I don’t know about others, but when I mentioned a 50-50 split, I only meant to imply one significant digit of precision. That is to say, the chance for a girl is greater than 45% but less than 55%. I’m aware of the slight imbalance (though I can never remember which way it goes), but 50-50 is a reasonable approximation.
I meant insulin, not glucose :smack:
Right, but given the thousands of babies born in the world in one year, that’s a lot of unaccounted for boys! I just find it interesting, and sense it’s significant for reasons we may not yet fully appreciate. It’s certainly been used to bolster the hypothesis that male babies are more fragile for unknown reasons - nature has “contrived” a way to ensure enough males survive to reproductive age by loading the deck in their favor before birth. I’ve even seen it used as (spurious) evidence that humans are “meant” to be monogamous.
It also, of course, means that anything that can sway reproducton in favor of females get an extra percentage point and a half handicap.
Do you have any cites for the “yes it works” side of the fence? Last time there was a thread on this (which I started) no one came up with anything.
Is it white and sticky?
I was thinking that, when correcting someones post, people need to remember they don’t state everything correctly either.
I appoligize for the knee jerk reaction. It just hit me in a wrong way yesterday, but not just for your post.
Thanks for the data again Dopers.
It was the post by Princhester, that got me sensitized in particular to the 50% bit.
I keep finding references to a 1993 study conducted in Nigeria on the Billings method (very similar to Shettles - uses cervical fluid to identify the days before ovulation) which showed a 96.3% success rate for boys (because no one in Nigeria wants girls, apparantly). But I can’t find an abstract or even title for the study itself. Very frustrating. Here’s one reference to it, about half way down the page. And here’s another, slightly more than halfway.
Shettles own data, and that of his associates, supports his theory, and can be found in his book.
I’m surprised it’s not pretty damn obvious that when I used 50% I was just meaning about the amount dealt by chance. Sheesh.
I read the Shettles book, or at least skimmed it, looking for any real data. I’ll have a look again if I get the chance but I have a firm recollection of its absence.
One reason I am very sceptical about the whole deal is that in several very populous nations (China, India) boys are considered much, much more valuable than girls. And yet while they do have a gender imbalance, it’s only a couple of percent different to anywhere else (China about 54% boys, rest of world 2-3% less). And even that difference is due to aborting females not any form of pre-conception technique.
Shettles/Billings claim success rates of 80-90% for choosing boys by methods that are widely published, take no special technology or expense to effect, and would be undetectable by the authorities (important in China, I suspect).
And yet despite strong motivation to choose boys and an (allegedly) 80-90% successful method of choosing boys available boys are in fact selected in these countries only 2-3% more often than elsewhere, and even that difference is explicable otherwise. There’s something fishy somewhere.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/19/china-usat.htm