Correlation between early BFP's and chemical pregnancy - Mothering Forums
Thread Tools
#1 of 5 Old 12-13-2011, 06:00 AM - Thread Starter
hoping4just1more's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Well I am currently 5DPO according to FF and 6DPO according to me. In an attempt to make myself not feel so bad about POAS this early I googled 6DPO BFP. While it let me know that some women do get BFP's at 6DPO I was promptly disappointed that every single BFP I found ended in a chemical pregnancy. Some were just posts on forums with no pic and some had pics. One stands out in my mind because this woman had the kind of BFP you would expect at more like 14DPO. It was pretty dark. A few months back I had gotten what I thought was a BFP and I happily told my husband and family, began rubbing my belly, and let my pregnant brain take over. This was with a 7DPO BFP. Of course by the next day I was smacked in the face with BFN's from several different brands of tests. I wanted to blame it  on a faulty test but in my opinion it was a positive test and not a fluke.I was not temping so I have no proof that it was real or not. But it seems that most people who get their BFP's between 6-8DPO end up with chemicals. Does anyone know any information on this? I wonder if an egg implants "too early" if that makes it less likely to survive. Does our body for some reason need that 7-12 days after fertilization for something in order to properly implant an egg? Is the uterus not ready before then? I know also back in November of 2008 I had also tested early and got a BFP I could see at 7 DPO and a bfp everyone could see at 8DPO which ended in a chemical but the following month in December I did not get a BFP until 9DPO and DD2 is the result. What are your experiences? How have your early BFP's turned out and how many of you have had a chemical on a 9+DPO BFP?

hoping4just1more is offline  
Sponsored Links
#2 of 5 Old 12-15-2011, 10:21 AM
TiredX2's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 19,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I didn't want your post to go without response.


Personally, I think it is more likely that there are many more "chemical" pregnancies (early miscarraiges) than medicine recognizes.  I think many women are actually having repeated chemical pregnancies and think they just can't get pregnant, or have slightly long cycles or...


hug2.gif  Good luck going forward.  I am sure this must be very painful for you and I wish you all the best.



TiredX2 is offline  
#3 of 5 Old 09-28-2012, 07:50 AM
Spicey's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know this is a bit of an old post but I just came across it and it's really interesting.

I've no idea wen I tested positive with my dd as I was pregnant wen I eventually started charting after trying for 2 years!! Which was very confusing as a beginner lol! My cycle can be 40-60 days, and ive just recently starte charting to ttc no 2 and had a chemical, I had a 60 days cycle so now wonder how many I've had as it could explain the long cycles on occasion ( as its usually around 42)... Obviously bee blissfully ignorant before! Prob nor the best.

Anyways, yes I am now a poas aholic and tested bfp about 7dpo with my chemical. I got loads of test of eBay which are v accurate in my opinion. I was using about 4 a day! With about half coming up with very faint line. Temp stayed elevated for from o to af, but stopped getting the faint positives at about 14dpo off memory. Kept testing to see them get darker but of course they got lighter. So yes I think you are quite possibly right in wot u question here. Really delayed af though.

I am testing once again like a nutter lol as am 11dpo. Thought I could perhaps see a very very faint line on one of my 5 today lol!!, but suspect it was me hoping. Ah well, here's to the next cycle! Just wish I didn't have to wait so long til next o day!!!
Spicey is offline  
#4 of 5 Old 09-28-2012, 08:54 AM
Xerxella's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,227
Mentioned: 449 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
I don't know about the early BFPs, but LATE BFP's have a proven correlation with pregnancy loss:

This study would seem to indicate only a slight increase in the chance of loss with early implantation. Overall, I'd much rather have an early BFP, than a late one, but any BFP is a chance.

Married to one of the last good guys left Jim
Mom to AJ 4/07 and Genevieve 5/09

And then:

And THEN twins: Matt 11/14 and his guardian angel Billy 11/18/14 - 11/28/14

Ten days in our lives, a lifetime in our hearts

The whole story at:
Xerxella is offline  
#5 of 5 Old 09-29-2012, 02:10 PM
JustJenny's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Thanks for that link Xerxella. I never knew that!

JustJenny and DH of 20 years 
After a 2 year fertility struggle  - Baby girl is here! Jan 8th 2014 
2 Boxer Furbabies Buddha and Tootsie 
JustJenny is offline  

Trying To Conceive

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off