# Article about Mohammed Taranissi / Zita West - Evening Standard



## Han72

Wow an article from a Mail group newspaper that DOESN'T **** off Taranissi, it's gotta be a first!

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/health/article-23764297-ivf-specialist-why-im-devoted-to-my-work.do

xxx


----------



## swhattie

I thought it was a lovely article!


----------



## MsAsian

The article mentions that "Mohamed Taranissi has the second highest success rate in the country" but I could not find in the article who had the highest success rate. Did I miss it or is it missing in the article?


----------



## Han72

Hmm, I didn't clock that. And it's the first I've heard of him being second, maybe the Lister has overtaken the ARGC in the league tables...? I know they're usually first and second....


----------



## Jinty

It's CRGH (formerly ACU at University College Hospital) who've taken over at the top....
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23505191-london-hospital-is-top-of-ivf-success-league.do 
http://www.crgh.co.uk/

Zita West was her usual patronising self I see.... 'people just need to have more sex' - if it was that easy she wouldn't be making so much money advising people would she....


----------



## Han72

Don't get me started on ZW


----------



## swhattie

Nixf01 said:


> Don't get me started on ZW


Nor me!


----------



## Guest

don't forget that CRGH/ACU absolutely refuse anyone over 41 and anyone with an FSH of 10 or more   ...Whilst ARGC advises against tx for and sees fewer FSHers, they do treat them if you really want them to, if your FSH is just above ten  ..and the Lister will give a chance to all sorts (like me  )....the figures are useless unless they are "like for like" - why CAN THE HFEA NOT SEE THIS


----------



## Caz

Lukey I completely agree about comparisons. Also the ARGC does not treat donor patients where the other two do, but the ARGC do treat more patients who have previous failed cycles elsewhere which affects odds too. The Lister treat more poor responders because, as you say, they tend to give everyone a chance if it's what they want - where a lot of clinics would cancel with just one or two follicles, the Lister will go ahead if the patien want it. If you look at the detailed statistics for length go time ttc for all threre clinics, the length of time for Lister and ARGC is 4.8 or 4.9 years, whereas the CRGH is 3.9 years. This suggests that ARGC and Lister have a lot more patients who've either got more complex issues or have been elswhere first. 
Not that I am knocking the CRGH ; I am sure their success is well deserved but it does just go to highlight that you cannot find your ideal clinic by statistics alone. 

Having said all that I do think the HFEA statistics are much better presented than a few years ago when I was first looking for a clinic. Then all you got was a live birth rate for everyone under 40 and another for everyone over and by FET and by fresh cycle.  Now you get details about IUI, donor cycles etc. and you can break it down much closer to age range. There's even a success rate by number of embryos so you can see which clinics are getting better successes with SET. As I said though, stats aren't everything and even the HFEA acknowledge that on their website. I don't really know how they can reasonably break the information down any more than they have without then making it next to impossible for the average new and confused IVF patient to not want to run screaming for the hills when they see it. 

C~x


----------



## Leaf

I know nothing of Mr T but it's nice to read a news item without comments from readers who have time on their hands to be nasty and no idea what they're talking about - instead there are a couple of informed comments. 

Leaf


----------

