Talk:Natural methods of family planning under investigation

I would like to see the original article on this, which I can find neither on scholar.google.com nor on www.pubmed.com . I think it necessary for such a controversial claim. It would allow some critical appraisal of what the study is actually saying. I found some related research 1 2, but they're not saying what this article is saying. I think the way the information is being presented is misleading; I doubt there was actually a comparisal between oral contraceptives and STM. Further more, this article only discusses positive sides of the method, and not the negative sides which is POV.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

also, "prove" is too strong a word for talking about the result of a single study, sources only use terms such as "suggest" or "find". needs to be fixed.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the first source is more about a sex museum than about the study, and is essentially a copy from the second source. Both sources have very low credibility to discuss science.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)