Why “It’s Your Age” Is the Most Convenient Scapegoat in Modern Medicine
If you’re a woman over 30, you’ve felt it: that invisible timer the world loves to hang over your head. The one that ticks louder with every birthday.
The idea that your fertility falls off a cliff after 30 has been sold to women like a ticking time bomb & it’s time we stop mistaking outdated data for destiny.
We’ve been taught that fertility is a race against the clock & that every birthday makes our eggs weaker. But the science behind that narrative is shakier than anyone wants to admit. The truth? The “fertility cliff” isn’t a biological law, it’s a decades-old theory built on incomplete data & modern dysfunction, now delivered with polished confidence in an era where questioning the science can get you cancelled.
Naturally, I avoided podcast episodes titled with propaganda like “Pregnancy Is Halved Every Year After Age 32!” for obvious reasons. But curiosity got the better of me when I saw a more recent one: “Women Have Been Lied To!”
I wondered if they were finally going to tell the truth about fertility or just recycle the same junk science. When the fertility expert spoke, she held up a white card with a bold blue line down the middle: The Cliff.
It supposedly shows how many eggs you “lose” over your lifetime & how that’s directly tied to your ability to get pregnant. Of course, it’s not good news for anyone who dares to wait. But as you’ll see by the end of this piece, that story rests on weak science & has far less impact on real fertility outcomes than you’ve been led to believe.
As I sat there listening, I thought, WTF! How do they even know these numbers? The first half of that same podcast featured experts calling out how women’s health has been systematically overlooked, understudied & ignored for decades. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe the science here is “settled”?
Frustration hit! Not just for myself, but for the millions of women who’ve wasted years “doing the work,” trying to outsmart the fear that their birthday somehow determines their worth or fertility.
I caught myself thinking, Why did you watch this, Monica? You knew it would piss you off.
But I was led to listen. And it had made me curious & curiosity has always led me to gold.
In my own eight-year fertility journey, I learned something crucial: when the “science” stops making sense, it’s okay to use common sense & start seeking your own evidence.
I couldn’t get pregnant in my twenties & after a shambles of an IVF at 30, I was told I had poor egg quality & that there was nothing I could do. I didn’t believe the experts. Period.
So I got curious. I stayed consistent. And I conceived naturally at 36.
Just like in my own journey, I couldn’t shake the feeling that what they were saying was the full truth. Where the hell did this “fertility cliff” story even come from? I’ve been in the fertility space for nearly 17 years & somehow, I had never traced its roots — until now.
The Truth Behind the Fertility Cliff
That famous blue graph — the one that drops like a cliff — comes from a surprisingly small set of data. The “ovarian reserve” curve most clinics still reference today originates from pooled histology across eight small studies of roughly 325 ovaries collected between the 1950s & 1980s. Researchers literally counted follicles under microscopes, then built mathematical models to estimate how many eggs might remain at each age.
That model — not real-time data from living women — became the foundation for nearly every “egg count by age” chart still used today.
Here’s the catch: we know almost nothing about the women those ovaries came from. Most samples were taken from autopsies or surgical removals—women who had died from accidents, illness, or were undergoing hysterectomies or other gynecologic procedures. There was no record of diet, toxin exposure, stress, lifestyle, or overall health. Even the storage & counting methods varied widely, introducing significant error margins (as much as 15–30% variation across labs).
So it’s fair — and accurate — to say this data didn’t come from a representative cross-section of women. It came from a small, convenience-based sample, which some of the bodies where already under physical strain.
Yet these limited numbers became the bedrock of modern fertility narratives, shaping decades of assumptions about what’s “normal.” If a study like this were proposed today, it would face far stricter ethical and methodological review to account for diversity, environment & metabolic health. We now understand how profoundly context shapes biology, yet reproductive medicine still often leans on models derived from those early, narrowly defined samples.
By the 1980s, researchers like Richardson (1987) and Faddy & Gosden (1989) had already turned that limited dataset into the now-familiar downward curve. Then in 2010, scientists Wallace & Kelsey at the University of St Andrews combined all those older studies — roughly 325 ovaries across 8–13 datasets — into a single mathematical model published in Human Reproduction.
That paper became the “official” fertility model still referenced by doctors, clinics & the media today.
