My Primary Dr. Confirmed I'm having chemical pregnancies! Ack Mirena IUD

[Nathan1097]

I posted here a while back about positive pregnancy tests with my Mirena IUD.

I went to my primary dr. today for an ear ache. She said I have water in my inner ear from swimming. But I just mentioned that I wanted to maybe get Essure but she said nope- because of nickel allergy. Then I asked if I would need a new Mirena because it was going to wear out- as I've had chemical pregnancies... positive hpts, but no pregnancy that followed. She basicalcly said "no, the IUD is good for 5 years, so no need, and yes the pregnancies can happen"... not in so many words, but that's the gist. I guess I'm okay with that but it is weird. No wonder I feel pregnant a lot.

[prayingfor2]

so you're getting pregnant but its not able to grow or you're just having hormonal changes mimicking pregnancy?

[Nathan1097]

Originally Posted by prayingfor2

so you're getting pregnant but its not able to grow or you're just having hormonal changes mimicking pregnancy?

Both. But what she meant was that there is fertilization but it miscarries very early. So enough to show on a test, but it doesn't last.

[Dustmite]

not completely sure but I think I follow the discussion. My wife used to use the pill and after our second child she switched to IUDs. We made the discussion to forgo the IUD and switch to NFP and condoms (we eventually ditched the condom because we both hated it). Reason being if you study say the pill as well as the IUD they do not prevent conception. They are designed to prevent implantation. So, if you use these products long enough and have sex often enough you are bound to have a fertilized egg that is unable to implant and then you will discharge it. If you have had M/C's in the past, you may even notice some similarities from time to time; probably because you were pregnant but prevented implantation.

[Nathan1097]

Originally Posted by Dustmite

not completely sure but I think I follow the discussion. My wife used to use the pill and after our second child she switched to IUDs. We made the discussion to forgo the IUD and switch to NFP and condoms (we eventually ditched the condom because we both hated it). Reason being if you study say the pill as well as the IUD they do not prevent conception. They are designed to prevent implantation. So, if you use these products long enough and have sex often enough you are bound to have a fertilized egg that is unable to implant and then you will discharge it. If you have had M/C's in the past, you may even notice some similarities from time to time; probably because you were pregnant but prevented implantation.

I haven't had any confirmed miscarriages, no.

[prayingfor2]

This is totally just me and my opinion. I couldn't using anything that would prevent implanting. It would have to be the entire conception process that was prevented.

[sophmama]

Ok I've heard this is true and I've heard it's not. Where do you find out the real info - do BCP's and IUD's prevent ovulation or implantation?

[Pyrodjm]

Mirena is designed to stop conception AND implantation.

Mirena acts as a contraceptive in two ways: it makes the mucus at the neck of the womb (the cervix) much thicker, preventing sperm from getting through and it also makes the lining of the womb extremely thin, stopping implantation. In some women it prevents egg release (ovulation).

Excerpt from :http://www.womens-health.co.uk/mirena.asp

[MamaRhi]

BCPs prevent ovulation, or are supposed to.

[mamazee]

The primary function of IUDs - both kinds - is to make the womb environment unsuitable for fertilization. It does change the lining of the uterus and preventing implantation is a secondary potential method of birth control, although my midwife said studies are conflicted as to whether that's actually happening. The problem is that fertilized eggs don't implant in all circumstances, including when people aren't using birth control and including when people are TTC even, so to just study to see if fertilized eggs are shed doesn't prove whether IUDs cause that to happen.

I would think a pregnancy test wouldn't show up as positive unless there had been implantation and that had been lost, though. I have a family member who has been doing IVF and I thought she said that she wouldn't get a positive pregnancy test unless there was implantation. That intuitively makes sense to me too. I mean, if there's an egg floating around, and sperm cells floating around, I don't see how that would be recognized as different from a fertilized egg floating around. It seems like your body wouldn't know the egg had been fertilized until the egg had connected to your body.