understood the discussion of the risks of Clomid”: .

Sublime moment by Salvador Dali, 1938

Sublime moment by Salvador Dali

Clomid is the brand name for the fertility drug clomiphene citrate. Clomiphene citrate may also be sold under the brand name Serophene or as the generic version called clomiphene citrate ( ).

Here is a bit more scientific take on how it works, cited from Wikipedia ( ):

Therapeutically, clomiphene is given at day 2 of menses [menstruation]. By that time, FSH level is rising steadily, causing development of a few follicles [in the ovary].

Let’s interject a clarification: This timing is called the recruitment stage of folliculogenesis, during which LH induces an “angiogenesis” factor from the theca cells, increasing the blood supply and estrogen synthesis by the recruited cohort of follicles.

The term “selection” indicates the reduction of the recruited group of follicles down to the species-characteristic ovulatory quota, which in women and related primates is one. Selection is the culmination of recruitment on day 6 ± 1. “Typically only one of the two ovaries sponsors recruitment and selection of the single dominant follicle, which is destined for ovulation.” We detect the selection stage as the first marker in our ovulographic™ (or folliculogenesis in vivo™) cyclic profile. Refer to the bioZhena tech pitch page and/or to , .

Back to the language of the Wikipedia article: Follicles in turn produce the estrogen, which circulates in serum. Clomiphene acts by inhibiting the action of estrogen on the pituitary [gland, or hypophysis, in the brain]. [It] binds to estrogen receptors and stays bound for long periods of time.

This prevents normal receptor recycling and causes an effective reduction in hypothalamic estrogen receptor number. As a result, the body perceives a low level of estrogen… Since estrogen can no longer effectively exert negative feedback on the hypothalamus, GnRH secretion becomes more pulsatile, which results in increased pituitary gonadotropin (FSH, LH) release. Increased FSH level causes growth of more ovarian follicles, and subsequently rupture of follicles resulting in ovulation. END OF QUOTE.

Dali - Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man (1943)

Salvador Dali - Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man

From another Wikipedia article, about GnRH ( ):

At the pituitary, GnRH [Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (synthesized and released from neurons within the hypothalamus )] stimulates the synthesis and secretion of the gonadotropins, (that is) follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH). These processes are controlled by the size and frequency of GnRH pulses, as well as by feedback from androgens and estrogens. Low-frequency GnRH pulses lead to FSH release, whereas high-frequency GnRH pulses stimulate LH release. …the frequency of the pulses varies during the menstrual cycle, and there is a large surge of GnRH just before ovulation.

To reiterate, Clomiphene acts by inhibiting the natural action of estrogen on the pituitary gland in the brain, interfering with – or, shall we say, altering, manipulating – the process of folliculogenesis. Women’s health revolves around folliculogenesis and its complex control mechanism by the brain and by the ovaries.

To give you a sense of said complexity of the biology we are working with when we monitor folliculogenesis in vivo, we cite the specialist, Dr. Ernst Knobil: “The mechanism is believed to involve the circhoral* clock of the hypothalamic GnRH pulse generator, on which the circamensual** ovarian clock is obligatorily dependent”. [*Occurring cyclically about once an hour, pulses from the brain; ** about once a month.] From Knobil’s memorial lecture The Wisdom of the Body Revisited, available online at .

Sleep by Salvador Dali, 1937

During the reproductive years, pulse activity is critical for successful reproductive function as controlled by feedback loops. Cited in conclusion from the Wikipedia GnRH article referenced above. (The Wikipedia also has an article about the cervix and cervical mucus, at .)

15- Word(le) greetings from bioZhena's follicular waves

15- Word(le) greetings from bioZhena's follicular waves

A wordle is a toy for generating “word clouds” from text.

In this case the entire bioZhena’s Weblog as it was in November 2009 — 15 most prevalent words.

It is advisable – and safer – to go about TTC, Trying To Conceive, without the use of chemicals, especially man-made chemicals, and note that herbal preparations are chemicals too. Monitoring (measuring) the effects of anything you ingest is basically a must, if you do not play “Russian roulette” with yourself, your offspring, your family.

