# Panorama Tonight BBC 1- 8.30pm



## Guest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b084ngkd

Interesting show about research into whether extra tests are backed by thorough scientific research

/links


----------



## Cherry Tree

There was a story about it on the news tonight..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38094618

/links


----------



## Ttc2016

Oh my god. I paid dr George so much money for all those tests. Have had more success with a Greek dr who disbelieves everything that's currently fashionable and has just done pretty basic IVF. £13,000 down the drain. I feel sick.


----------



## eleb

It was quite eye opening. I'm self funded, but at NHS clinic, so it's just costs, rather than profits, thank goodness. 

I was more shocked by the attitude shown by the guy they were filming. Complete lack of bedside manner....but there's a lot which can be done in the edit suite I guess.

It's a huge area of development, so there will always be this kind of thing going on,  the problem is how on earth are normal people meant to find out the real information?


----------



## Lily0750

Well, they say that immune treatment, PGS or embryoscope do not increase chances of success but never mention what does.

Through, I agree some clinics are quite pushy about their add-ons.


----------



## Ttc2016

To be fair though, I know people who have had success as a result of intralipids etc, I think there's still a lot to learn. I wouldn't say Dr George pushed the add ons but he certainly didn't discourage us. He did act sympathetically on consultation. I don't know why they only picked on zita west clinic when there are loads of clinics offering the same


----------



## Kieke

Not sure what to think of it all...
Certainly not fare to pick just on the Zita West clinic! They have good succes rates but came across like a seedy backally clinic.
I agree that you tend to try anything possible in the hope it might work so if it turns out non of it improves your changes there's something seriously wrong with the law/system.


----------



## Louisej29

Not sure how accurate I'd say it was. I firmly believe in immune treatment.  Without it I would not have my twins. I know of many that intralipids has worked for as well. Just very glad I was at the lister and not zita west. Was that consultant for real? Dreadful.!


----------



## Crownofscars

I felt a little uncomfortable watching it too. 

I'm not sure I would have been successful without the added scratch, picsi and embryogen we used!

I hope the programme doesn't scare a lot of people off add ons as they can be appropriate and do work for some people!


----------



## Cloudy

I think Dr George N'dwuke was badly edited and it wasn't a fair representation. Besides, he was talking to them about £180 intralipids, we all know in the world of immunes they are the cheapest things (other than steroids) - it wasn't like he was pushing Humira, IVIG or LIT without proper consultation. Besides, two separate hours consultation squashed in to two short clips...

It might interests people to know that actual study also found pre-treatment scans, surgical sperm removal and amh tests as being included in their list of "not proven or harmful".

It was a shockingly bad documentary and just another Daily Fail tv show - and what was the point of showing a couple who had IVF which failed and then got pregnant naturally!!! Of no informative use whatsoever.

I never usually watch Paranoia (as I call it) and after last night I wont be making the same mistake again!

Don't let this upset you ladies, take I for what it was: A poor piece of one-sided journalism giving half-facts about something far to complex to discuss in a half hour show.

Xxx


----------



## RebeccaRP

The programme was nonsense, the BBC trying to make a sensationalist story  out of very little research and I too am concerned that it might put people off techniques that could help. Yes, 'killer cells' are widely known as being unproven but some people do benefit from the treatment. As for the embryoscope and the PGS, they are widely known to have benefits it's just that the UK is slow on the uptake. 

It's both a blessing and a curse... the UK has stringent guidelines around research and trials before recommending practices which in theory means they are robust methods with real results and anything potentially harmful is eliminated. It also means that anything potentially helpful takes a hell of a long time to come to market. Let's not forget that this is the country that adopted the recommendation to take folic acid to reduce the incidence of spina biffida 10 years after the rest of the world had realised its benefits. That's 10 years of babies born with a condition that could have potentially been avoided.