The hard truth? We didn’t inherit settled science. We inherited a story built on narrow, outdated data & amplified by the fear of running out of time. A story that’s quietly shaped women’s choices, confidence & wellbeing for generations.
The AMH Era: A Misunderstood Marker in Modern Fertility Science
Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) didn’t even enter clinical use until the early 2000s, yet it quickly became one of the most common numbers used to judge a woman’s fertility.
Here’s how the story unfolded:
• 1950s–1980s: Follicle counts came from autopsy tissue — the same limited, non-living samples that built the early “fertility cliff.”
• 1990s: Scientists discovered that granulosa cells within growing follicles secrete AMH.
• 2002: The first paper linked AMH levels to ovarian response during IVF — based entirely on women already in fertility treatment.
• 2009–2012: Fertility clinics began adding AMH testing to routine panels.
• 2010s onward: AMH became the headline number, often presented alongside age as the supposed key to a woman’s fertility potential.
Most fertility specialists don’t rely on AMH alone. It’s typically interpreted alongside FSH, LH, estradiol, antral follicle count & ultrasound imaging. But AMH became the sound bite: the quick “fertility score” that sparks panic before context ever enters the room. The message lands fast: your eggs are running out, you’ve fallen off the cliff & there’s nothing you can do to fix it.
That’s where the misunderstanding begins. AMH was never designed to predict natural fertility. It was developed to estimate ovarian response during IVF cycles: how strongly the ovaries might respond to stimulation medications.
But despite how it’s marketed, AMH isn’t static. It fluctuates — between cycles, across seasons & even within the same month. Studies show variability large enough to misclassify ovarian reserve from one test to the next. The most consistent influences include hormonal contraception (which can suppress AMH by about 20–30%), thyroid & metabolic disorders & chronic inflammation. Stress, sleep quality & illness may also play a role, though evidence there is emerging rather than definitive.
Your AMH result is not a verdict. It’s a snapshot of a dynamic, living system.
The age-based AMH curves that dominate today’s fertility charts were built primarily from IVF clinic populations — women who were often already under physiological & emotional stress, with underlying conditions affecting egg quality. That’s not a neutral baseline; it’s a symptomatic one. Those curves reflect what happens when the body is inflamed, overworked & depleted: not what’s possible in balanced health.
So when you see that steep downward slope, you’re not just looking at fertility decline, you’re seeing the biology of modern stress & imbalance.
Even the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) & Endocrine Society now caution that AMH should notbe used as a sole predictor of fertility or menopause timing. Women with “low” AMH conceive naturally all the time & levels often stabilize or rise once inflammation & hormone suppression resolve.
The deeper truth? The AMH story has been built on a modern baseline of dysfunction: one we’ve often mistaken for natural biology. If those studies had been conducted before the widespread rise of synthetic hormones, plastics, pesticides & chronic stress, the curve would almost certainly look different.
AMH, FSH, LH, follicle counts & ultrasounds can all offer clues, but they remain momentary readings. None of them measure the true cellular environment that determines how an egg matures or whether the body feels safe enough to sustain life. Without that context, the numbers will always tell only part of the story.
Remember: Ovarian reserve is not synonymous with fertility: it’s a measure of potential, not probability.
Is the “Fertility Cliff” Built on a Sick Baseline?
I believe it is & I’ll call it what it’s become: a billion-dollar industry built on a flawed narrative.
It’s estimated that up to 13 million babies have been born through IVF since its introduction in 1978 — my eldest being one of them. IVF is a powerful tool for certain diagnoses, but the hard truth is that many women are pushed toward it long before their bodies are truly supported. (That’s another piece for another day.)
For decades, the fertility conversation has been built backwards. Researchers studied decline before they ever studied vitality. They focused on counting eggs instead of understanding the environment those eggs live in. Because the earliest data came from post-mortem or surgically removed tissue — women whose bodies were already under strain — the entire model was calibrated around dysfunction, not optimal female biology.
When AMH testing arrived, it reinforced the same distorted view. Instead of redefining what healthy fertility could look like, the industry built new algorithms on the same shaky foundation. IVF clinic data, often drawn from women already depleted, inflamed & running on stress hormones, became the new “average.”
So yes, fertility numbers have dropped. But what if that isn’t evidence of biological expiration? What if it reflects the environments we’ve been forced to survive in — the plastics, pesticides, pressure & pills? The longer we live in a world that drains mitochondrial energy, the easier it is to mistake environmental collapse for aging.
