"Now you can design your own baby. But should you?" is the tantalizing teaser for this week's much-quoted article about preimplantation genetic diagnosis in the online magazine Slate. The inaccurate and sensational lead-in is entirely appropriate for
the misleading, fear-mongering article. I guess this is what happens when an article about advanced reproductive technologies falls into the hands of your chief political correspondent (William Saleton): the facts get completely lost in the spin.
Let's get one thing straight: You cannot "design" a baby. No technology exists to doctor an embryo to create desired traits, nor repair an embryo to correct genetic flaws. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is simply a screening test that provides genetic information about an existing embryo -- an embryo which has the exact same genetic makeup, inherited from its parents, as it would if it had been conceived at home in bed.
Saleton's scary article covers the "slippery slope" and eugenics bogeys, following the well-worn template laid down by other journalists who are equally ignorant of the basic facts about getting pregnant using IVF. (PGD testing can only be done as part of an IVF cycle.)
Putting the brakes on the slippery slope
First, we have hand-wringing over the injustice of screening embryos not just for devastating childhood illnesses, but even for manageable health problems that don't occur until later in life, or perhaps not at all.
...an American patient who plans to screen her embryos for an arthritis gene. The probability that the gene will cause the disease is only 20 percent, and if it does, the disease is highly manageable. Once you screen for one gene, it's tempting to screen for others.
The notion that parents shopping for the perfect baby can present a laundry list of potential diseases, and only accept embryos that match their stringent criteria, ignores a very basic fact of IVF life: in any IVF cycle, a woman can produce only a limited number of eggs, which become a fewer number of viable embryos. Couples don't cull embryos on a whim or a genetic propensity for hangnails, because an IVF cycle typically results in only a small number of embryos to choose from (and sometimes only one, or even none). Parents who screened out embryos with various trivial genetic flaws would quickly run out of embryos and go home with no baby at all.
Screening for a particular disease is not a frivolous matter. While some might downplay a disease by calling "manageable", it's another story for those who have seen firsthand the suffering it causes their own parents or close family members, perhaps seeing what awaits in their own future.
Saleton seems to think the woman screening for arthritis just thinks it's too inconvenient to keep a bottle of ibuprofen handy, but
her form of arthritis can cause fusion of the spine, may cause pain starting at 3 years of age, and has no treatment, other than painkillers and surgical joint replacement.
“My mother told me that the only worse thing than having cancer twice was having to give the gene to me.”
New York Times
But even if a woman could produce a hundred eggs in a cycle, in hopes of producing an embryo that meets a myriad of genetic requirements, PGD testing on a vast number of embryos for multiple conditions is simply infeasible. PGD is limited for several reasons: only one embryonic cell is available for testing, so only a few tests can be performed; analysis must be completed within 48 hours, because the embryo can't survive longer; and the cost is prohibitive. Adding multiple tests on dozens of embryos would send the normal PGD tab of around $3,000 soaring to maybe $30,000 or more, per cycle (on top of IVF costs).
So the only people in danger of sliding down this particular "slippery slope" are multi-millionaires with super-human egg producing powers.
Culling embryos
Another patient ... set out to scan his embryos for colon cancer and ended up chucking two more for Down syndrome. "You kind of feel like you shouldn't be doing it," his wife confessed.
Saleton gives us the impression that, were it not for the villian of PGD, all of these "chucked" embryos would go on to lead happy, healthy, lives, more or less. But again, this conflicts with the reality of IVF: extra embryos are created, and some are discarded. A woman usually hopes to conceive exactly one baby, and no matter how many children she would love to have, she cannot safely incubate a litter of 5 or 6 at once.
With or without PGD, a couple in an IVF cycle who winds up with 10 embryos must choose, typically, one to three to implant, and must discard (or freeze, or donate) the rest. In a case where some embryos must be selected, and some must be discarded, PGD is simply a tool used to select the embryos most likely to result in a successful pregnancy and a healthy baby.
Without PGD, embryos are selected after being examined under a microscope, and graded for quality. The "most beautiful" embryos are the lucky ones selected for implantation. But, because even though the healthiest-looking embryo may harbor devastating chromosomal abnormalities and with zero chance of survival, choosing embryos by sight alone is only a little better than a wild ass guess.
How is it that it is somehow moral to choose embryos by inaccurately predicting their future health based on their 3rd day "beauty", but immoral to choose embryos by accurately predicting their future health based on genetic analysis?
Taking a swipe at savior siblings
Another oft-criticized use of PGD is to select an embryo because it is a tissue match for an existing sibling, and the resulting baby becomes a donor to cure the sibling.