The programme directly contradicted statistics that were given to Alex Jones in her programme just a couple of months previous. PGS testing dramatically increases your chances if you transfer a chromasomally normal embryo and the techniques for testing have now moved on so it's unlikely to harm the embryo in the process. As the chap at the fertility show said, the rest of the world is doing it as it's so successful, it is the way forward and will soon become the norm. In the Alex programme, the NHS are currently running trials as to whether it's cost effective to adopt it... they wouldn't be doing that if it didn't have proven results elsewhere in the world. Again, we are late to the party... the US have been doing this for years. The reason why a lot of IVF cycles fail is due to chromosomal abnormalities, if you know your embryo is chromosomally viable, your chances of success can go up to nearly 70%.

The programme was a huge disappointment, full of negativity and very light on facts. Shame on you BBC, I expect better.


----------



## Bagpuss87

Couldn't have put it better *RebeccaRP* the show was an absolute disgrace . I think lots of people will be put off from using these techniques because of the scare mongering in this programme.

I did notice when they discussed with the Oxford university guy that he had said after all the research they had done only 1 thing was shown to improve result....what was it then ? Didn't mention that ? Have they not priced that up yet?

How about instead of making expensive uninformative programmes scaring people who are despairing about having a family why don't they "research" a way to bring the disgustingly high prices of fertility treatment down in the UK!

Sorry for the rant people.

Wishing all still trying the very best xx


----------



## Silver star

I just emailed ZW , to say how upset I am at last nights programme , 

We had 7 BFN at good clinics ( Hammersmith x 2 , UCH x 2 , serum x 3 ) we went to see ZW & George and now we had 16m twins ! 

It was so one sided , you can't talk about this suff in 1/2 hr , 


X


----------



## kittykat76

I am having treatment at Zita West and feel the programme was a very unfair representation,it seemed like Dr N was being singled out when we all know there are many clinics offering immunes. I spoke to one of the fabulous nurses at ZW this morning and told her how disgusted I was over it. One thing I have found with Dr N is that he doesn't push treatments or tests on you like other clinics do. I have personally found other Dr's to be far more pushy in regards to this. I went into this process with my eyes open-I knew that the treatments aren't tested in the same way cosmetics are (!) but the results speak for themselves. I haven't had success yet but genuinely believe I will once the right combination is found for me. Why were there no ladies on there who have had success?? You only have to look at this site to see that there are plenty for whom it has worked,there will always be people for whom treatment doesn't work,sadly that applies to all areas of medicine...... not just immunes. No-one is forced into going down this path and frankly people should be doing their own research before going for a consultation so they are fully aware of the options and limitations,then they can make the right decisions for them. Intralipids are one of the cheapest options,George always suggest these 1st as they work for many ladies,other clinics push far more expensive options right from the start.
With regards to PGS,I produce a lot of embryos and without this I would be risking multiple transfers until the right one is chosen,potentially going through many more losses along the way.The USA are generally ahead of The UK and over there it is the norm,there are so many major developments that "experts" have dismissed over the years that are now a routine part of treatments. For me,having a PGS embryo transferred rules out one reason for a m/c,I know that it is the soil and not the seed that is failing me.
I really hope the drivel that programme spewed out doesn't put people off from going down this route!


----------



## scattykatty

You make a good point about the fact hey didn't tell us what else was on the add on list but unproven. If surgical sperm removal was seriously not statistically significant that would show statistics to be meaningless: if you have a physical problem and sperm removal is your only option then of course it's more likely to work! I might write to the BBc to ask them to publish the results and ask them to help fund POSITIVE research!


----------



## Pognut

Zita West have issued a statement, which is here: http://www.zitawest.com/panorama-bbc1/

Basically says excatly what everyone on here is saying: reproductive immunology is not "disproven", it's unproven, there are good reasons for that, and that their clinical experience is that it works. Surprised at the BBC doing such a Daily Mail job on it (again).

/links


----------



## Cloudy

The report is here: http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i6295

Interestingly the BBC news article didn't provide a link to the report, I found it last night on the NHS News website (which does provide the link and also links to Cochrane Reviews about treatments)

The only add-on they said was ok with moderate evidence was the scratch - ironically one of the cheaper add-ons. Surely if it works and is proven and it's all about money clinics would be charging £500 for it (I know I would pay that) rather than £180 or free in many places.