The above wordle, the “greetings from bioZhena’s follicular waves”, is a reminder that, before resorting to the chemical route, the innocuous “right time” approach is indicated (because it does not go against – it goes with – the natural biology of the body).

Have you noticed that the powerful Clomid is an estrogen agonist/antagonist? (Acting like estrogen or against estrogen. Tricky, yes? You bet. Or play roulette…)

Folliculogenesis in vivo™ monitoring is far better than current home-use fertility self-help tools

March 28, 2010

And here is again why

The FIV™-monitoring Ovulona™ is superior compared to existing commercial products in the home-use fertility self-help category, such as the urinalysis hormone (LH) kits or OPKs and their improved electronic iteration, and other such products. Superior on several levels.

Unprecedented user-friendly design coupled with unprecedented accuracy, liberating the user from the vagaries of imperfect ovulation method-based probabilities.

That must be the main one for the TTC [Trying To Conceive] people, but additional attributes are no less significant. Multi-purpose applicability including but not limited to built-in early pregnancy detection and early pregnancy monitoring. That’s to help manage and deal with the inherently high prevalence of early embryonic mortality [EEM], the chief complication of human gestation. (See .)

When the TTC hurdle is successfully dealt with, the EEM is the next obstacle on the way to overcoming the sub-fertility issue. Just think about this for a moment. The EEM is Mother Nature’s design to deal with problems that quite likely lead to the TTC challenge (aka sub-fertility or even infertility) in the first place…


There is more to the superior attributes of the FIV technology [FIV = Folliculogenesis In Vivo]. Readily thought about is non-invasive natural birth control. The Ovulona is an electronic tool for 21st Century’s NFP and/or FAM. Natural Family Planning and Fertility Awareness Method, both of which we envision under the umbrella of Scientific Family Planning™, SFP™.

Furthermore, once you become aware of how Folliculogenesis In Vivo works, it will be less of a surprise to see that the Ovulona tissue biosensor will also provide a nice and easy cervical cancer screen – and prospectively screening for other pathologies, and their treatment…

Treatment (as opposed to diagnosis), you wonder what that is about? It’s about the vaginal tissues being the most efficient route for administration of medications, and very logical for a topical treatment, wouldn’t you think? Logical and potentially pretty effective for public health, once the tool has become widely used due to its affordability and mass-market acceptance. That’s the vision.

Of course, there are still other applications that the male managers of investment coffers tend to view as women’s issues that are not their concern, such as management of PMS and its debilitating form the PMDD, such as proper evaluation of EDD and EDC (Expected Date of Delivery, and of Confinement), such as hormone therapy and related matters. All these are big issues of public health, the sentiments of said managers of other people’s money notwithstanding.

Book of hours - 069q

Now, back to the primary and initial use of the FIV-tracking Ovulona.

Only the Ovulona can determine the three days of the fertile window of opportunity to conceive, unperturbed by the talk out there – by the proponents of the imperfect ovulation measures – about six days, which talk stems from a certain highly publicized and yet flawed study in 1995… A publication (in NEJM) that caused a sensation at the time by shortening the NFP’s prescribed period of abstinence from the previous too long imposition to the less off-putting 6 days).

Detection of the 3 fertile days is possible because the Ovulona monitors the process of folliculogenesis, and it does it by sensing the tissues in the reproductive tract where the site of action is. Where the body integrates and responds to signals from the ovary and from the brain. That is the action, as opposed to the presence of this or that hormone in blood or urine or any other body fluid.

The determination of the three days window is absolutely necessary because only that way can conception be either assisted or avoided with the required accuracy. The existing home-use fertility tracking commercial products cannot do that, and that is why they speak about a longer and fuzzy fertile window. See preceding and older posts in this blog if you want to get a better understanding of all that which is covered by the short word fuzzy. You will also get the long word (peri-ovulation methods) if you delve into the matter that way.

The existing commercial products cannot be used, either, for an attempt at baby gender pre-selection by timing conception with respect to ovulation. They cannot do that because they do not anticipate ovulation accurately and they do not detect ovulation (they merely assume its occurrence).

