The I.V. Doc Review

What The I.V. Doc charges

• NAD+: $799/mo — per visit for a single in-home 250 mg infusion, on the New York menu with the site's own location selector reading New York; the page states no billing period at all and this is not a monthly charge; a 500 mg "NAD+ Premium" infusion is $999 on the same menu
• Glutathione: $249/mo — per visit for a single in-home intramuscular injection, on the New York menu; the page states no billing period at all and this is not a monthly charge; the intravenous "Glutathione Boost" is $349 and a 2000 mg Boost is $649 on the same menu

A per-visit price, and no billing period anywhere

Every item on the wellness menu carries a figure and nothing that names a period. There is no month, no cycle and no subscription language attached to any of them.

For an in-home treatment that is the correct shape rather than an omission. What is being priced is a clinician arriving and administering something once, and the number describes that event.

It does mean these figures do not sit beside a monthly plan price without a reader first choosing a length of time and a frequency to hold both against. This site does no such conversion.

The qualifier on each of these rows says per visit and says the page names no period, so nothing on the boards should be read as a monthly cost for this seller.

A dose beside the figure, on both tiers

The two NAD+ items are distinguished by a stated milligram amount rather than by a name alone, and the higher tier prints its own higher dose. A reader can see what a step up in dose costs before booking.

Glutathione appears three times, as an intramuscular injection and as two intravenous options, each priced separately. The recorded figure is the injection, with the two intravenous options named in the qualifier.

That structure is what makes these rows recordable at all. A figure attached to a stated amount describes something; a figure floating free of one does not.

Both compounds compared here are sold as a single administration rather than as a supply a buyer takes home, which is a different purchase from most of this roster.

The menu is a city's, and the location control could not be driven

The menu page opens by asking a reader to pick a location, above a list of cities. The selector read one city throughout this reading, and passing a location through the address bar did not move it.

The figures were identical before and after that attempt, which proves the parameter does nothing. It does not prove the prices are the same in every city, and this site does not claim they are.

So the figures on this row are recorded as one city's menu, read in September 2026, and the qualifier on each says so.

A reader in a different metro should treat these as an indication of shape rather than as their own price, and read the menu with their own city selected.

Cities rather than states, and a governing law that names none

This seller publishes a city list and a locations page rather than a state list, and its terms name the treating practice entities operating in several parts of the country. A city list is not a state footprint and is not converted into one here.

Twenty-nine of the fifty-three sellers here publish no state list, and this row sits with them for that reason rather than through silence.

The governing-law clause names no state either. It says a dispute is governed by the law of the state of residence of the registered administrative contact, so the forum depends on who books the appointment.

Eleven of the fifty-three sellers here name the facility that fills an order; this is one of the forty-two that do not, and nothing on the menu describes lab work as included.

How we verified this

• Read the wellness menu as rendered text in a browser with the site's own location selector showing, and recorded which city it showed.
• Attempted to change the location through the address bar, found the selector unchanged and the figures byte-identical, and recorded that as proof the parameter is inert rather than as proof the prices are national.
• Took each figure from the menu item that names the product and its dose, not from a page-level scan.
• Recorded that no item on the menu states a billing period, and wrote per visit into each qualifier rather than inheriting a month from anywhere.
• Read the terms for the operating company, the treating practice entities and the governing-law clause, and recorded that clause verbatim because it names no state.
• Established that one control does not characterise this host: a nonsense path at the root returns a not-found page, while the same token one level deeper returns a success status and silently resolves to a booking page under a plausible title. The effective address of each request was recorded.
• Searched the published federal warning-letter record for the company name and for its practice entities; the search returned a large block of unrelated companies matched on body text, and the first hundred rows were read with no match among them. More rows were left unread, so the honest claim is that none of the rows read names this company, not that no letter exists.
• Re-counted the no-state-list and pharmacy-naming claims against the current roster rather than reusing earlier figures.