www.lesswrong.com/posts/dxffBxGqt2eidxwRR/the-optimal-age-to-freeze-eggs-is-19#t...

The post claims that almost all sources agree the “optimal age” is 19–26.

However, a peer-reviewed decision-analysis in Fertility & Sterility (“Optimal timing for elective egg freezing”) modeled elective oocyte cryopreservation decisions across ages 25–40 and found:

• Largest benefit over no action and most cost-effective timing at age 37 (in its primary model where all women attempt pregnancy at the chosen horizon).
• Little benefit over no action at ages 25–30, and it explicitly reports egg freezing was least cost-effective between ages 25–30.

That directly contradicts the idea that sources “almost all” converge on 19–26 as optimal.

Separately, Cleveland Clinic patient guidance states: “In most cases, egg freezing is best done before or around age 35.” That also conflicts with the post’s claim of a broad consensus on 19–26.

Taken together, credible medical and peer‑reviewed sources show that “optimal age” is not generally agreed to be 19–26; many sources place it later depending on the metric (success vs. marginal benefit vs. cost‑effectiveness, probability of use, etc.).

The post claims that if a later embryo transfer from the same retrieval results in another baby, that second child is “ignored by official statistics.”

But SART’s published outcome tables and methodology describe reporting that includes frozen embryo transfers (FETs) and their live-birth outcomes:

• The SART Outcome Tables page contains dedicated sections for frozen embryo transfer outcomes (with counts of transfers and live birth rates).
• In the “Understand This Report” explanation, SART states that by tracking outcomes from egg-retrieval–initiated cycles, the report “accounts for both fresh and frozen embryo transfers resulting from the egg retrieval cycle.”
• SART also defines that each ART cycle is counted (including separate cycles performed for banking/transfer), which means live births from later FET cycles are part of the official statistics (even if they are not always presented as “children per single retrieval” in one headline number).

So while some summary metrics may focus on the first transfer outcome for a retrieval within a given reporting structure, it is not accurate to say a second child from a subsequent transfer is simply “ignored by official statistics.”

The post presents polygenic embryo screening (PGT‑P / PES) as something parents “can now” use to boost IQ and reduce disease risks by choosing among embryos.

That framing is contradicted by professional-society and expert guidance emphasizing that this is not a validated clinical capability:

• ASRM (Ethics Committee opinion, 2026 page) explicitly states: “PGT‑P remains a nascent and unproven technology that is not recommended for clinical use and should not be offered as a clinical service at this time.” It also notes that trait selection (e.g., “height, intelligence…”) is not within the scope of reproductive medicine.
• The European Society of Human Genetics (EJHG viewpoint) describes embryo polygenic risk score selection as “unproven” and states that “to date, no clinical research has been performed to assess its diagnostic effectiveness in embryos,” warning that the utility is severely limited.

These sources don’t merely say the practice is controversial; they state that the technology is unproven and not recommended for routine clinical use and lacks clinical validation in embryos. Therefore, the post’s claim that parents can now boost IQ / reduce major disease risks via embryo selection is unambiguously misleading as a statement of established, clinically supported capability.