Miro - Birth World

Joan Miro – Birth World

Consequently, those techniques cannot distinguish between 2 or 3 days before and the day of ovulation. This is to try for a boy or for a girl, respectively, or to TTC, or to avoid conception. The commercially available technologies do not detect ovulation independently of the one predictive element they test for – or two such elements, LH and E2, in the case of the urine-analyzing gadget now sold by Inverness/SPD GmbH. It is not unlike groping in the dark… The other electronic gadget out there, the one offered by Zetek, is tracking indirectly the effect of the same hormone (estrogen) in two body fluids with two probes at two different times during the menstrual cycle. And your old BBT method tracks indirectly the effect of progesterone that you know causes the BBT to go up a bit after ovulation, albeit with a statistical uncertainty of + or – 3 days (and a poor signal to noise ratio at that).

The thing that the old *Imperfect Measures* tools detect is an input in the hormone signaling mechanism they talk about but of which mechanism they monitor merely that one input hormone signal (or two). However, the boundaries of the fertile window are not single hormone events; hormone monitoring (direct or indirect) cannot define the fertile window.

The existing products do not determine the fertile window of 3 days because they monitor this or that remote parameter that only reflects some aspect of the process that culminates in ovulation. They only detect a hormone signal that says “ovulation can happen about now” (LH), or a signal that says “ovulation has occurred” (BBT); or some reflect estrogen (e.g., through saliva appearance). Estrogen elevates before LH but not far enough ahead, and certainly it does not indicate the start of the fertile window nor the end of the window, which is ovulation. A saliva property is a fuzzy detector of estrogen, much like the vaginal fluid’s tactile and visual examination practiced in some circles.

Clock Explosion by Salvador Dali

Clock Explosion by Salvador Dali

Significantly, the hormones that anticipate ovulation do not mean that ovulation occurs right away or even at all. They just signal that the body is ready. It is essential to actually detect the occurrence of ovulation independently of prediction, and only our technology does that. Stress often either delays or even prevents ovulation, and only the Ovulona™ detects this. You can again find some earlier posts with more details about this.

There are also earlier posts about the variability of ovulation times from cycle to cycle in the same woman (as well as across a population), and the variability can be more than the width of the fertile window, more than the said 3 days. That 3 day span tends to also be the statistical uncertainty of the old techniques referenced here, plus or minus 3 days.

Serious consequences ensue for the users of the old *Imperfect Measures* techniques, whether employed to achieve pregnancy or to avoid it. Look at the small example from a small test-of-concept study by an independent NFP research-and-teaching group.

Ovulona prototype detects delayed ovulation

In the four recorded cycles of a childless 41-years old patient, the Ovulona prototype captured 3 delayed ovulations out of the 4 recorded cycles. In only one of the four cycles did the LH agree with our ovulation marker while Peak Mucus indication was one day late in that cycle. In the three cycles with delayed ovulation, the delays were:

In cycle 1:  4 days after LH kit positive and 3 days after Peak Mucus.

In cycle 3:  3 days after LH kit positive and 2 days after Peak Mucus.

In cycle 4:  1 day after LH kit positive and 2 days after Peak Mucus.

In another post in this blog, we showed how the test data divides the NFP clinic patients’ results into two categories that we termed regular and irregular (challenged). To avoid confusion with the traditional usage of the term regular/irregular in the context of menstrual cycles, we shall refer to the two categories as ordinary and challenged, respectively. Cycle 2 is an ordinary cycle (with LH and Peak mucus within 1 day of ovulation marker day) versus the other records showing challenged cycles with delayed ovulation.

The other challenged cycles from the study are tabulated below here, and you will note that they are quite numerous even in the small study of just 10 women with 2 cycle records each. Even in that small population of real life women, 45% cycles were challenged. You also see that the ovulation delays occur at any age (here from 19 to 41 years of age), and regardless of parity (that is, regardless of whether the woman has ever borne children or not):

Challenged menstrual cycles in 10 women

In the table of ovulation days indicated by the three techniques, O stands for the ovulation marker of Ovulona prototype, LH means LH kit (OPK) positive result, and Pk means Peak Mucus result (as taught by NFP teachers).

