This may be true; and my wife and I plan to report back in a year or two both if we didn’t get pregnant when we weren’t trying, and did when we started trying.
But I will say the 1-5% comes from the guttmacher institute, which has no incentive to push bad stats. If I was citing a catholic org, yeah I’d be very skeptical of their numbers, cause they have a religious reason to push their preferred methods, but guttmacher is a secular (and indeed pro-choice, so strongly opposed to catholic morals) org, and so they have no incentive to juice the numbers.
Of course, always ask a doctor, but I see no reason to doubt those stats.
I agree that the Guttmacher Institute (which I’d not heard of but have just looked-up) seems to be a reliable, scientifically-rigorous source.
I couldn’t agree with “no incentive to push bad stats/juice the numbers”: I think one of the lessons of the replication crisis is that almost everybody has an incentive to do this (or more accurately a bias towards doing this, not always consciously) - but A) I admit that I am saying this without actually going and looking at the stats/methodology, and B) I think your evidence (and argument) for its effectiveness is on the whole stronger than my evidence against it.
(But I still wouldn’t take the risk of using the method myself..)
This may be true; and my wife and I plan to report back in a year or two both if we didn’t get pregnant when we weren’t trying, and did when we started trying.
But I will say the 1-5% comes from the guttmacher institute, which has no incentive to push bad stats. If I was citing a catholic org, yeah I’d be very skeptical of their numbers, cause they have a religious reason to push their preferred methods, but guttmacher is a secular (and indeed pro-choice, so strongly opposed to catholic morals) org, and so they have no incentive to juice the numbers.
Of course, always ask a doctor, but I see no reason to doubt those stats.
I agree that the Guttmacher Institute (which I’d not heard of but have just looked-up) seems to be a reliable, scientifically-rigorous source.
I couldn’t agree with “no incentive to push bad stats/juice the numbers”: I think one of the lessons of the replication crisis is that almost everybody has an incentive to do this (or more accurately a bias towards doing this, not always consciously) - but A) I admit that I am saying this without actually going and looking at the stats/methodology, and B) I think your evidence (and argument) for its effectiveness is on the whole stronger than my evidence against it.
(But I still wouldn’t take the risk of using the method myself..)