Once you start treating a child as a tissue bank, it's hard to stop.
Last month, after a Swiss couple used PGD to pick a donor embryo for
their ailing son ... the donor infant, having failed to
provide enough cord blood, was subjected to a painful bone-marrow
extraction as well.
Certainly, any person would be outraged at the idea of a helpless infant being tortured like a lab rat in order to rob its tissues. But actually, bone marrow extraction is performed under anesthesia, and although there can be some soreness and pain afterward, it goes away and the body swiftly naturally replaces the lost marrow; in the scheme of things it doesn't seem an enormous price to save the life of another person.
The issue, presumably, is that no matter how the scales tip when weighing saving a life against a harmless procedure, the baby cannot consent to that procedure. How often, I wonder, do people who are actually asked to be a bone marrow donor, and are able to give their consent, instead refuse? We know that
people volunteer quite willingly to be bone marrow donors for perfect strangers, so it seems safe to assume that people usually step up to the plate when called upon by a family member. Certainly I wouldn't hesitate to be a donor even for my least favorite sibling. Second cousin, even. In a pinch I might even save a journalist.
Why then, would one assume on this baby's behalf, that rather than becoming a decent human being who would readily give his consent if he could, he will become a crass individual who would rather watch his sibling die than endure a few days with a sore hip?
Parents who seek to have a "savior sibling" have been vilified by the press as monsters looking to use a baby for spare parts. But if these people were really that heartless, they could easily choose a cheaper and easier route: just bury the first child and hop in bed and make a replacement. Instead, they have chosen a path that includes the exraordinary expense and inconvenience of IVF -- at a cost averaging $15,000 to $45,000, with no guarantee of a successful pregnancy. (And for those of us who know what it means to shed tears over an unsuccessful IVF cycle, try to imagine, for just a moment, what it must be like when a negative pregnancy test spells a death sentence.)
And beyond the birth of the savior sibling, there is still a matter of the bone marrow transplant for the ailing child, which involves a month-long stay in the hospital and perhaps a year of recovery. That is, if you're lucky, because there's a chance the transplant will be unsuccessful, and the child will die, or not be cured.
Why would anyone think that these parents, who are willing to go to such extraordinary lengths simply for the chance to save the life of a child, would view a second child as nothing more than a slab of meat? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suspect that such parents would treasure a second child just as much as the first? More reasonable, perhaps, but not very sensational.
Happy birthday to Jessica Collins! The first MicroSort baby, who
was conceived after XSort and IUI, turns 10 today. It reminds
those of us who have used MicroSort, and those who are contemplating
it, what a new technology this really is.
I guess no one can accuse India's government of reacting too
swiftly. When the Baby Gender Mentor was released, many were
alarmed about how the early baby gender test might be misused in
India. Today, over a year later and after the product has
already been withdrawn from the market altogether, the Indian
government announced that it may be banned.
Worldwide, the normal birth rate is 51% boys, but in India, a gender
imbalance has arisen due to a cultural preference for sons.
Through the practices of sex selective abortion, infanticide,
abandonment, and neglect of their daughters, some areas of India have
only 41% to 47% female births.
In Punjab, the Indian state with the lowest female birth ratio, the
health minister has announced he "will take all steps" to have
the Baby Gender Mentor banned.
After viewing an
ABC report about Baby Gender Mentor's problems and lack of oversight for the test, Florida
Congressman Jim Davis has urged the FDA to investigate Acu-Gen and to regulate similar baby gender tests, and the
Florida Attorney General has opened an investigation against Acu-Gen.
Initially the issue that particularly concerns us is this unfair trade and deceptive practices.
Charlie Crist, Florida Attorney General
Although Acu-Gen has previously refused to provide any evidence from
trials to support their accuracy claims, or to reveal sales
figures or details behind their method, that may change as the company
has now been subpoenaed by the Attorney General's office.
Clearly, something is going wrong here. When someone is paying the kind
of money that's being paid here to get a laboratory test there needs to
be some protection as far as the safety and effectiveness of the test,
and there needs to be accountability.
Florida Congressman Jim Davis
Both officials were alarmed b the experience of Florida mother Erin
Rivera, who purchased the Baby Gender Mentor test just to learn whether
her unborn baby was a boy or a girl. Erin was told by Acu-Gen's Wang
that her baby had
Trisomy-18, and would likely die at birth. When questioned about Erin's
case by ABC Tampa's Linda Hurtado, Wang said:
This baby going to have developmental problems, and it's probably going to cease to exist right after birth.