As noted above, LH and Pk are in all these cycles lower than the O values, which relationship defines the category of challenged cycles (ovulation delayed with respect to given hormone signal). The delays in this small sample from a small pilot study are from 2 days to 4 days with respect to LH, and from 2 to 3 days with respect to Pk; two cycles are without any LH surge detection.

We also note that our self-diagnostic process – while generating the detailed folliculogenesis profile data for optional analysis by the woman’s healthcare provider – is not unpleasant as is urine sampling, and is not cumbersome, confusing or prone to subjective misinterpretation of results as the other technologies tend to be.

We can and we do envisage the Ovulona to become a friendly routine for the women of the 21st century, everywhere. The existing home-use fertility monitoring products could not aspire to play that role. Hormones in body fluids are only of temporary utility for TTC. Against that, FIV (or Folliculogenesis In Vivo) is not only a superior tool for TTC but it goes beyond that first use – to be of unprecedented and unique service in personalized women’s healthcare for years to come.

See earlier posts in this blog about how symptoms (such as PMS symptoms) vary depending on the day of cycle and on the health conditions of any woman. It is known that female patients respond to therapy differently in relation to their menstrual cycle, i.e., in relation to folliculogenesis. That relationship to the FIV profile is THE fundamental guiding principle of personalized medicine for women.

A new era of obstetrics and gynecology in the offing.

FIV for women's healthcare - the vision (from Space perspective)

Folliculogenesis in vivo for women’s healthcare – the vision  (from Space perspective, courtesy of NASA)

Yes, dear, contingent upon funding… Durer - Witches - 5%

        STOP PRESS

For more information go to the 2012 post “The fallacy of ovulation calculators, calendars and circulating-hormone detectors” at

Critique of birth control efficacies in NFP as published by Marquette University researchers

March 23, 2010

Comments on a report of two studies – they report on what we will call peri-ovulation methodologies.


Michelangelo - The Drunkenness of Noah

Michelangelo – The Drunkenness of Noah

Excerpts from their first study:

The retrospective study involved 204 couples (i.e., women with a mean age of 28.6 and their male partners, with a mean age of 30.3) who were taught NFP (by health professionals, physicians and nurses) at four sites in the United States

Table 1. Twelve months total unintended pregnancy rate [number of unintended pregnancies out of the number of couples in given group using the indicated method of NFP]

BBT + mucus                                    5/76                     7%

Monitor + mucus                               4/69                     6%

Mucus only                                       1/29                      3%

BBT + mucus + monitor                     2/25                      8%

Monitor only                                      0/5

Second study excerpts:

The participants for this study came from the same four clinic sites as the previous study and involved 313 couples who were taught how to avoid pregnancy with the EHFM [Monitor] plus CVM [Mucus], and another 315 who used CVM only … The researchers found a total of 28 unintended pregnancies with the EFHM plus CVM group and 41 with the CVM only group… (during 12 months of use)

Monitor + mucus                          28/313                        9%

Mucus only                                  41/315                        13%

QUOTE: “both studies have limitations in that they were not randomized clinical trials”.

In their 2003 study report, they similarly noted study limitations, but there was also the following: “Of interest is the authors’ statement that only 1% of reproductive age women in the Netherlands use NFP as a means to achieve or avoid pregnancy. The respondents in this study were mostly women who previously used oral hormonal contraception. This seems to indicate that a new technological device such as Persona could attract new couples to use NFP.” QUOTE UNQUOTE.

Quite right. Their statement of what “this seems to indicate” is consistent with what we had found (without any financial backing by a large investor like Unilever) in a survey of 5,000 American women at about the time when the Persona was new to the market in Britain. Out of those who would purchase our self-diagnostic electronic device (which does NOT require any chemical reagents and daily peeing for in vitro diagnostic measurement with imperfect measures), 70% were users of artificial contraception – they would switch to our device. This outcome was separate from anecdotal evidence of numerous letters and later emails asking if they could purchase our device for their use in NFP.

With the above quote in mind, we would broaden the conclusion – about new technology attracting new couples – beyond NFP use, and we would refer instead (i.e. more broadly) to fertility awareness based methods.

Now, before someone should glance at the above reported outcomes of the two studies and quickly jump to a conclusion, we must make some common sense observations about those statistics. Some little words.

