[Polycarp]

Is there validity to the "new" data?

A word of caution to those who are putting too much credence into this "report":

One Reuters report on one researcher's conclusions does not validify the "new" data by any means whatsoever.

This article is just as much a hit piece against NFP as it is a "science report" on the conclusions based on this study.

I'm not buying ANY of it till I see the medical journal report itself and subsequent peer reviewed studies that verify this one.

[Maximilian]

This article is just as much a hit piece against NFP as it is a "science report" on the conclusions based on this study.

True, the reporting is biased. But the facts of the original study (which had nothing to do with the rhythmn method) seem pretty straightforward. The data about fraternal twins with different conception dates was fascinating.