Misleading claims, not factual according to USC
I have been following the Fertility and Pregnancy Institute (FPI) for a while as it makes very enticing claims for people struggling with fertility, and I’ve been considering on and off whether to enrol. However, a series of revelations have caused me to refrain from doing so and I want to explain this here for anyone considering enrolment. Perhaps my most serious concern is that while the institute’s founder, Dr. Cleopatra Kamperveen, claims on the website and her LinkedIn profile that she is a tenured USC professor, I had noticed some time ago that she had disappeared from the university’s website. Today, I decided to contact the university to verify this information. USC promptly confirmed that Dr. Kamperveen is no longer associated with the university and that her work at FPI isn't based on any USC research as far as they can tell. The institute's marketing tactics are aggressive and potentially misleading. They use terms like "superbabies" and imply their program is essential for anyone considering having a child. Their pricing strategy is particularly concerning. Last year, when I considered enrolling, the Primemester Protocol doubled in price overnight from $2,998 to $5,997, with the original price then being marketed as a "50% discount." This practice seemed disingenuous and exploitative. When I inquired about the price increase and potential discounts, their response was disappointing. They reiterated claims about Dr. Kamperveen's credentials (which are now contradicted by USC's statement) and defended their pricing by citing her research grants. They acknowledged that "this program is not for everyone," which seems to confirm their focus on wealthy clients rather than making the information accessible to all. Despite claiming to be non-discriminatory, the exorbitant pricing inherently excludes many people, potentially exacerbating health disparities along socioeconomic and racial lines. When pushed on this issue, they chose to ignore the question except for reiterating how “non-discriminatory” they are. Their claim of providing "the best financial assistance possible" seems hollow, as no real options were offered when I expressed concern about affordability. The misrepresentation of Dr. Kamperveen's current academic status, questionable marketing practices, and lack of transparency caused me to pause and despite a very enticing programme offer made me refrain from investing in this.
By Rebecca