Wassily Kandinsky - Little Words

Kandinsky – Little Words

Should someone want to declare that the above Marquette University reported Monitor had a zero failure rate, then it must be noted that, unfortunately, this was zero out of merely 5 cases. Not comparable with anything else in their publication – and hardly very useful for that reason (and because of the small sample size, too).

Similarly: Table 1 might be read as showing that mucus only is better than BBT + mucus + monitor. This could be “legitimately” considered a valid conclusion since the sample sizes are sort of comparable – if “sort of comparable” were considered good enough (76 and 69, respectively, a 10% difference). But the sample size of mucus only (29) is significantly lower than the sample sizes of the BBT + mucus and of the Monitor + mucus groups.

While the unintended pregnancy outcome of the BBT + mucus + monitor group (8%) is sort of comparable to the outcomes of the two groups with the much larger sample sizes where mucus is accompanied by either BBT or by monitor (7% and 6%, respectively), the only really legitimate conclusion or comment is that sample size matters. That is, if we do not want to compare 25 apples with 72.5 oranges (+/- 3.5) and thus come to questionable conclusions.

If all the groups had sample size of 5 and the percentage outcomes were the same, then the conclusion would be fairly legitimate about the superiority of the monitor – except for the equally legitimate complaint that the sample size of 5 is too small.

Michelangelo - The Battle of Cascina

Michelangelo – The Battle of Cascina

Statistics are supposed to be about large numbers. At least about sufficiently large numbers. Sample size of 5 is hardly sufficiently large, although it would do for a proof of concept, which here the concept would be that Monitor alone is by far the best. I would go with that hypothesis BUT I WANT IT TESTED RIGOROUSLY IN PROPERLY DESIGNED CLINICAL TRIALS.

The outcomes of the second reported study contradict the outcomes of the first, with Mucus only now showing the highest failure rate of them all (13%), and, topping it off, Monitor + mucus is now even higher than in Table 1 (9% vs. 6%).

Since the sample size is now much larger than in Table 1 (313 vs. 69, i.e., 4.5 times larger) it is legitimately concluded that the second study carries more weight and therefore the failure rate of the Monitor + mucus methodology is more likely 9% than 6%. This is rather unsatisfactory but still better than Mucus alone at the whopping 13% unintended pregnancy rate. The 13% failure rate with 315 couples is more believable than the 3% failure rate with 29 couples in Table 1. About 10.862068965517241379310344827586-times more believable – to be light-hearted about it, per jocum dixi.

Then again, remotum joco: All this makes for a kind of arithmetic that should not occur in medical research.

The following is a graphical demonstration of how numbers can distort perception and understanding. The same Michelangelo’s Battle of Cascina (since he did not do any battle of statistics or technologies!) after an effect that allows the data on the periphery to dominate or simply affect disproportionally that which was in the center of focus.

See in the picture above the man looking intently toward us from the middle of the melee? Now (below) he is tiny compared to what’s around him; much like when – in a study of birth distributions as a function of the day of cycle on which conception took place – the data point outliers are doing the same to the high birth counts, because of inaccurate means of ovulation detection (actually mere estimations) employed in said study.

Michelangelo - The Battle of Cascina - Fish Eye effect -30

Michelangelo – The Battle of Cascina – Fish Eye effect -30

While such distortions happen with all imperfect measures of ovulation, the study by John France et al. was discussed in an earlier post at and in the document attached to that post, .

We subsequently showed, in, the effect of doing away with the outlier data points by means of the following diagram, which can be likened to removing the Fish Eye Effect -30 from the distorted Michelangelo picture just above to get back his undistorted Battle of Cascina (with all those naked Florentine soldiers surprised by the enemy while bathing).

Ovulona (FIV) fertile window vs. old (fuzzy ovulation estimate) methods

Ovulona 3-day fertile window versus old methods’ fuzzy estimation of the fertile period

Now, one more citation from the paper under discussion. QUOTE: The EHFM [Monitor] is a hand held device that reads a threshold level of urinary metabolites of estrogen (estrone 3 glucuronide) and luteinizing hormone (LH; on test strips) and provides the user with a low, high, and peak reading of fertility. The monitor is sold in the United States as a method to help couples achieve pregnancy but can be used as an aid to track fertility. QUOTE UNQUOTE

This statement reflects the thinking in those circles. But note: Because no single hormone determines the beginning and no single hormone determines the end of the fertile window (whether they know this or not) they have to speak of low, high and “peak reading of fertility”. We have previously referred to this as a fuzzy delineation of the fertile window [ ].

