@BreezyBoo - thanks for the link, very interesting. I have read what this dr has to say, and it is… a bit controversial, however, maybe he is onto something. First, yes, I believe his explanation of the “empty follicle” is correct. There is no way the follicle would grow without an egg in it. Second, his theory about testosterone impact on follicle lining is what is controversial. Essentially, he says that the eggs were of bad quality because the protocol was wrong. Now, for further info I combed through his full blog - he blames poor quality on too much LH, particularly in cycles where Menopur is used, and those antagonist suppression. Which, incidentally, happened in both of our cases. Also, I did not have that issue on the long Lupron rFSH only protocol three years ago, which again makes it a perfect sample of three. As I like to say (and I am a director of analytics by trade), one is an accident, two is coincident, and three is a trend. So, I went on to look whether his opinion is supported by the studies. And that’s where it gets dicey. He blames the mechanism by which LH screws up the eggs on testosterone, and he seems to be pretty knowledgeable on oocyte development, at least from my layman POV. However, there were studies that showed that testosterone priming is good for women over 35. They are a little questionable, though, with lower sample sizes. More studies concluded the opposite to what Dr. Sher says, i.e. LH supplementation was good for older women and low responders. However, the most recent study showed LH supplementation in the later part of the stim period did not have any effect on anything. This is the study I trust the most because the methodology was pretty solid, and the sample size was good. Here is the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23838159 In conclusion, based on my experience, if this cycle fails, I will go back to the long Lupron with no LH in sight.