AI-researched · adversarially reviewed · human-checked · corrections public
BEFORE YOU READ — HOW DO YOU RULE?
The Verdict
IVF itself works — that is not the question here. The question is the menu of paid extras stacked on top: embryo glue, assisted hatching, endometrial scratching, immune therapies, add-on genetic testing for everyone. The UK fertility regulator's own traffic-light review rates almost none of them as improving live-birth chances, the flagship trials keep coming back null — and clinics sell them anyway, per cycle, to people emotionally unable to decline anything labeled "might help." The add-on economy is what happens when heartbreak meets a per-cycle business model.
Mostly upsell
STRONG EVIDENCE
§ What it actually does
Where the evidence says yes
strongCore IVF works: it is one of medicine's genuine miracles, with millions of births and decades of outcome data.
strongICSI works for its actual indication — male-factor infertility. (Used on everyone, it adds cost, not babies.)
moderateFrozen embryo transfer likely helps in specific situations (e.g. hyperstimulation risk) — an example of a real, conditional tool rather than a universal upsell.
weakPGT-A (embryo chromosome screening) may reduce miscarriages per TRANSFER in older patients — the honest kernel inside its overselling.
§ What it doesn't do
Where the marketing outruns the data
contradictedEndometrial scratching does not improve live births — a 1,300-woman randomized trial came back flat null, after years of the procedure being sold worldwide.
contradictedRoutine PGT-A for everyone does not increase live births per cycle started — the largest trial (STAR) found no overall benefit, and testing can lead to discarding embryos that would have become babies (mosaicism).
none"Embryo glue", assisted hatching for typical patients, reproductive immunology packages (intralipids, IVIG, NK-cell testing): there is no convincing evidence any of them improve live-birth rates. The UK regulator rates them accordingly.
strongAdd-ons do not rescue a clinic's success-rate statistics — but they reliably rescue its revenue per cycle.
§ The Money Map
Who profits, stage by stage
The unit economicsIVF is sold per cycle. Add-ons lift revenue per cycle by hundreds to thousands of dollars each, at near-zero marginal cost. A patient doing 3 cycles with 4 add-ons is a different business than the same patient without.
The buyerThe customer is time-pressed, grieving, and often spending savings. "Do you want to maximize your chances?" is not a question — it is a close. Declining an add-on feels like harming your own future child.
The statistics gamesSuccess advertised per-transfer (flattering) rather than per-cycle-started (honest); spontaneous conceptions during workup sometimes counted in "our results". Fine print does heavy lifting.
The ownership layerFertility chains are increasingly private-equity owned; add-on attach-rate is a KPI in a way live-birth-rate cannot be.
This pageNo clinic sponsorships, no fertility-supplement affiliates. See "How we make money."
§ The other side
The strongest case against this verdict
The strongest case against our verdict: null AVERAGE results do not prove null for every subgroup — PGT-A in women over ~38 plausibly reduces miscarriage burden per transfer and shortens time-to-baby even if cumulative live-birth per cycle is unchanged, and that trade (fewer devastating miscarriages) is one an informed patient may rationally buy. Some add-ons are cheap and biologically plausible, and running the definitive RCT for each is slow — clinics argue patients shouldn\'t have to wait a decade for certainty. And regulator ratings lag: a tool can be amber today and green in five years. The demand is: sell with honest odds — not: never sell.
§ Symmetric harms
Harms of using it — and of avoiding it
If you use it
Money: thousands per cycle on extras with no demonstrated live-birth benefit — money that could fund another actual cycle (the thing that DOES raise cumulative success).
PGT-A mosaicism: potentially viable embryos discarded — the cruelest possible failure mode for the exact person paying to avoid it.
Immune therapies: real side effects (IVIG, steroids) for no demonstrated benefit.
False hope accounting: every failed add-on cycle deepens the "we didn't try hard enough" spiral that sells the next one.
If you avoid it
Do not let add-on skepticism become IVF skepticism: for tubal factor, severe male factor, and many diagnoses, skipping IVF itself means childlessness that treatment could have prevented.
Where a specific add-on has a specific indication (ICSI for male factor, frozen transfer for OHSS risk), refusing it on principle is as evidence-free as buying it on hope.
§ The Minority Report
Who gets hurt when it goes right for everyone else
Everyone at an IVF clinic is already in a minority that medicine failed once. The add-on economy hurts them unequally:
Couples on their last affordable cycle: an add-on stack costing one-third of a cycle may literally cost them their final attempt.
Older patients sold routine PGT-A: fewest embryos to spare, highest mosaicism ambiguity — the group most likely to have a viable embryo ruled out.
Recurrent-miscarriage patients sold immune panels: the most desperate cohort, targeted with the least-evidenced menu.
Patients at clinics advertising per-transfer stats: they choose clinics on numbers that don't mean what they think.
How to tell if you might be in this group: For every offered extra ask: "What is the live-birth-per-cycle-started evidence for someone with MY diagnosis and age — and what does the HFEA traffic-light system rate this?" Then ask what the same money buys as an additional plain cycle.
§ The alternatives ledger
Everything else, judged by the same standards
strong
Another plain IVF cycle Cumulative live-birth rises with cycle count — the boring extra cycle usually beats the exciting add-on stack at the same price.
strong
Letrozole/ovulation induction for PCOS-type infertility For the right diagnosis, far cheaper than IVF with strong evidence — the step often skipped in the rush to the high-margin lane.
strong
The HFEA traffic-light list as your menu filter A regulator's own effectiveness ratings, free, updated — take it to your consult.
none
Fertility supplements ("egg quality" stacks) There is no convincing evidence CoQ10/DHEA stacks change live births in typical patients — the wellness aisle running the same emotional playbook at a lower price point.
§ Take it to a human
Questions for your doctor
What does the HFEA rating say about this add-on, and does my diagnosis match its best-case subgroup?
Live birth per cycle started, at this clinic, my age band — not per transfer: what is it?
If I skipped all add-ons and banked the money toward one more cycle, which plan wins on the evidence?
Whether PGT-A meaningfully helps specific older subgroups (trials ongoing; the honest answer today is "unproven, plausible").
Which, if any, immune-pathway interventions will ever validate — the biology is real even where the products are not.
§ Corrections
Updates & corrections — public, dated, proud
No corrections yet. Found an error? Challenge it — substantiated challenges are corrected within 48 hours and logged here permanently. Submit a challenge →
§ We dissect ourselves too
How WE make money
This pageNo fertility clinics, no supplement brands, no referral fees. Health.AI earns from optional Pro subscriptions. If that changes, this box changes first.
Demand the next dissection
Any disease, drug, supplement, or practice. The queue decides what we dissect next.