A little bit fertile, then more, and a peak? That is merely a reflection of not having the accuracy to determine the boundaries of the fertile phase.

Salvador Dali - Metamorphosis of Narcissus

Salvador Dali – Metamorphosis of Narcissus

Just like you cannot be only a little bit pregnant, you either can conceive today or not. No such thing as low fertility, only the uncertainty of “low reading”, and of all their readings – including their subjective self-observations. Subjective self-observations refer to the mucus appearance and feel in NFP practice – and if they used that too, the same limitation applies to palpating the cervix.

The most succinct word about all this is as follows:

The old approaches to detecting fertility status are to be referred to as peri-ovulation methods. Where the prefix refers not to the Peri of Persian folklore (earlier regarded as malevolent!) but to the Greek meaning of about, around, near or enclosing – in this case ovulation. Surely, peri-ovulation or peri-ovulatory is a more palatable word than fuzzy.


And now, go and check out the 2012 post “The fallacy of ovulation calculators, calendars and circulating-hormone detectors” at

A few more peri-vernal equinox tweets on #conceiving, #fertility, achieving #pregnancy & #baby gender contrary to Shettles

March 21, 2010

While NFP users know that fertility awareness is a must for birth control

We all know that the peri in the title does not refer to any “one of a large group of beautiful, fairylike beings of Persian mythology…”. We know that “peri” is in fact a prefix meaning “about” or “around” and “near”, appearing in loanwords from Greek, such as in the title here [].

Peri - 1865

Peri - 1865

And now for the last few tweets; again somewhat edited, since here we do not have the 140 character limit. And again with clickable links to further information, including the #hash tags with all sorts of tweets there by anybody using a given hash tag, in the manner of the Twitter social networking mechanism.

These tweets should do it for this departure into the so-called microblogging. Do check out for what a reliable #fertility tool is about. Read up on it

Here is a birth control product that will be in the competition category when we go into the birth control market: – This is the device used to insert the ‘Mirena’ coil into the patient’s uterus. Sent via TwitPic. Retweeted by you and 1 other. The reason why this was re-tweeted by yours truly was to highlight the invasiveness of the pictured device, which bears no comparison with ours (quite apart from our device not inserting into the uterus). But, of course, our product is not out yet, with all its user-friendly and otherwise beneficial attributes. Any comments, dear reader, would be appreciated.

RT@pregnancyorg: Read about your cycles getting #pregnant before #conceiving — and then I suggest you also read and

RT@Averyugya81: ARTs [Artificial Reproductive Technologies] for #infertility treatment may pass on genetic defects – warns ART pioneer . This is reminiscent of the development when Father of the Pill Dr. Djerassi turned against oral contraception, promoting instead what he called “the Jet-Age Rhythm Method”, by which he meant fertility awareness (aided by technology, hence the reference to jet age)

RT@Averyugya81: How often do I have to have sex to get #pregnant?

Adam and Eve by Tamara de Lempicka - solarized

How often?

– Every day for 20 days with 69% chance of success, write statisticians (from day x to day y of your cycle)

If this continues to be pleasuresome, carry on for months on end to overcome the odds. Else, you need focus, and see my earlier tweets. Fight statistics! (With pleasuresome determination and with the aid of a deterministic timing tool… in the offing)

Again: The odds are against us! #pregnancy #birth control #fertility #startup angel-investor-find-and-match… same difference! Odds are very low (without that focus)

@pregnancyorg‘s gender selection seems to perpetuate the Shettles recipe. However, evidence contradicts Shettles (whose claims have the reputation of not being backed by or based on any properly designed clinical studies). Here is a summary of a solid study, which – for the lack of “Perfect” – employed three “Imperfect Measures” of ovulation as defined in the previous post. The three gave similar results. Female births at (or near) ovulation, male births 2 days earlier (or so)