When you hear “fertility drops after 35” or “AMH predicts your fertility,” remember: those averages come from populations already under physiological & emotional stress. They represent a modern baseline of imbalance, not necessarily the natural rhythm of female biology.
If we could measure women from centuries past — before synthetic hormones, endocrine disruptors, chronic sleep loss & burnout — the curve might look very different. Today’s fertility data likely reflects a world of inflammation, stress & mitochondrial fatigue, not the true limits of the human body.
And even if the old data were 100 percent accurate — even if it’s true that we lose millions of eggs before puberty — women still carry tens of thousands of follicles well into their forties. We average about 400 ovulations across our so-called fertile years. The issue isn’t scarcity. It’s cellular quality.
Here’s where the narrative gets stuck: your eggs aren’t locked in some magical box ruled by birthdays & past behaviour. They’re living tissue — responsive, adaptive & influenced by the same biology that heals the rest of your body.
That’s where real power lies. When you repair your cellular environment, you influence how those ovarian cells function, communicate & mature. Dormant oocytes aren’t doomed; they’re waiting for the right conditions. When that environment shifts, their potential shifts too.
Once an egg is activated, it spends about 90–120 days in its final maturation stage, developing within an ovarian environment that mirrors your current health, nutrient stores & stress levels. (The full journey from primordial activation to ovulation actually spans closer to 9–10 months, which means you have almost a year of influence.) This gives you an extraordinary window to impact egg quality through mitochondrial repair, inflammation reduction, restorative sleep, deep nourishment & emotional regulation.
Whether those eggs are preparing for natural ovulation or IVF retrieval, the same principle applies: nourish the cells & you can improve the outcome. Oocytes are among the most mitochondria-rich cells in the human body. Supporting mitochondrial function doesn’t just “boost egg quality” — it restores the energetic potential that makes conception possible.
Most experts agree that inflammation, nutrient deficiency, poor sleep & chronic stress damage cellular health. So if we already know environment shapes biology, why is age still treated as the ultimate metric? Because reproductive science still leans on statistical models rather than biological context — assuming the longer your eggs have existed, the more damage they’ve absorbed. What’s rarely acknowledged is the body’s innate capacity to repair & regenerate, even within the ovary itself.
It also needs to be said: some women do wait too long to address their health — not out of ignorance or apathy, but because we’ve been conditioned to ignore the whispers of imbalance until they become screams. Years of hormonal suppression, overtraining, under-eating, emotional repression & relentless stress take their toll. By the time many women seek help, their bodies are already waving a white flag. But that’s not age — that’s accumulation.
But Science Is Evolving — Slowly
In August 2025, Live Science covered a peer-reviewed study from Penn State, published in Science Advances, that quietly challenged decades of dogma.
Researchers found that human egg mitochondria — the tiny engines powering every cell — accumulate 17–24 times fewer DNA mutations than those in blood or saliva. Even more striking, between ages 20 & 42, there was no measurable increase in mitochondrial mutation load.
Translation? The part of the cell most responsible for energy, regeneration & life itself appears far more resistant to aging than anyone expected.
That’s a big deal. Because if the mitochondria inside eggs aren’t degrading on schedule, maybe the schedule itself is wrong & maybe fertility potential depends more on cellular environment than elapsed time.
It was a small, carefully controlled study — not a revolution yet, but a meaningful crack in what’s long been treated as settled science. The authors were cautious, as good scientists should be, but their findings suggest that oocytes may have built-in protective mechanisms we never recognized.
It’s early evidence, yes, but it’s also validation — proof that what many women have felt all along might be true: our biology isn’t broken & fertility isn’t a countdown to doom. Because some of us know through lived experience that fertility is more than a number. We’ve seen pregnancies & healing journeys that defy every chart.
And to be clear: age plays a part, but not in the simplistic way we’ve been taught. We’re having a different conversation at 25 than at 45, but not because of candles. It’s because of what’s happening inside our cells: how well they function, how resilient their mitochondria are, how balanced the nervous system feels & how well-nourished the environment is.
Until research fully catches up with what women already sense — that healing the body changes everything — it’s time to stop treating age as the defining metric of fertility.
We Have to Talk About Egg Freezing
This is where the hypocrisy gets hard to ignore.
