Fertility and sterility, 125(1), 177
Peipert et al. (1) claim that restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) originated as a political and religious movement with the purpose to limit access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). In so doing, they mischaracterize the origin, development, and aims of RRM, as articulated by the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, founded in 2000. They do not refer to any peer-reviewed medical literature published by clinicians and researchers working to develop RRM. Objecting that certain political or economic interests promote RRM (or, alternatively, IVF) does not constitute the basis for an evidence-based scientific critique or discussion. Thus, their editorial falls short of a serious effort to understand RRM scientifically.
Peipert, B. J., Kuhlman, J. T., & Feinberg, E. C. (2026). Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al. *Fertility and sterility*, *125*(1), 179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.029
Peipert BJ, Kuhlman JT, Feinberg EC. Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al. Fertil Steril. 2026;125(1):179. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.029
Peipert, B. J., et al. "Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al." *Fertility and sterility*, vol. 125, no. 1, 2026, pp. 179.