4 ms·

Still great for couples who can follow it and don't want the downsides of all the other contraceptives

graemep 1y ago
Even for them it has a high failure rate. Its also being heavily promoted on social media as "natural" and safe without making people aware of the drawback.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
  We were discussing this in a different thread and apparently the studies surrounding that approach did not account for confounding factors at all (alcohol use, stable couple and so on), so the data is not as reliable. Also forgive my skepticism, there is no money to be made for the contraceptive industry, so of course they will not finance it (unless they sell diapers too).
  - graemep 1y ago
    There is lot of money to be made from it - not least the high margin business of selling apps.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
      How can you sell any if there are millions free apps for tracking your period?
      - graemep 1y ago
        Its a lot more complex than period tracking, and requires a higher level of trust. The existence of free software has never been an insurmountable barrier to selling software. People sell both hardware and software. From one of the sites another comment replying to me linked to: "Unless you have a health savings account or a flexible spending account, Mira is expensive. A basic starter kit retails at $199, which includes 10 LH and E3G wands, and then a resupply of those wands costs just under $60 per month with a subscription. If you want to go with the “Max” starter kit, which also includes PdG wands, the price goes up to $229 for the kit and $80 per month for the subscription." https://naturalwomanhood.org/femtech-device/ https://naturalwomanhood.org/femtech-device/
- jawns 1y ago
  > Even for them it has a high failure rate. Care to cite a source? Here's a run-down of some modern methods: > Contemporary, evidence-based methods of natural family planning track the various phases of a woman’s cycle each month via observable biomarkers, such as hormone levels (taken from a urine sample gathered first thing in the morning), basal body temperature (taken by mouth first thing in the morning), patterns of cervical mucus (observed during bathroom visits throughout the day), or a combination thereof. You’ll find the studies that produced the following effectiveness rates linked in the descriptions below. > The Symptothermal Method (STM) combines basal body temperature (BBT) readings with observations of cervical mucus and sometimes that of the cervix itself. The perfect use rate for this method is 0.4%, and the typical use rate is 1.8%. > The Billings Ovulation Method uses cervical mucus observations to determine when a woman is fertile and when she is infertile. This universal method has been successfully taught to populations with low literacy rates, little access to technology, and even those who are visually impaired. With perfect use, the failure rate is 1%, and with typical use, it’s 10%. > The Creighton Model is another method which relies on the categorization of observed cervical mucus. Creighton uses color-coded stickers to interpret a woman’s chart. With perfect use, the method’s failure rate is 0.5%. With typical use, the failure rate is 4%. > The Marquette Model utilizes a ClearBlue Easy Fertility Monitor to track levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and estrogen in the urine. Variations on the method use cervical mucus or BBT in conjunction with hormone readings. With perfect use, the failure rate is 0.1%; with typical use, it’s 7%. Marquette Method researchers are currently developing protocols for use of the Mira fertility monitor. > The Two Day Method is a method in which a woman asks herself if she noticed any cervical secretions today or yesterday. If either answer is “yes,” then she understands herself to be fertile. If both answers are no, she understands herself to be infertile. The perfect use failure rate is 4%, while the typical use rate is 14%. Though this method, in particular, sounds simple (and it is!), it is always best to learn any method from a trained instructor. https://naturalwomanhood.org/topic/effectiveness-rates/ https://naturalwomanhood.org/topic/effectiveness-rates/
  - graemep 1y ago
    A trustworthy source IMO. https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-assessment/background-information/comparative-effectiveness-of-contraceptive-methods/ https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-assessment/back... The source you cite lacks an independent source for the Marquette model claims, and only single studies (cherry picked?) for the others. A recent Chochrane review states "the comparative efficacy of fertility awareness‐based methods for contraception remains unknown." https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004860.pub2/full?highlightAbstract=awar%7Cawareness%7Cfertility%7Cfertil https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

Even for them it has a high failure rate. Its also being heavily promoted on social media as "natural" and safe without making people aware of the drawback.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
We were discussing this in a different thread and apparently the studies surrounding that approach did not account for confounding factors at all (alcohol use, stable couple and so on), so the data is not as reliable. Also forgive my skepticism, there is no money to be made for the contraceptive industry, so of course they will not finance it (unless they sell diapers too).
- graemep 1y ago
  There is lot of money to be made from it - not least the high margin business of selling apps.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
    How can you sell any if there are millions free apps for tracking your period?
    - graemep 1y ago
      Its a lot more complex than period tracking, and requires a higher level of trust. The existence of free software has never been an insurmountable barrier to selling software. People sell both hardware and software. From one of the sites another comment replying to me linked to: "Unless you have a health savings account or a flexible spending account, Mira is expensive. A basic starter kit retails at $199, which includes 10 LH and E3G wands, and then a resupply of those wands costs just under $60 per month with a subscription. If you want to go with the “Max” starter kit, which also includes PdG wands, the price goes up to $229 for the kit and $80 per month for the subscription." https://naturalwomanhood.org/femtech-device/ https://naturalwomanhood.org/femtech-device/
jawns 1y ago
> Even for them it has a high failure rate. Care to cite a source? Here's a run-down of some modern methods: > Contemporary, evidence-based methods of natural family planning track the various phases of a woman’s cycle each month via observable biomarkers, such as hormone levels (taken from a urine sample gathered first thing in the morning), basal body temperature (taken by mouth first thing in the morning), patterns of cervical mucus (observed during bathroom visits throughout the day), or a combination thereof. You’ll find the studies that produced the following effectiveness rates linked in the descriptions below. > The Symptothermal Method (STM) combines basal body temperature (BBT) readings with observations of cervical mucus and sometimes that of the cervix itself. The perfect use rate for this method is 0.4%, and the typical use rate is 1.8%. > The Billings Ovulation Method uses cervical mucus observations to determine when a woman is fertile and when she is infertile. This universal method has been successfully taught to populations with low literacy rates, little access to technology, and even those who are visually impaired. With perfect use, the failure rate is 1%, and with typical use, it’s 10%. > The Creighton Model is another method which relies on the categorization of observed cervical mucus. Creighton uses color-coded stickers to interpret a woman’s chart. With perfect use, the method’s failure rate is 0.5%. With typical use, the failure rate is 4%. > The Marquette Model utilizes a ClearBlue Easy Fertility Monitor to track levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and estrogen in the urine. Variations on the method use cervical mucus or BBT in conjunction with hormone readings. With perfect use, the failure rate is 0.1%; with typical use, it’s 7%. Marquette Method researchers are currently developing protocols for use of the Mira fertility monitor. > The Two Day Method is a method in which a woman asks herself if she noticed any cervical secretions today or yesterday. If either answer is “yes,” then she understands herself to be fertile. If both answers are no, she understands herself to be infertile. The perfect use failure rate is 4%, while the typical use rate is 14%. Though this method, in particular, sounds simple (and it is!), it is always best to learn any method from a trained instructor. https://naturalwomanhood.org/topic/effectiveness-rates/ https://naturalwomanhood.org/topic/effectiveness-rates/
- graemep 1y ago
  A trustworthy source IMO. https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-assessment/background-information/comparative-effectiveness-of-contraceptive-methods/ https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-assessment/back... The source you cite lacks an independent source for the Marquette model claims, and only single studies (cherry picked?) for the others. A recent Chochrane review states "the comparative efficacy of fertility awareness‐based methods for contraception remains unknown." https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004860.pub2/full?highlightAbstract=awar%7Cawareness%7Cfertility%7Cfertil https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...