Birth distribution by gender - France et al., focused NFP TTC study

Birth distribution by gender - France et al., focused NFP TTC study

The uncertainty expressed by the “or near” and “or so” is the consequence of the “Imperfect Measures”, but the trend is clear. Also rather clear is that the low birth counts flanking the high ones are data outliers due to measurement errors inherent in “Imperfect Measures”. For more on this, go to the earlier post at

Baby gender pre-selection will require a clinical study as stringent as the France et al. study was, but performed with our Ovulona instead of the inaccurate methods (BBT, Peak mucus, LH rise as opposed to LH surge apex)

Delville - Satan Treasures, 1895

Delville - Satan Treasures, 1895

RT@BabyMed: So can you get pregnant from having sex on your period? — THE absolute requirement is a RELIABLE #fertility monitor. (Persistent monitoring in the interest of evidence-based medicine)

RT@BabyMed: So can you get pregnant from having sex on your period? Yes, but only if the cycle is very short, which would be due to a very short follicular phase, which you can only detect with a RELIABLE monitor. (Not to track merely one, two or even three hormones in body fluids – you need to follow FIV™, Folliculogenesis In Vivo™)

RT@bioZhena RT@BabyMed: Furthermore, you want our built-in #pregnancy detection because it will see you #pregnant right away (not only about two weeks later), and – importantly – our device will also see if the pregnancy is lost, which happens quite frequently. See . Early embryonic mortality is very high (according to some sources significantly more than 50%), and most of the losses of the conceptus occur early on, prior to 12 weeks. Mostly they occur sub-clinically, without the knowledge of the mother (by one expert source, 52% of all women who conceive experience early miscarriage…)             

RT@bioZhena: RT@BabyMed: Can #pregnancy result from sex on period? Yes, if it’s a very short cycle (due to a very short follicular phase) – which is unlikely – as the pre #ovulation phase is rarely that short. Since teenage cycles tend to be irregular and often short, this is of particular interest to sexually-active teens.  You must MONITOR your cycles if you don’t want any such surprise

RT@bioZhena: RT@BabyMed: Can #pregnancy result from sex on period? See here how unlikely it appears . Unlikely, if the shortest follicular phase is 6 days. Menstrual bleeding would have to be as close to ovulation as 4 days, to make the answer unequivocally positive; that would mean cycle length of 18 days (or 16 to 20 days). Very rapid dominant follicle maturation. Until this (shortest follicular phase question) is investigated with our Ovulona monitor of Folliculogenesis In Vivo™ [FIV™], there is probably little data to invoke. I would be interested in any evidence.

Further peri-vernal equinox tweets on #conceiving, kairos time and #fertility, achieving #pregnancy, caution about in vitro & appearances

March 20, 2010

And NFP users still know that fertility awareness

is for birth control, too

As previously noted, language aware readers and subject matter aficionados know that the “peri” in the title does not refer to any “one of a large group of beautiful, fairylike beings of Persian mythology …” nor, for that matter, to “any lovely, graceful person” such as you are.

You already know that “peri” is a prefix meaning “about” or “around” and “near”, appearing in loanwords from Greek []. Just like here, whereby we take notice of the Spring Equinox – when the Sun rises exactly in the east, travels through the sky for exactly 12 hours and sets exactly in the west – this year on March 20 “, today.

And, “anyone standing on the equator at noon will not cast a shadow” []. Lovely thought [entertained in snowbound Colorado Rockies]! Then another idea, not necessarily lovely – but a key concept: The dictionary does not tell that this is one of the instances of “kairos time” of the Earth! For the meaning of “kairos time” you can check out an earlier post here,

Spring Equinox

Spring Equinox (aka rovnodennost)

But now for some more of the tweets (again a little edited, since here we do not have the 140 character limit. And still – in the usual manner – with clickable links to further information, including more tweets of all sorts via the #hash tags).

