Now accepting a limited number of new Valerian patients each quarter · River Oaks, Houston
Reserve Your AssessmentYours is formulated from a panel.
Intravenous delivery bypasses the absorption ceiling that limits what an oral supplement can reach. That only matters if what is in the bag was chosen because your bloodwork showed you needed it.
Oral supplementation has a ceiling. Absorption is limited by transport capacity in the gut, by what is taken alongside it, and by how well your digestion is working that week. For some compounds the gap between what you swallow and what reaches circulation is substantial.
Intravenous delivery removes that variable entirely. What is in the bag reaches circulation. That is a genuine advantage, and it is the entire mechanical argument for this route, but it is only worth anything if the contents were selected for a reason.
Which is where most of this category falls down. A branded drip named for an outcome, selected from a wall menu, delivers a fixed formulation to whoever ordered it. Here the formulation follows the panel, and where the panel shows nothing missing, your physician will tell you that rather than sell you a bag anyway.
Bioavailability
The proportion of what you take that actually reaches circulation. Oral routes lose a variable share of it. Intravenous routes do not.
NAD+
A coenzyme present in every cell, central to the reactions that produce cellular energy and to a range of repair processes. Its role in ageing is an active research area.
Glutathione
An antioxidant the body produces itself. Notably poorly absorbed when taken orally, which is one of the clearer arguments for a different route.
Cellular Infusion
Delivery of cellular preparations intravenously rather than to a single site, where the objective is systemic rather than local. Sourced to the same standard as every program here.
This program most often runs alongside another rather than on its own, closing a gap the panel identified while the primary work is underway.
NAD+ protocols where the objective is mitochondrial and cognitive support. Frequently part of the neurocognitive program rather than a standalone.
Neurocognitive →Sustained appetite suppression makes adequate micronutrient intake genuinely hard. Where the panel shows gaps opening, this is one way to close them.
Weight Loss →Where tissue repair is the objective and the panel shows the raw material for it is not there. A signal cannot instruct a cell to build with what it does not have.
Joint Renewal →The same cell source delivered intravenously rather than to a single site, where the objective is whole-body rather than one anatomical target.
Stem Cells →Collagen synthesis requires specific raw materials. Where a panel shows deficiency, correcting it matters more than another aesthetic session would.
Aesthetics →A legitimate outcome. If your panel shows adequate status across the board, an infusion is an expensive way to produce very expensive urine, and you will be told so.
How a program is built →Intravenous protocols are prescribed only where clinically indicated following physician evaluation. Cellular preparations are investigational and are not approved by the FDA for the diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevention of any disease or condition. Individual results vary.
Oral absorption is limited by transport capacity in the gut and varies with what else you took and how your digestion is functioning. Intravenous delivery removes that variability. What is in the bag reaches circulation.
For some compounds the difference is not marginal. Glutathione in particular is poorly absorbed orally, which is among the clearer mechanical arguments for choosing a different route rather than a higher capsule count.
NAD+ is central to cellular energy metabolism and its role in ageing is an active area of study, reviewed at PubMed (PMID 33353981). Worth noting that the human decline data is less settled than the marketing around it suggests.
An honest note on this category. Intravenous delivery is mechanically sound and the bioavailability argument is real. What is frequently overstated is what follows from it. A compound reaching circulation is not the same as that compound producing an outcome, and the two get conflated constantly in how this is marketed. Where the evidence for a specific protocol is thin, your physician will say so rather than let the mechanism carry an implication it cannot support.
Branded drips named for outcomes are the norm in this category. They are convenient, and they tell you nothing about whether you needed any of it.
Micronutrient status, metabolic markers, and inflammatory markers determine the contents. Not a name on a board, and not what the person before you had.
Composition, dose, and frequency are clinical decisions here. In much of this category they are not, and that is the difference that shows up in who gets told they do not need it.
Where cellular infusion is part of the protocol, preparations come from AATB-accredited, FDA-registered establishments under current Good Tissue Practices, with lot-level documentation.
Follow-up panels determine whether a protocol continues, changes, or stops. A standing infusion nobody is re-measuring is a subscription rather than a program.
Where the objective is systemic rather than a single anatomical target, the same cell source is delivered intravenously. Sourcing and culture method are covered in full on that page.
Explore stem cells → Frequently togetherNAD+ protocols most often belong inside the neurocognitive program rather than beside it, since cellular energy and cognitive function draw on the same machinery.
Explore neurocognitive → Closing a gapSustained appetite suppression makes adequate micronutrient intake difficult in practice. Where follow-up panels show gaps opening, this is one way to close them without relying on intake.
Explore weight loss → Same principleBoth are selected from a panel rather than from a menu, and both are adjusted against follow-up rather than run indefinitely. Frequently part of the same program.
Explore peptides →Nutrition, exercise, coaching, hormone optimization, peptide support, and supplement support are assessed alongside every program here.
See how a program is built →Frequently you should, and if that is sufficient for your panel your physician will tell you so. The case for a different route is specific rather than general: oral absorption is capped by transport capacity in the gut and varies with digestion and with what else you took. For some compounds, glutathione being the clearest example, the gap between what you swallow and what reaches circulation is substantial. Where the panel shows a genuine deficiency that oral supplementation has not corrected, the route matters. Where it does not, it is an expensive way to raise levels you already had.
What determines the contents. A drip bar offers branded formulations named for outcomes, selected from a menu, delivered to whoever ordered them, the same bag regardless of what your bloodwork shows. Here the formulation follows a comprehensive panel covering micronutrient status, metabolic markers, and inflammatory markers, and it is a physician decision rather than a choice you make at reception. The most useful consequence is that you can be told you do not need one, which does not tend to happen where the infusion is the product.
NAD+ is genuinely central to cellular energy metabolism, and its role in ageing is an active research area reviewed at PubMed. What is less settled than the marketing suggests is the human data on age-related decline and what supplementation reliably produces. The mechanism is real. The claims built on top of it frequently run ahead of the evidence. Your physician will tell you where a proposed protocol sits relative to that rather than letting the biochemistry imply an outcome it has not demonstrated.
Determined by follow-up panels rather than by a schedule set in advance. Some protocols run as a defined series to correct a specific deficiency and then stop. Others continue at a lower frequency where the panel supports it. What is not appropriate is a standing weekly infusion nobody is re-measuring. That is a subscription rather than a program, and it is how a great deal of this category operates.
A single intravenous line in a private suite, typically forty-five to ninety minutes depending on the protocol. Most Valerian patients read or work through it. NAD+ protocols specifically are infused slowly, because rate affects tolerability, and that is not a corner worth cutting to save twenty minutes. What to expect during and afterward is covered before the first session.
No. Valere operates as a private-pay practice. Cost depends on the protocol your panel supports and how many sessions it calls for, which is why it is discussed after your results are reviewed rather than posted as a price list. Payment plans and membership options are available.
Intravenous protocols described on this page are prescribed only where clinically indicated following physician evaluation and are not appropriate for everyone. Cellular preparations are investigational and are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevention of any disease or condition. All clinical decisions, including eligibility, rest solely with the licensed physician. Individual results vary. This page is educational and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult your primary care provider.
Your assessment measures micronutrient status alongside everything else. If nothing is missing, that is what you will be told.
Reserve Your AssessmentPrivate · By appointment only · River Oaks, Houston