Re: New Technique for Fetal Gender Determination
From: James S Smeltzer MD (gaperina@mindspring.com)
Sun Sep 26 23:05:12 1999
Josh & others,
Our response must be to object to the method's advertisement as possible
fraud unless we can provide a panel of 10 urines to test. One mis-called
female or two mis-called males would disprove the claims ( I would send
ABOUT 2/3 males to test this). BTW a PCR of Y-chromosome DNA marker might
be the basis for test & I would expect could produce the error discrepancy
noted for females or males - so it is not ipso facto completely off the wall.
Jim S
At 04:27 PM 9/22/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>I am not aware of any science underlying this. The Genetic Counselor list
serve was trying to organize protests
>to the FTC. Doesn't seem to be under FDA regulation. One of the genetic
counselors on their discussion list
>contacted them for specific details of methodology, results etc. and got
this response:
>
><<Urobiologics wrote:
>
><<Mrs. Mxxxxxx,
>
><<We are indeed obliged to have your attention on this.
>
><<We were determined not to publish anything on this aspect as even
patenting does
>not always brings you rewards. Now, since we have received many inquiries
>similar to this, we are planning to file a patent application in few months.
>Because of the same reason, we would not be in a position to discuss any
>protocol. We can however, offer you two free tests to compare our performance
>with your results. Only mailing expense of $30.00 per case will have to be
>paid.
>
><<The protocol has been developed by combining various scientific and well
>published methods and the whole thing is well scientific. Any body can do it.
>Currently, our accuracy rate is essentially 100% for female reports and
90% for
>male ones (average 95%). The same is improving day by day.
>
><<We would like to work with you as part of the team and you have every
right to
>check our performance.
>
><<We are sorry, we could not provide you 'to-the -point' reply to your
questions
>at this time
>
>Sincerely,
>urobiologics.com.>>
>
>I think this is a scam, and you're right that as long as they don't claim
100% success individuals won't be
>able to protest. Kind of reminds me of the famous sonologist who says
(jokingly) in lectures that he writes
>down the opposite sex in the chart to what he tells the parents so that if
he is wrong he can always bring out
>the patient chart & point to the right gender - of course, when he told
the parents the right gender they
>don't come back to complain. (Note to all: I said he says this humorously,
it is not what he does! And, no, I
>won't tell you who it is. Maybe Roberta can offer a prize to whoever
guesses right.)
>
>Josh Copel
>
>>
>> Subject: FW: New Technique for Fetal Gender
>> Determination
>>
>> Hey, can you Laboratory Scientist types tell me if there is
>> any validity to the claims made by the following Web site?
>> <deleted>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
>
>>
>> From: Wayne.Persutte@UCHSC.edu
>> To: Sonographers-Connection@Lists.UCHSC.edu
>> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:18:58 -0600
>> Subject: New Technique for Fetal Gender
Determination
>> Dear Fellow Listservers(?),
>> Just came across the following web site and was wondering
>> what you thought:
>> <deleted>
>> Wayne.
>> Wayne H. Persutte, B.S., R.D.M.S.
>