Xxx

/links


----------



## Fertilityhawk

Crikey I thought the Alex Jones programme was bad, this one was even worse!  It really didn't explain anything in any kind of detail at all.  I don't think these programme makers or the university students have any idea just how complex it all is.  I thought the guy from CARE hit the nail on the head, women don't want to take part in trials, they want to get on and try something that might work.

I think there is a case for singling out clinics that exploit people but I don't believe they were shown in this documentary.  Things like embryo glue, scratch and embryscope are all now standard in NHS not for profit clinics.  I had my first ever pregnancy with embryo glue, it didn't work out but I firmly believe it helped in getting me pregnant.

Anyone who is reading this and watched last nights programme, I'd say take with a pinch of salt, research your clinics well and make sure you are well informed.


----------



## Artypants

I thought it was a load of old rubbish quite honestly, really really poor documentary making. Hopefully anyone watching will take it with a pinch of salt, I wouldn't have my daughter if it wasn't for intralipids and neupogen, a lot of the UK clinics I used actively discouraged from using some of these methods as they are unproven, in my case I had to source them myself whilst having treatment abroad as they also didn't recommend so it was never pushed on me, very one sided report.


----------



## Miss Sunshine22

A load of old cobblers  

I'm a fan of evidence-based practice, just like the rest of us. However, in reality, it's a field of medicine where it's very difficult to get this kind of evidence. Think of all the variables involved in why someone goes for fertility treatments - the multitude of female factors and male factors involved, the sheer complicatedness of immunes stuff in general etc. How long would it take to do randomized controlled trials on these that would be satisfactory for the watchdogs? And yes, as the guy from Care said, who wants to wait to take part in these studies.

Not only did the programme not explain this, but it also never looked at some of the reasons why clinics are using these "add-ons". Also, they never showed the many couples who have been successful with these treatments. But having said that, many of the focus group that did use the "add-ons" had been successful. Hmmm. 

I hated the way it made all fertility challenged couples look as if they were being fooled by these clinics. We all know there is a lack of a strong evidence base to it, but I don't think any clinic I've been to has led me to believe otherwise. 

Typical, bad journalism from Panorama


----------



## scattykatty

Thanks for the link to the journal article. This section in the report might be of interest and paints a diff pic for those of us actually going thry treatment...

_"For preimplantation genetic screening older methods worsened outcomes, but there was some evidence of benefit for more recently developed techniques.

The five interventions for which we found evidence of improvements in live birth rates were blastocyst culture, endometrial scratching, adherence compounds, oral antioxidants, and intrauterine insemination in a natural cycle. "_

Not that I know what oral anti oxidants are other than blueberries ??


----------



## Fertilityhawk

I was talking to my hubby last night about it and we both thought there was a serious question mark over the "couple" who went to see the guy from the Zita West Clinic.  It gave you scant details about whether they were actually a couple or not.  If they were did they already have children, or even if they weren't a couple did the woman already have children?  I would have thought that if she came back with high killer cells and she had children they would have shoved this in your face as evidence that.  A really disgraceful programme where the facts were not the priority.


----------



## RebeccaRP

Hi Scatty Katty, try reading 'It Starts with the Egg', you can buy it on Amazon. By far the best book of nearly 10 I've read on how to improve your chances. It tells you all about which supplements to take which have an anti-oxidant effect and looks at diet to improve egg quality. I read about it here and it really is fab and several reviews, comments on here and personal experience shows that the advice works to improve your chances.


----------



## Mandy1971

I'm wondering if any of you watched the panorama documentary on Monday night about IVF? 
It discussed add ons for ivf such as pgs which panorama  are concerned is a useless procedure which can actually REDUCE  the chances of pregnancy.. I had this procedure carried out in 2012 two embryos were implanted and there wasn't a sniff of a pregnancy.. We went the ivf route as I'd suffered approx 7 miscarriages and decided on this procedure as I wanted to rule out chromosome abnormalities as a cause of miscarriage.. 
I myself am a registered nurse and assumed that this practice would be completely effective by increasing chance of pregnancy.. But when it was studied by a specialist in the Netherlands it was found not to increase chances of pregnancy.... Go figure...  Why was a "reputable clinic " in Scotland allowed to charge me £2300 for this ... Informed consent.. It certainly wasn't.. 
If be interested in others opinions on this as I feel I'm due a  full refund.


