The problem is that people don't want to enter into clinical trials so there simply isn't the evidence available and most interventions are based on empirical evidence
They say PGS has no evidence in favour of it - which I can believe, because the Cochrane evidence is based on 10 years of FISH data. And FISH was crap compared to NGS. The new data for PGS is much more compelling. But regardless of the historic data, without PGS, we would have been throwing embryos into my uterus without knowing if the problem was the seed or the soil.
My four frozen embryos were ALL PGS abnormal. Statistically at least one of them should have been normal. We could have done 4 failed FET / more miscarriages and we wouldn't have known which cycles we had fixed the uterine environment (my first miscarriage was of a chromosomally normal embryo) but the embryo was a dud. Or whether the embryo was normal but the problem was me. Or both
We saved ourselves 4 cycles that were always doomed to failure by doing PGS - for which there may be 'no evidence', but I wasn't prepared to be a guinea pig.
We know I have now miscarried two chromosomally normal embryos and that the problem is me. Which we wouldn't know without PGS. Which means diagnostically we can draw a line in the sand. If we can't fix the uterine environment then we know I won't be able to support a pregnancy
Embryo grading is just a beauty contest. It doesn't say anything about the genetic integrity of the embryo. PGS may be unproven but I can't see the alternative would have offered us any benefits whatsoever
This is an excellent riposte to the issues covered in Panorama from the chief of the British Fertility Societyhttp://www.adambalen.com/ivf-practices-challenged-2/