What we don't recommend, and why
The short answer
IgG food panels, adrenal fatigue testing and IV drips don't earn their cost. Extended thrombophilia and NK cell testing have been studied and haven't held up.
What to know
- IgG antibodies to food show exposure and tolerance, not intolerance; allergy bodies advise against the test.
- Adrenal fatigue isn't a recognized diagnosis and the cortisol panels don't lead anywhere.
- If a nutrient is low, oral replacement fixes it in nearly everyone — an IV doesn't do more.
- Three questions before any of it: what would it change, how would we know, what does it cost?
Read the full explanation
Everything on this site is rated the same way, including the things sold hardest. These are the ones we think aren't worth your money, with the reason in each case. Being told no with a reason is more useful than being told nothing.
Insufficient evidence IgG food sensitivity panels
These measure antibodies that show you've eaten a food and tolerated it normally. They don't identify foods that harm you, and allergy societies recommend against using them as a diagnostic tool. The cost isn't the main problem: cutting out long lists of foods before and during pregnancy, when you need a broad diet, is.
If food genuinely bothers you: celiac testing, a supervised elimination and reintroduction, or a gastroenterologist.
Insufficient evidence "Adrenal fatigue" and salivary cortisol panels
Adrenal fatigue isn't a recognized diagnosis, and multi-point salivary cortisol testing doesn't lead to a treatment that's been shown to help. Real adrenal disease exists and is diagnosed differently. Exhaustion is real too — it's just that this test isn't the route to explaining it.
Insufficient evidence IV vitamin drips and "fertility infusions"
No evidence of fertility benefit. An infusion carries a small but non-zero risk of infection and vein damage, and costs hundreds a session. If a nutrient is genuinely low, oral replacement fixes it in nearly everyone.
Insufficient evidence Fertility cleanses, castor oil packs, detox teas
Nothing published supports these for conception. Some herbal preparations interact with medications or are unsafe in early pregnancy, which is the real concern.
Limited or mixed Extended thrombophilia panels after loss
Testing for inherited clotting disorders after recurrent loss, and treating them with blood thinners, was tested in a randomized trial and didn't improve live births. The trial, and what is recommended →
Limited or mixed NK cell testing and immune treatments
Blood NK cells aren't the same as uterine NK cells, and no validated test tells you whether yours are a problem. Where the evidence sits →
How to think about a "no"
Unproven isn't the same as disproven, and a doctor who recommends something on this list isn't automatically wrong — sometimes they're treating a person, not a population. What we'd want anyone to have before spending money is a straight answer to: what would this change for me, how would we know, and what does it cost?
What the research shows
Ratings sit beside each point inside Read the full explanation, because this page covers several things and the evidence behind them differs.
Questions for your doctor
Edit any of these before you add it — they're yours. Your list stays in this browser, and you can print a one-page sheet from it.
- What would this test or treatment change for me?
- How would we know whether it worked?
- What does it cost, and is there something with better evidence first?
Sources
- EAACI Task Force / ASCIA: Testing for IgG4 against foods is not recommended as a diagnostic tool
- ASRM, Fertility evaluation of infertile women: a committee opinion (2021)
- ESHRE, Guideline on the management of recurrent pregnancy loss (patient version, 2023 update)