----------



## Carrie88

I did watch the documentary and it was a load of crap. PGS does increase your chances, on my support group for it, the majority of people have success after their first transfer with pgs tested babies. We haven't but ours is pgd and not pgs. 

PGS is still no gaurentee, it means the seed is great but if your soil still isn't great then it still won't implant (and looking at your sig, your soil is like mine and needs a bit of help) they were never going to work. PGS ensures that your embryo is genetically and chromosome normal, you can have an embryo that is a top grade that isn't genetically normal so would never work.

You've had intralipids to help substain a pregnancy which as you know were slated on the programme, they're our next step and we've had to go against NHS advice and have these. If our 4th transfer doesn't work with them I wouldn't be able to ask for a refund. Your pgs embryos would never ever of implanted if you needed intralipids.

That programme was the most biased piece of crap ever. They could of at least had a debate and shown clinics who have proven it to work and believe in it.


----------



## Mandy1971

PGS which panorama  are concerned is a useless procedure which can actually REDUCE  the chances of pregnancy.. I had this procedure carried out in 2012 two embryos were implanted and there wasn't a sniff of a pregnancy.. We went the ivf route as I'd suffered approx 7 miscarriages and decided on this procedure as I wanted to rule out chromosome abnormalities as a cause of miscarriage.. 
I myself am a registered nurse and assumed that this practice would be completely effective by increasing chance of pregnancy.. But when it was studied by a specialist in the Netherlands it was found not to increase chances of pregnancy.... Go figure...  Why was a "reputable clinic " in Scotland allowed to charge me £2300 for this ... Informed consent.. It certainly wasn't
I feel I'm due a  full refund for PGS.
    
However you will see in my signature out of 11 pregnancies 10 were lost early on ( all naturally conceived)then in May this year I gave birth to my son, this would not have been possible without immune treatment including steroids and Intralipids which I had added on for the first time prior to this pregnancy.... I firmly believe I wouldn't be sitting here just now with my 7 month old son sitting on my knee without Intralipids....  There are studies to prove the effectiveness of them.. I read extensively about them beforehand and did my own research online on many different forums before heading down this route...


----------



## Carrie88

Intralipids was defo key with you, your Pgs embryos were never going to work as you needed intralipids, if you'd done Pgs alongside the intralipids it was more likely to work. 

Intralipids are still unproven overall and there's  not enough scientific evidence they work, however I've read enough evidence on forums to strongly believe they do help people. The hfea don't even reccomend them. My NHS consultants have fobbed me off and said what this programme said, it's private clinics getting money off desperate people. I personally feel it's going to be the final jigsaw in our puzzle and if it is I will never ever forgive the NHS for letting me go through 3 transfers for nothing. 

What I'm trying to say is you don't believe the intralipids part of the panorama programme as you used them and got your baby. They'll be people watching it who used Pgs and that worked for them so they'll be saying it's the Pgs that helped them get their baby. There's about 1000 women on my pgd group doing Pgs in America, the U.K. Is always far behind with things. I wouldn't listen to the Netherlands doctor, that's the view they wanted to portray Pgs as so that's what they did, so biased it's untrue.


----------



## Mandy1971

Carrie I have fallen pregnant 11 times naturally 10 of which ended in miscarriage between 5-8 weeks..  So without PGS I've achieved many pregnancies, my point was that when I had IVF with the PGS add on, I didn't fall pregnant., now I know IVF doesn't always work, but since I've had a fairly good track record at achieving pregnancy I questioned the procedure many many times as that one shot cost us £7000... I at least expected to achieve a pregnancy...  If I miscarried at this stage with genetically normal embryos it would be providing me with information .. 
Many questions were asked, was it the IVF was it the PGS - could that have weakened the embryo somehow.. At our follow up consult after the Ivf all that our consultant could offer was oh your eggs would be older and harder to implant.. ( I was 41 at the time... ) 
I accept it doesn't work for everyone..