The same experts who warn that “age is the number one factor” are often the ones urging women in their twenties to freeze their eggs or, if they can’t afford it, to “at least do it in their thirties.” But that recommendation still rests on the same shaky foundation: outdated data and a narrow view of biology that measures time but rarely measures health.
Egg freezing has been marketed as empowerment, but the science guiding it often treats the female body like a static machine rather than a living, adaptive ecosystem. If women are going to invest thousands of dollars & immense emotional energy into this process, they deserve the full truth:
Your frozen eggs are only as healthy as the environment they were created in.
Freezing in your twenties might mean those eggs have had fewer total years of environmental exposure, but that doesn’t automatically make them better. If your body was running on caffeine, hormonal birth control, processed food & chronic stress, that’s the internal chemistry those eggs were developing in.
Eggs don’t exist in isolation. They’re reflections of your broader biology — physical, emotional & energetic. So whether you’re twenty-five or thirty-five, what truly matters is the state of your cellular health at the time those eggs mature, not the date on your driver’s license.
While egg freezing can preserve reproductive potential, we have to remember that live birth rates from thawed eggs still average around 40–50% for women under 35 & drop primarily due to overall health, not the number of candles on a cake.
If you’re considering egg freezing to “beat the clock,” give yourself time — ideally six to nine months — to prepare your body. Support mitochondrial health, rebuild nutrient stores, regulate sleep & calm your nervous system. Detoxify your environment where possible. A healthier internal landscape leads to healthier eggs & by extension, a stronger chance that those eggs will thrive when thawed. And then keep going with those improvements, becasue
This isn’t woo; it’s biology. The mitochondria within each egg power fertilization, early cell division & embryo development. When your mitochondria are depleted, your eggs are too. When energy production is restored & inflammation reduced, you alter the environment those eggs mature in & that can change outcomes dramatically.
I know this firsthand. I had what doctors called “poor-quality eggs” for years, because my system was inflamed & exhausted. When I began healing my cellular health at 32, everything shifted. By the time I conceived naturally at 36, my eggs hadn’t gotten “younger.” They had finally been given the conditions to function as they were designed to.
So the message isn’t “don’t freeze your eggs.”
It’s “don’t freeze your current state of health.”
Because the body that creates those eggs determines their potential, not just the number of candles on your birthday cake.
Don’t Stay Stuck
No matter what narrative the infertility industry sells, it’s women — and men — who are paying the price: emotionally, financially & physically.
That amazing 13 million babies figure tells only one side of the story. I went through five medical procedures & had one live birth. With global IVF success rates averaging just 25–35% per cycle, that also means there have been an estimated 60–70 million failed cycles & countless women enduring round after round, emotionally drained, hormonally depleted & financially stretched before ever seeing a positive outcome.
IVF can be a powerful tool. But it’s not the cure-all it’s often marketed to be. Even one of IVF’s pioneers, Professor Robert Edwards, warned that it was being used as a quick fix rather than as targeted scientific support. Another, Professor Robert Winston, has publicly criticized the industry for exploiting women’s vulnerability instead of addressing root causes.
The truth? Without restoring balance in the body — physically, emotionally & energetically — success rates remain modest, costs remain high & heartbreak remains common.
So when you hear that IVF is “the answer,” remember: it’s one tool, not the truth. Behind most of those statistic was a woman who believed she was broken when, in reality, her body may have simply needed time, nourishment & a healthier environment to do what it was designed to do.
And it has to be said (again: another piece for another day.), even when IVF “works,” the story doesn’t end there. While these procedures can be life-changing, large-scale analyses reveal (including analyses of more than 14 million births) that babies conceived through IVF or ICSI are more likely to be born preterm, have lower birth weights, or experience fetal growth restriction. Meta-analyses also report roughly a 30–40% relative increase in certain congenital anomalies, including around a 36% higher risk of congenital heart defects compared to naturally conceived infants.
Long-term follow-up studies note subtle differences in blood pressure, glucose regulation & body composition, patterns thought to reflect metabolic stress rather than inherent genetic defects.
These aren’t scare tactics. They’re observations. And most experts agree: the causes are complex. The procedures themselves are not the sole issue, it’s that we’ve ignored the foundational health of both partners leading up to conception. The cellular environment — mitochondrial function, inflammation levels & hormonal balance — plays a major role in embryo development & long-term child health.