C.N. Wang, Acu-Gen President
Aside from the anguish endured by this frightened pregnant mother,
there is very real danger in this sort of diagnosis: most babies
diagnosed prenatally with a trisomy,
such as Down's Syndrome, are aborted before birth.
Thankfully, Erin Rivera never considered that option, and in March delivered a perfectly healthy baby boy named Lucas.
Lucas does not have signs of Trisomy-18 or any other trisomies.
Dr. Raafat Hamzeh, Lucas' pediatrician
Congressman Jim Davis has sent a letter to FDA commissioner
Dr. Andrew
von Eschenbach regarding the Baby Gender Mentor; here are some excerpts:
I am writing to call on the FDA to investigate
Acu-Gen's Baby Gender Mentor test and provide oversight for similar
gender tests to protect consumers from false medical diagnoses.
...There have been numerous cases where Acu-Gen predicted false and
misleading results for the customers. Furthermore, Acu-Gen refused to
give these customers their guaranteed refund after they showed proof
the test results were wrong. The company cannot supply scientific data
or proof of any clinical trials supporting the test's accuracy.
...It is my understanding that the FDA does not regulate this test,
because they consider it a 'home brew' test. Dr. Eschenbach, this is
very troubling and alarming that no one is monitoring what is happening
with these companies...
Why is the FDA not monitoring these companies in the light of the
claims being made? Is the FDA equipped to monitor these companies? Do
you agree more oversight is needed for products like Baby Gender Mentor?
...I am very concerned with the lack of gevoerment oversight
companies like Acu-Gen receive, especially in light that they are now
making false medical diagnoses.
Florida Congressman Jim Davis in a letter to FDA Acting Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach
Excellent questions, Mr. Davis. Why doesn't the FDA monitor these
companies? The answer is that, because of a loophole in FDA
policy, a company may sell genetic testing as a lab service without FDA
approval. Thus, there is no oversight to assure consumers that
genetic tests are accurate, or even useful for the advertised intent.
If this seems like a bad situation to you, Mr. Davis, you aren't alone. For over a decade, federal advisory boards have been calling for regulation of genetic testing. Five years ago, the CDC promised to do so,
yet still nothing has been done. So, although it's already been 8
weeks since you sent your letter to the FDA, don't be too surprised if
you don't hear anything back soon.
Baby Gender Mentor, the at-home DNA test claiming to reveal an unborn
baby's gender as early as 5 weeks of pregnancy, convinced many
customers that their claims of near-perfect accuracy were real by
offering a 200% money back guarantee if your result was
incorrect. "How can I go wrong?" many mothers asked.
The test's maker, Acu-Gen BioLabs, has now retracted the offer of a
double-money-back guarantee, and a 100% guarantee is now offered
instead on the BabyGenderMentor.com and PregnancyStore.com Web
sites. PregnancyStore, the online retailer for the gender test,
indicates that Baby Gender Mentor is currently "out of stock".
(Perhaps until new orange boxes can be printed without the 200%
warranty.)
The 200% money back guarantee is wonderful! The offer put that much more confidence in my decision to order your product!
Testimonial on PregnancyStore.com
While a money-back refund is usually a mark of a legitimate product,
in a gender prediction or gender selection product it's highly suspect
-- because the seller is assured of getting at least half the results
correct.
While Acu-Gen formerly "stood behind" a 200% guarantee of the Baby
Gender Mentor's accuracy, customer complaints about wrong test results,
and the company's refusal to make good on the promised refund, have
caused the Better Business Bureau to give Acu-Gen BioLabs an unsatisfactory rating.
Acu-Gen Biolab, Inc. has a pattern of complaints
concerning advertising issues. Consumers state that the company
promises a 99.9% accurate test result for the gender of their unborn
child or a 200% guaranteed refund. Consumers state that the test result
is often inaccurate. Consumers state that when they contact the company
for a 200% refund... the company still does not provide the consumer
with the guaranteed refund.
On 03/13/06 the Better Business Bureau wrote to Acu-Gen Biolab, Inc.
and asked them to substantiate the following claims made on the
company's website: We Guarantee that all test results will be
absolutely 99.9% accurate, explanation of the company's 200% guarantee,
Unsurpassed Accuracy, Unrivaled Earliness, Uncompromised Promptness,
Undoubted Privacy and Totally Safe. As of 03/28/06 the company has not
responded to the Better Business Bureau's request for substantiation or
modification of the questioned advertising claims.