----------



## Michimoo

Totally agree with Cloudy. I became more and more frustrated watching the programme. 
You could tell it was made by journalists who haven't ever been in the desperate situation that some women have. I myself believe in immunne suprssive therapy as otherwise I wouldn't have my miracle. And wow! £180 for intralipids? That's cheap for London. I paid £300 a pop. 
I actually felt sorry for Dr George being targeted like that as at the end of the day he is only doing his job. 
I've never had treatment with them so I'm not being biased.
It's very easy to edit and pull things apart if you focus on one thing. I know of other clinics where the hard sell is worse than that. 
How about when your hcg level is only 17 and yet despite it being a failing pregnancy you are then pushed to have expensive immune therapy? Now that's a more interesting and telling subject.
I'd much prefer a bigger overview of the UK fertility world and clinics. For us to make up our own minds. Not just focusing on one Dr.


----------



## lilacfairy

I'm always one for reading the actual scientific evidence rather than believing in programmes. If anyone cannot access the paper due to paywall, message me and I'll see if I can send it to you.

I guess the lesson I take from the paper is that at the moment clinics are taking a lot of money for some treatments with no more than anecdotal and experiential evidence. While these may be effective treatments, but simply just lacking scientific evidence, I don't think it's ethical to trial on and ask for payment for unproven treatments from people who are desperate and therefore vulnerable. It's making money on people's hopes and fears. Why not start their own trials and provide these treatments for free for volunteer trial participants? Oh right, that wouldn't make a profit...


----------



## Crownofscars

Not sure if this has already been linked or if anyone has seen it but I found it really interesting. Worth a read!

http://www.adambalen.com/ivf-practices-challenged-2/

/links


----------



## Artypants

Excellently written!


----------



## scattykatty

I agree!


----------



## Turia

Hear hear! Brilliant article, just a pity so few people will ever read it.
Turia x


----------



## fififi

lilacfairy said:


> I'm always one for reading the actual scientific evidence rather than believing in programmes. If anyone cannot access the paper due to paywall, message me and I'll see if I can send it to you.
> 
> I guess the lesson I take from the paper is that at the moment clinics are taking a lot of money for some treatments with no more than anecdotal and experiential evidence. While these may be effective treatments, but simply just lacking scientific evidence, I don't think it's ethical to trial on and ask for payment for unproven treatments from people who are desperate and therefore vulnerable. It's making money on people's hopes and fears. Why not start their own trials and provide these treatments for free for volunteer trial participants? Oh right, that wouldn't make a profit...


I was fortunate enough to be with a clinic who DOES trial new methods either free of charge or at minimum cost. Nurture, Nottingham is a research clinic & throughout the 7 years I was with them was constantly looking at how to up its patients chances.
The use of embryo glue was trialled free of charge until they had sufficient results to indicate whether it was worthwhile or not & which patients benefitted & which didn't.
Their trials are small in relation to the size needed to be able to "medically prove" which treatment extras are beneficial & for who. However for the purposes of their patients I felt very reassured that if I was paying for an extra it was something that potentially was going to up my chances.
Their findings are on their website.

Clinics can (& many do) seek to help their patients in best way possible. We wanted to throw everything & anything at our final cycle & even knowing this our clinic didn't let us plan to add anything that they felt wouldn't make a difference. Had cycle gone more to plan we had intended to pay for embryoscope as although we were informed by embryologist & our consultant that we were not going to benefit from its design in aiding the embryologist to select best embryos there was small amount of evidence to suggest reduced handling of embryos was beneficial. It was reassuring to know that we were ones suggesting adding things not being persuaded into spending money unnecessarily.

I agree with others that this programme really misrepresented clinics who have pioneering work & are able to assist hundreds of people achieve a dream that otherwise wouldn't be possible. Having spoken with George when he was at Care in Nottingham I feel quite sad that his integrity has been questioned so strongly as although I cannot say all he suggests is necessary he has done some amazing work & changed the lives of many many families,


----------



## fififi

Nurture, Nottingham's 'news report' on their trial into embryo glue
http://www.nurturefertility.co.uk/news-blog/embryoglue-improves-pregnancy-rates-by-19/

/links


----------