When we focus only on the technology & bypass the biology, we miss the real opportunity: supporting parents in creating the healthiest foundation possible before conception ever begins.
We need better conversations. We need context, not fear. We need practitioners who can hold both science & common sense — honoring technology while remembering that true fertility begins with the body’s innate capacity to heal & create life.
I Didn’t Write This to Convince Anyone
I wrote it because I wish someone had said it to me sooner.
When I was sitting in those sterile waiting rooms, clutching lab results that made me feel defective, no one told me my body wasn’t broken — it was simply out of balance. No one said the “science” guiding my choices might be incomplete, or that I had the power to shift my internal environment before turning to intervention.
I learned that the hard way: through frustration & failure, then curiosity & consistency. And that became my evidence. If I had waited for science to catch up, or silenced the intuition that told me the experts were wrong, I wouldn’t have my two beautiful boys today.
Science likes to act as if it’s settled, but it’s been overlooking the bigger picture for decades. The truth is, fertility isn’t falling off a cliff. It’s responsive. It doesn’t need fixing — it needs support.
Your age isn’t the full story.
Your body isn’t broken.
And you are not out of time.
Your fertility is innate. Your body knows exactly what to do. Give it the right conditions & it will. And if you need or choose medical assistance, your chances of success rise dramatically when you begin from a place of balance, not fear.
This is Finding Fertility. Seeking the truth, the whole story & the deeper wisdom science is only beginning to rediscover.
💚 Monica
This Isn’t Rebellion Against Science: It’s a Reclamation of Context
Let’s be honest, I didn’t dig all this up on my own. I had help from AI, because realistically, who has the time (or sanity) to spend months buried in medical archives, outdated PDFs & cryptic data tables just to trace where one stubborn theory began?
I actually asked AI if I could’ve done it alone. It said, “Technically yes. Practically? No chance.” And it was right. This rabbit hole runs deep.
Because the truth is, the so-called “fertility cliff” isn’t rooted in one neat, definitive study. It’s scattered across decades of small sample sizes, statistical modeling & recycled data that’s been repackaged so many times it should probably come with a “best before” date.
And that’s part of the problem. The science we’ve been told to trust has been siloed, fragmented & nearly impossible for the average woman — or even most practitioners — to trace. No wonder we stopped questioning it. Like countless others, I assumed the research must be solid simply because it was repeated everywhere.
But deep down, I knew something didn’t add up. My intuition & the intuition of so many women, has been quietly saying what the evidence now suggests: this story was never complete.
Even the doctors brave enough to question the narrative are often limited by time, funding & a system that rewards compliance over curiosity. This isn’t about blame; it’s about awareness.
Because what we’ve been told about age & fertility isn’t entirely wrong, it’s just incomplete. And if it takes advanced technology & hours of searching and re-writing to uncover what’s been hiding in plain sight, maybe it’s time we all pause and ask: What else have we accepted as fact simply because it was easier to believe than to verify?
Here are some key studies, for anyone who wants to go down the rabbit hole:
American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee. (2020). Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: A Committee Opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 114(6), 1151–1157.
(Cautions against using AMH or FSH as sole predictors of fertility or menopause timing.)
Association of preterm singleton birth with fertility treatment in 14,370,920 mother–newborn pairs. (2022). JAMA Network Open, 5(3), e228841.
(Shows increased risk of preterm birth and low birth weight in ART pregnancies.)
Charleston, J.S., Hansen, K.R., Thyer, A.C., et al. (2007). Estimating human ovarian non-growing follicle number: The application of modern stereology techniques to an old problem. Biology of Reproduction, 76(1), 164–170.
(Highlights precision errors and 15–29% variation in follicle counting methods.)
Cobo, A., García-Velasco, J., Coello, A., Domingo, J., Pellicer, A., & Remohí, J. (2016). Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertility and Sterility, 105(3), 755–764.e8.
(Reports cumulative live-birth rates of ~43–55% for women who froze eggs before age 35.)
Coxworth, J.E. & Hawkes, K. (2010). Ovarian follicle loss in humans and mice: Lessons from statistical model comparison. Human Reproduction, 25(7), 1796–1805.
(Reviews fertility decline models and notes significant unexplained variation and bias.)
