At the very beginning of the year we were contacted about doing an article about the drug trial that I had participated in prior to conceiving the boys.

Based on the positive outcome of our experience and the belief in the therapy I was only too happy to give back to the project.

A couple of months passed before we were contacted by the journalist and had a telephone interview which I followed up with several emails so that the facts could be clarified. There was no end of interesting angles for the piece to be written from.

Weeks passed and then we got a call from the photographer. I expected that she would have come across more confident about the shoot and have more specific details to give us about clothes, hair, makeup, shots etc. Instead I was left to contact the magazine directly and the outcome was that we were left to do-it-ourselves.

Knowing that the photos were taken I went back to the journalist to see if we could read the copy which was what she had promised due to the personal nature of the information being published. She declined saying "Sorry, we don't send out proofs - it becomes like a committee vetting everything, but I only had a short piece on each of the families for the article, so don't think there will be anything contentious in there."

There are 12 paragraphs!

I felt a little anxious at this point.

The photographer sent through 6 or so photos for us to see and 3 of them were good - the others were not accurate representations.

Again this made me feel anxious as we did not know what they were going to use.

Then the issue finally made it out a few months after the initial deadline.

Well....where do I start?

The front page photo is awful. It makes me look huge and the facial expression is goofy - not the real me! Nor does it accurately label who is in the photo. Its not one of those we were sent.

The article contains one absolutely false statement, one misguided statement and a whole lot of other inaccurate or misleading sentences.

It stated that we could have had children, negating the uniqueness of each child's spontaneous conception outside of fertility treatment or even that we were clinically infertile; and yet the study home page says "The ovaries...do not produce all the hormones necessary for ovulation to occur - making pregnancy impossible."

There is no point to the article unless you call letting the public know of the trial (which has no contact details therewith and is coming to a close) enough of a reason.

The side box comments from the trials main doctor makes out that all the women in the study need to lose weight and exercise. There was nothing to clarify that the trial was separated into 2 groups - those with a Body Mass Index under 25 (not overweight) and those above - I was in the first group.

The article did not explain that it was a double blind controlled study, nor that I was only taking one of the drugs. It didn't state how the drug worked exactly which would have been quite interesting for women who are conscious of their hormonal/chemical make-up.

There was no mention of the boys being the only twin outcome of the trial which I think is quite unique.

The second picture mortified Ruby as it shows a little of her midriff and knickers (accidentally) and Agate isn't looking at the camera. They really could have chosen better photos.

So all in all I would rate the article a 6/10. It makes me quite dubious about the accuracy of the rest of the articles too.

I guess this is what I have heard talked about as being bias, spin, inaccurate interpretation......arggggh!