Update: The BabyGenderMentor.com Web site has also stopped selling Baby Gender Mentor.
If you're considering IVF, one of the important decisions you'll make
is the choice of a clinic to perform the IVF procedure. The new
Web site for the
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology
(SART) provides IVF success rates for clinics in the US.
Fertility clinics are required to report the outcome of every ART
procedure to the
US CDC
(Center for Disease Control), but getting those statistics published
has generally lagged 2 to 3 years behind. The new SART Web site
seeks to streamline reporting fertility statistics and making them
available sooner. Statistics are currently available through 2004,
putting the US far ahead of Europe, where it generally takes 4 years to
collect publish ART data.
Begging the question of why, in the age of the World Wide Web, we do
not have virtually up-to-the-minute ART statistics? Our local
middle school updates children's grades via the Web once weekly,
yet it takes YEARS to collate a few simple bits of data about a single
IVF cycle?
In any case, you should beware of putting too much stock in a clinic's
success rate alone, because it's far from telling the whole
story. The pregnancy rate can be misleading if there are too few
cases; for example, one clinic had an impressive 50% pregnancy rate for
women over 40, but it turned out only 4 women over 40 had been
treated. Some clinics are also guilty of "cherry picking", or
treating only patients who seem to have a good chance of becoming
pregnant, and turning away those who may have poor odds.
Over-regulation of fertility treatment in the UK has created a boom in
"fertility tourism" in other countries, as UK couples are driven abroad
to seek fertility treatment that is not available at home. Now
the HFEA, which regulates IVF in the United Kingdom, is wagging a stern
finger at couples considering an "IVF holiday": you'd better
"think twice and consider the risks and implications of going abroad for treatment."
If you live in the UK and you're considering IVF for gender selection,
leaving the country is your only option, because sex selection is
banned in the UK. But couples are fleeing England to undergo IVF
in other countries -- even though IVF would be free of cost at home
under the government health care system -- for many other reasons as
well. In the UK, you may face a long waiting list for IVF; and
often delaying IVF is tantamount to denying it altogether, because one
of the most important factors in IVF success is the mother's
age. Recent regulations denying anonymity to sperm donors
has seen the availability of donor sperm dry up over the past year.
Rules on who is eligible for IVF deny many couples. Strict,
blanket limits on IVF procedures may reduce the chance that IVF will be
successful. And the famous "IVF postcode lottery" in the UK means
that treatment is wildly unequal from one county to the next.
Currently, a saga caused by the arbitrary rules imposed for the
destruction of frozen embryos is being played out in the British
press. The HFEA appears to be insisting on destroying
frozen embryos -- against the wishes of the parents -- because the 5
years permitted to store frozen embryos has elapsed before the couple
could find a surrogate mother. The mother, Michelle
Hickman, underwent an emergency hysterectomy after the birth of
their first child, and cannot carry a baby. The couple hopes to
be allowed to move their embryos to another country, where they will be
safe from the "embryo death row" in the UK. Michelle joins other
families, like the Mastersons and the Whitakers, forced into two
battles: one battle to overcome a medical issue, and another to
convince their own government to permit needed treatment.
Yet, the HFEA urges couples to stay in the UK where "care and treatment
is of the highest standard," and not to travel to another country where
they might be able to make their own decisions regarding treatment, and
retain control of their own embryos and gametes. The HFEA has
taken away choices from its own citizens at home, until little other
option remains to them but to risk seeking treatment abroad.
The ABC morning show Good Morning America features the Magill family of
Grafton, Mass. The parents of 3 girls used PGD, or
preimplantation genetic diagnosis, to conceive twin boys, now nearly
one.
The segment includes comments by Dr. Mark Hughes, who developed the PGD
technique and opposes its use for sex selection. Dr. Hughes
repeats, as he does in every interview, that "The last time I checked,
your gender was not a disease."
If you're hoping to use MicroSort to conceive a son or a daughter, get ready for the sticker shock to get even worse. There's just been a significant price increase in the sperm sorting service.
Notes:
| Service |
March 2005 |
March 2006 |
Increase |
| MicroSort Sperm Sorting |
$2,995 |
$3,400 |
$405 |
| Extra sorted vial |
$651 |
$700 |
$49 |
| Patient Consultation (GIVF) |
$265 |
$300 |
$35 |
| Patient Consultation (Collaborator) |
$133 |
$300 |
$167 |
| IUI Procedure (1) |
$329 |
$365 |
$36 |
| Daily Monitoring for IUI (2) |
$392/day |
$475/day |
$83/day |
| Full Monitoring for IUI (3) |
$1,169 |
$1,650 |
$481 |
| Review Outside Monitoring for IUI (4) |
$496 |
$625 |
$128 |
- Fee for IUI procedure only, does not include sort or ovulation monitoring.
- If you choose to detect ovulation yourself using at-home ovulation prediction kits (OPKs), you can pay this fee for one day of testing to confirm ovulation.
- Fee for complete ovulation monitoring at GIVF
- Fee for GIVF to review the results of ovulation monitoring tests, and coordinate your cycle, with an outside doctor. You must still pay your doctor for the tests.
Trevor Eve
"The Family Man"
An upcoming 3-part miniseries on UK television features a fertility expert facing ethical dilemmas in the world of IVF. One story line concerns parents of 3 daughters, who are devastated after the death of their son and want to use sex selection to conceive a boy -- against the law.
The story comes direct from the UK headlines. The Mastersons had four sons and one daughter, who died tragically as a toddler in a bonfire accident. The Mastersons unsuccessfully battled the UK government to be allowed to use sex selection to have a girl. Finally, the couple went abroad for several attempts with IVF/PGD, but failed to become pregnant. At last, they were forced to give up their dream of having daughter in their family once more. (See my previous blog posts for the Masterson's story.)
Leila's lovely daughter Malia
A segment about Baby Gender Mentor airs tonight on CNN's Paula Zahn Now (8 eastern, 7 central). "The maker of the product says the problem is with THEIR babies, not HIS test," says the teaser. The story features three of our own members, Leila (leilawill), Melissa (melissa30), and Raylene (realtormom).
Lucas Kian Rivera
Minutes after birth
Just a few hours ago as I write this, a nightmare pregnancy came to an end for Erin Rivera. A time that was supposed to be filled with joy and expectation became instead an agony of anxiety and worry when the Florida mother received a phone call, early in her pregnancy, with bad news. Erin was told that genetic analysis had revealed "chromosomal abnormalities" in her baby.
But the call didn't come from Erin's doctor, and Erin hadn't requested or agreed to any genetic testing of this type. On the phone was a complete stranger, Chang-ning Wang, from a company called Acu-Gen. A few weeks earlier, Erin had sent the company three drops of her blood with the Baby Gender Mentor kit to find out her unborn baby's gender. She thought it would be fun to tell her husband, a soldier deployed in Afghanistan, their new baby's gender long before an ultrasound scan could reveal whether it was a boy or a girl. "Congratulations, you're having a boy!" was the result.
But the "fun" was replaced by fear and confusion when Wang's unexpected call informed Erin that his lab hadn't stopped with the gender test, but had gone on to perform additional genetic testing that, he said, revealed a chromosomal defect. He wanted Erin to know this information so that she could make a "choice" about her pregnancy. Erin says Wang would give no further details about what was supposedly wrong with her baby, and advised her to have an amniocentesis. When she burst into tears, she says Wang hung up on her.
Erin's obstetrician, however, told her that her pregnancy seemed normal in every way. Erin decided against risking her baby and did not have an amnio.
Nearing the end of her pregnancy, Erin would get another shocking "diagnisis" from Wang, but this time, it came from the television. Although Wang refused to provide Erin with details of her baby's supposed "abnormality", he told ABC's Linda Hurtado with utter conviction: Erin's baby had Trisomy-18, and would "cease to exist" soon after birth. "We don't make mistake. Period." he concluded. Erin had just received a death sentence for her baby on the evening news.
Erin spent the remaining weeks of her pregnancy under this dark cloud, wondering if her baby boy, now named Lucas, would be born healthy, or with devastating birth defects, or would even survive to come home.
On March 10, the verdict came at last, as Lucas Kian entered the world weighing 6 pounds, 15 ounces, and 20 inches long. "Is he normal?" were the new mother's first words. "Perfect!" declared the doctor, after checking him all over. "This baby does NOT have Trisomy 18," concurred the nurse. Erin's mother Nova would share the news in bold, capital letters: "MR. WANG WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!"
Lucas was, in fact, a normal, perfect, healthy baby boy in every way -- and had been so from the instant of his conception. His mother, his family and their friends had worried needlessly throughout a pregnancy that should have been filled only with joyful expectation.
Melissa Russell and baby Violet Faith
"As featured on ABC's World News Tonight" are the first words on PregnancyStore.com, referring to last summer's story
about a revolutionary new test called Baby Gender Mentor that promised
to reveal your unborn baby's gender at just 5 weeks after conception.
The
baby gender test appears again on ABC World News Tonight, but this time
the story is different. Instead of an amazing medical
breakthrough, tonight's story is about a lawsuit filed by angry mothers
against the test's maker, Acu-Gen BioLabs.
Melissa Russell, of Texas, isn't just upset that Acu-Gen got her
baby's gender wrong. When her Baby Gender Mentor result was a boy, but
ultrasound revealed she was carrying a girl, Acu-Gen insisted the test
was correct, and warned Melissa to expect a baby boy with "ambiguous
genitalia".
I was crying, and I called my family, and I called my pastor, and I asked for prayer.
Melissa Russell, Baby Gender Mentor customer
Melissa's baby girl, Violet Faith, was born in December with
completely normal female genitals. Melissa paid out of pocket for
genetic testing to confirm that her daughter's chromosomes are normal
as well.
Other women have shared their Acu-Gen woes with the press as well; links below.
These women feel that they've been taken for a ride, at a very emotional and special time in their life.
Nell Boyce, NPR
Tampa's ABC News affiliate reveals that no government agency
regulates sales of gender tests like the Baby Gender Mentor. The FDA
does not require oversight of the test because it's a "home brew" -- a
test sold as a service.
Women are saying, "Wow, that's really neat, I'm
going to get that!" And every time that they sell a test, that woman is
potentially putting herself and her family at risk for heartbreak.
Danielle Hardy, mother whose Baby Gender Mentor test was wrong
Linda Hurtado reports that women are banding together to file
a class action lawsuit, alleging that their Baby Gender Mentor result
was wrong, and that the company won't honor their promise of a refund.
I think some of this has got to be looked into, and
hopefully stopped. You are not supposed to make misrepresentations when
selling a product to the public.
Barry Gainey, Gainey and McKenna Law Firm
Acu-Gen, however, maintains that their baby gender test works as
advertised. Acu-Gen's president, Chang Wang, says, "We have done
thousands of tests. I think if you want to do a fair comparison, do a
fair report, you should check thousands of them before you make any
comment."
I have to disagree. The 99.9% accuracy claimed by Acu-Gen (never
mind statements about "never" being wrong) means that only 1 in 1,000
customers should get a wrong result. Yet over 70 women have reported
here on In-Gender.com that their gender test was wrong, according to
ultrasound results, not to mention numerous reports on other pregnancy
forums. For these 70 cases to represent the 0.1% error rate claimed by
Acu-Gen, sales of at least 70,000 kits would be needed. In
November, the kit's retailer, Sherry Bonelli, stated that 4,000 kits
had been sold, with half those being sold in the first few weeks after
the product debuted on NBC's Today Show in late June.
Although Bonelli maintains that ultrasound is unreliable at
determining a baby's gender, so far over 20 women on this site alone
have delivered babies that confirm their ultrasound was right, and Baby
Gender Mentor was wrong.
Erin Rivera bought the Baby Gender Mentor to find out her baby's unborn gender at just 10 weeks of pregnancy. She thought it would be fun to surprise her husband, stationed in Afghanistan, with their baby's sex much earlier than possible by ultrasound. "Congratulations, it's a boy!" was the result from Baby Gender Mentor.
But Erin's "fun" turned into fear when she got a call from Acu-Gen's president, Chang Wang, with a different kind of news. He told her she should have genetic testing because her baby had a chromosomal abnormality.
"He just kept saying, 'Well, most people would like to know so they would have a choice.' And I got very upset and started crying and he laughed at me and hung up on me."
Erin Rivera
But Erin soon found there was reason to doubt information from Acu-Gen. Here on In-Gender.com, she found reports from dozens of other pregnant women who were confused and upset after purchasing the Baby Gender Mentor. Not only did ultrasound indicate that their baby was not the gender predicted by the gender test, but a few had also received disturbing news about possible fetal abnormalities from Acu-Gen.
One was Danielle from Kentucky. After repeated testing by Acu-Gen insisted her baby was a boy, and suggestions that her baby could have chromosomal abnormalities, she gave birth to a healthy daughter in December. Yet, Wang still contends there has never been an error.
We don't make mistake. Period.
Mr. C N Wang, Acu-Gen President
Yet over 20 women have reported here that after giving birth, their baby is not the gender they were told to expect by Baby Gender Mentor.
Linda Hurtado of ABC Tampa interviewed Erin and Danielle and visited Acu-Gen BioLab in the first part of a two part series. The second part will air tonight.
More Posts
Next page »