I rushed Topaz to the emergency department yesterday with a 3/4 inch gash in his forehead that cut to the bone. Boys being boys, he had fallen from the back of the sofa. Before you pass judgment, if I had my way he would not have been up there.

Anyhow thankfully my father was staying and drove us to hospital as I realised once there that I was the one suffering from shock. I couldn't even sign my name to the accident form!

Topaz was entirely un-phased by the ordeal. Oh, and did I say he was naked? Being that we had 36 degrees c and are in the middle of toilet training, he was running around unfettered and fancy free. I had my mind about me to grab a change of clothes that was on the end of the table and a nappy. So with blood all over my white top and a naked baby they took enough notice to have him assessed but it was still ages until a nurse saw him for treatment. Topaz found himself something to do in the play area until we were seen again. A total of 1.75 hours from start to finish and that only because I was keen to avoid stitches and an anesthetic and the ED was quite busy (and they could otherwise discharge us fast). So Topaz was glued back together! Thats right, a tube of sterile super glue to fuse both sides of the wound together. And no tetanus as it was an inside accident. Phew, as I really could not bring myself to hold my little man to have such a potentially harmful poison. (For more information see the World Health Organisation website.)

Oh, and the whole post of this post was to describe an incident that happened almost to the end of our admission. A woman had been looking over to me in a friendly way and then wanted to know where she knew me from. Well her face was a welcoming type and pleasing to look at but I didn't know where I may have known her from. She was from a town that I had not spent much time in and prior to that the town I grew up in. So I went down my brief list of current group memberships, where I was raised and where I had worked but there was no instant - "oh, yes thats right" and we didn't even exchange names.

It wasn't until later that I realised she was the calibre of reader that would buy a copy of the magazine that our family featured in for the PCOSMIC trial article earlier in the year. So just perhaps she 'knew' me because I was famous?!!!! Oh well it was an exciting thought for the moment but does raise the question of how I represent myself.

Celebrities, politicians, pastors and other famous people deal with this all the time, and not just a single incident like this. Thought it all starts somewhere doesn't it?

Its as if you are expected to live 'up' to the image and presentation in a 2-dimensional world rather than it being a snapshot into your multi-dimensional real life. In the former you are shown as perfect - as a form of vicarious escapism to the reader/viewer. In the later, you have your bad days when your temper is frayed and your hair looks like rats have moved in.

Do the expectations of the 2-dimensional mould people more than we realise? Where does the affect stop? Does your whole life become a 'reality show' rather than a reality?

This afternoon neither Jade nor Topaz had a sleep! They sky-larked as usual, talked, threw toys etc.

Then there was a distressing deep announcement of discomfort which sent me to discover one boy in a precarious position.

Both had taken their trousers off and thrown them overboard. And Jade was face down bottom up, or should I say bottom out the side of the bars of his cot, with his nappies off.

He had become wedged there as his cheeks closed in around the dowel and his upper thighs being of the well-sculpted variety would not let him project himself forward to free himself.

Once re-diapered and set back in his cot I left the curtain and door open pending the eventual 'getting up' moments later.

Now the tikes are outside in their nappies and sweat tops, prancing through puddles of mud. Topaz tried to drown a computer mouse in one too - it is now drip drying in the shower.

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!