(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Hey Kiwis! Check out the cover for North & South magazine this month, headline: Test-tube babies: A NEW SPECIES?

Not only is this hilariously tabloid, it directly contradicts a quote within the mag. A study has recently been performed on a limited sample of IVF babies (140 participants, half IVF half not, only fresh not frozen, no premature births, no multiple births - which is about half of all IVF births - kids only between 5 and 11) and found that IVF babies are slightly taller, slimmer, and have basically better cholesterol than all of y'all normals. One of the guys who did the study said that he specifically didn't want to be frightening with talk of a new species or whatever - so naturally that's what North and South did on the cover.

I actually would be interested in reading the study, if only to find out whether or not this shit is adjusted for variables like wealth and so forth. It's all very well to invent some explanation about environments outside the womb, but IVF is 1. expensive unless you got it funded 2. difficult. This implies things like, for example, IVF births are not likely to be accidental births. IVF parents are going to be very prepared for pregnancy and are going to have spent a lot of time on their environment (physical, i.e. folic acid, especially) to prove that. IVF parents are probably wealthier than other parents. etc. So I would like to know if this study corrects for that or not.

I am an IVF baby, BTW, which is why I find this interesting.

Comments

[clockworkflight.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't realise - I had it in my head that it was around thirty, though that might be in the world perhaps. In any case, yeah, not a big enough sample size now but something that could be done in the not too distant future.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Louise Brown, the oldest IVF baby in the world, was born in the late 70s. (Just wiki'd - 1978. She's turning 31 this July.) So, yeah, there aren't a big number to play with, especially because the way IVF is done now is so different to the way it was done in 1978 - or 1987 (my birth year), even. That's why they had such a narrow sample range in this particular study, I believe - which I'm gonna have to check N&S for the author name, I think.