Do you chart your #fertility cycles? If so, would you like to include our FIV cyclic profile in your charts? Do let me know if interested #pregnancy #birth 7:24 PM Mar 16th

If you have not yet explored bioZhena’s Weblog do visit Variability of menstrual cycles and ovulation timing. Read on kairos time. 8:05 PM Mar 16th

A collage that depicts our message. After disappointments, once you determine your exact “kairos time” in the cycle you want to conceive in, you’ll get the #pregnancy you wish for 8:38 PM Mar 16th

Collage of 3 pics with 15-WordlegreetingsfrombioZhenasf-3.jpg

Collage of 3 pics with 15-WordlegreetingsfrombioZhenasf-3.jpg

Mistiming intercourse is the chief cause of apparent #infertility . With a certain Fertility Monitor, they claim that 50% of users got #pregnant in the 1st cycle, and 92% in the 3rd. 196 women provided this statistic, out of 276 women asked. “The issue of early intervention with [clinical] tests and medications were highlighted, resulting in escalating costs and strain on the couple.”  2:02 AM Mar 17th

RT@bioZhena Compare the cost of the certain Fertility Monitor, which – unlike ours – requires monthly reagent sticks, from ~$250 (1cycle) to some $550 (10 cycles). Compare that to the average cost of ART medical treatment, which they report was $6,637 for the surveyed women, with a median medical evaluation cost $1,075 per cycle 2:06 AM Mar 17th

Kirchner Modern Bohemia

... with a median medical evaluation cost $1,075 per cycle ...

Numerous papers show improved #pregnancy rates and effective #birth control with #fertility monitors. That is with focus on determining the #fertile window 2:20 AM Mar 17th

Statisticians reported on day-specific probabilities of #pregnancy with data from 2 studies that used what they called (correctly) Imperfect Measures of ovulation They did not ask: Perfect Measure of ovulation soon? 2:34 AM Mar 17th

*Perfect Measure*of ovulation resides in deterministic versus statistical approach.  *Imperfect* (fuzzy) replaced by accurate #fertility determination that indicates the first fertile day and the last fertile day, day 1, day 2, day 3, boom, boom, boom 2:49 AM Mar 17th

Fertile window of opportunity to conceive

Fertile window as determined by the Ovulona, and how it compares with the BBT

You should understand: No in vitro diagnostics (out of body), no circulating hormones like LH and/or estrogen can ever make a RELIABLE #fertility monitoring method because fertility is the result of a complex integration or interplay of numerous neuroendocrinological signals. This or that hormone in a body fluid does not do that. (It’s merely one of many input signals. In case of the BBT, more like an output.)

Similar caution applies to NFP observations of #fertility signs. Mucus is a measure of estrogen. It does NOT show the boundaries of the #fertile window, it only indicates ovulation is likely, but not when, and not really if

Your #cervix receives #fertility signals from the active ovary and from your brain. But understand that the cervix appearance and feel only indicates approaching #ovulation, not ovulation as such

The appearance of the cervix, like (the appearance of) ovarian ultrasound will indicate that ovulation was yesterday. Or, more accurately put, ultrasound indicates that the follicle collapsed and PERHAPS (80% probability) released the egg

Monitoring your #fertility signs is better than nothing BUT if it’s not helping you to get #pregnant, it will #stress you out and make things worse

Until you use a definitive deterministic tool, “better than nothing” is arguable if you take it from the statisticians that having intercourse about every day for 20 days is 60% likely to result in conception

Of course, you would still have ~40% probability of not achieving #pregnancy so what is new. That is the meaning of #subfertility. Need a solid tool that determines the 3-day fertile window, boom, boom, boom (but stress may prolong this – in a detectable manner).

Our deterministic tool avoids statistics and probabilities, and detects ovulation after anticipating it from what the cervix is saying electronically now, in this cycle. Most of the time not fertile, and then for a few precious days, #fertile

Songs of Innocence and of Experience

Songs of Innocence and of Experience

To sum up: Appearances are no real measures, they are only approximate.  Approximate is not good enough for #fertility status – to get #pregnant or, especially, to avoid getting pregnant. And, especially, if you want to try for a desired baby gender.


FOR MORE ABOUT ALL THIS GO TO THE 2012 ARTICLE = The fallacy of ovulation calculators, calendars and circulating-hormone detectors. Don’t let them lead you by the nose with likely this and probable that! You need to know for sure.

%d bloggers like this: