On 21/02/2021 00:28, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 23:49, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:54, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 20/02/2021 22:25, Rod Speed wrote:
Fredxx wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Fredxx wrote

snip

Yet, as per a link you provided, "Copper can also alter the
endometrial lining, but studies show that while this
alteration can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg".

But that isnt the primary mode of operation of IUDs.
They prevent fertilisation in the first place.

It's so good you approve their secondary purpose,

It isnt the secondary purpose.

Ok, nth purpose; where 'n' can be any number.

It isnt a purpose.

Are you in denial that copper on IUD reduces the probability of a
fertilised embryo implantation?

Nope.

So you finally accept it has the effect of discouraging implantation.

Thats not a PURPOSE, stupid.

Ok, then you accept copper in an IUD has the effect of discouraging
implantation

Nope, because it prevents fertilisation.

Well, we have the choice of accepting the word of a demented fanatic or
the words from NICE.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg3...eview-proposal

Which says, "IUDs act by preventing fertilisation and inhibiting
implantation."

Please do take this up with National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence if you feel this is wrong.

There are many, many sources the same thing.

For the most common IUD:

https://www.uhcw.nhs.uk/download/cli...)%20(1078).pdf

"It keeps the lining of the womb too thin for implantation of a pregnancy".

It's an effective safety net after all the other methods have failed.
Even IUDs only provide 99% efficiency. Within one year 1% of users will
still fall pregnant.

I know you hate being proven wrong, but in this instance it's best to
admit defeat.

We have moved a long way!

Nope.

It seems we have.

Like I keep telling you, you need to get
your seems machinery seen to, BAD.

discouraging implantation.