Doyle, J. O., Richter, K. S., Lim, J., Stillman, R. J., Graham, J. R., & Tucker, M. J. (2016). Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertility and Sterility, 105(2), 459–466.e2.
(Demonstrates age-dependent live-birth probabilities and emphasizes health and oocyte number as key predictors.)
Faddy, M.J. & Gosden, R.G. (1989). A model conforming the decline in follicle numbers to the menopausal transition.Human Reproduction, 4(7), 883–887.
Geggel, L. (2025, August 13). Human eggs have special protection against certain types of aging, study hints. Live Science.
(Reports on 2025 Science Advances study showing oocyte mitochondrial DNA stability.)
Gougeon, A. (1996). Regulation of ovarian follicular development in primates: Facts and hypotheses. Endocrine Reviews, 17(2), 121–155.
Hansen, K.R., Knowlton, N.S., Thyer, A.C., Charleston, J.S., Soules, M.R., & Klein, N.A. (2008). A new model of reproductive aging: The decline in ovarian non-growing follicle number from birth to menopause. Human Reproduction, 23(3), 699–708.
Higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight following oocyte donation IVF: A meta-analysis. (2017). Human Reproduction Update, 23(2), 159–176.
Jeppesen, J.V., et al. (2018). Presence of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) during follicular development and granulosa cell function. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 9, 591.
Kelsey, T.W., Anderson, R.A., Wright, P., & Wallace, W.H. (2011). Data-driven assessment of ovarian reserve using multiple sources. Human Reproduction, 26(9), 2413–2421.
Long-term outcomes for children conceived by assisted reproductive technology: Increased risks of altered blood pressure and cardiovascular function. (2023). Fertility and Sterility, 120(2), 211–220.
Moolhuijsen, L.M.E. & Visser, J.A. (2024). Inter-cycle variability of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations in women. Human Reproduction, 39(1), 85–95.
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. (2010). Awarded to Robert G. Edwards for the development of in vitro fertilization (IVF). NobelPrize.org.
(Includes Edwards’ reflections on responsible application of IVF.)
Peck, J.D., et al. (2016). Lifestyle factors associated with histologically derived human ovarian reserve. Human Reproduction, 31(2), 381–389.
Professor Robert Winston. (2007, May 31). IVF industry preys on desperate women. The Guardian.
Richardson, S.J. (1987). Follicular depletion during the menopausal transition: Evidence from histologic studies.Fertility and Sterility, 48(1), 99–105.
Risk of congenital malformations in live-born singletons conceived after fresh ICSI/IVF: Large cohort study.(2023). Fertility and Sterility, 119(5), 883–895.
Römer, T. (2023). Anti-Müllerian hormone beyond an ovarian reserve marker: Current insights and clinical implications.Frontiers in Endocrinology, 14, 121234.
Visser, J.A., de Jong, F.H., Laven, J.S.E., & Themmen, A.P.N. (2006). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in female reproduction. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 253(1–2), 85–90.
Wallace, W.H.B. & Kelsey, T.W. (2010). Human ovarian reserve from conception to the menopause. PLOS ONE, 5(1), e8772.
Xie, S., et al. (2025). Allele frequency selection and no age-related increase in human oocyte mitochondrial mutations.Science Advances, 11(8), eadw4954.
Listen up, lovelies: Everything I share about health, diet, or fertility magic is my opinion. Yep, it’s all based on years of trial and error, study, reading, listening, and side-eyeing the nonsense out there. What worked for me might be a jackpot for you—or it might be a total flop. Bodies are weird like that. 🤷♀️
Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not a doctor, nutritionist, dietitian, or any other kind of licensed health wizard. If you need medical advice, run—don’t walk—to an actual qualified professional. Don’t come back here saying Monique told you to eat kale for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, okay?
As for the products I mention, they’re either what I used during my own infertility rollercoaster or what I wish I’d known about back then. No guarantees, no promises, and absolutely no refunds on your hope budget if it doesn’t work out.
Now that we’ve cleared that up, proceed with curiosity and, above all, discernment. You’ve got this. 💪✨
🌺 Book Your Fertility Breakthrough Session Today
Connect with Monica over on
Youtube || Instagram || TikTok
🎙 Subscribe on your favourite podcast platform:
Apple || Stitcher || Spotify || Google
