@greendress789 can you post the results from your recent test so we can see what dysbiotic bacteria you have.
I had a big think over the weekend and decided just to push for another 2 x LIT treatments I don't know how I'll respond, but it seemed I responded a bit so hopefully with another 2 I'll respond a bit more, which must be better than how I was before. I have another session booked in for Tuesday.
I was at the breast clinic yesterday, I was supposed to get a BIRAD 3 monitored 3 months after a scan in January this year, but with the thyroid and surgery I delayed doing it. Anyway they spotted the area, it was a cyst and cysts are supposed to be all black inside but this one had some white in it. They said the department aspirates and if it looks ok they will leave it at that. So that's what they did, they said it looked like normal cystic fluid so they wanted to put it in the bin. I asked could it get sent to the lab and the radiologist agreed. I then asked if the result would likely to be normal and the reply was I don't know, which made me wonder why she wanted to throw it in the bin!
I also had the surgeon review today and asked a load of questions the histology shows both fibroids had overlying endometrium which means both were submucosal by definition. One was 1cm and the other 1.9cm, which considering my uterus seems to be 8 x 5 x 3.5 cm seems quite big. He said we won't know what my lining will be like until after the 2nd bleed so the mid cycle scan after that seems sensible. I'm waiting on my period that is due any time, he said the op can mess cycles up a bit for a month or two. He said he wouldn't haven't removed the fibroids if it wasn't for my history, so I don't know how much the op would have helped.
RE the ERA for non implantation failure, ie before any transfers. I found this study that doesn't include recurrent implantation failure or recurrent miscarriages:
"Limiting the analysis to those for whom ERA recommended a change in frozen blastocytes transfer timing of at least 12 hours (only Pre- and Post-receptive results, excluding Early and Late receptive; N=243), 63.3% of Control and 54.5% of Study subjects had an ongoing pregnancy (RR 0.86; CI 0.62-1.19; p=0.20)."
www.fertstert.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0015-0282%2821%2900882-7
Both the study group and the control group had an ERA, the study group followed the ERA advice, the control group ignored the ERA and did the transfer at 123 hours +/-3 hours. Its an abstract rather than a full publication. But it's interesting to see the comparison of what happens when the ERA is ignored.