How to read a 99% success rate
Not just FAI’s — anyone’s. The skills are the same three questions, and we apply them to our own numbers too.
The figure is real in the sense that Food Allergy Institute publishes it: “99% success rate after completing TIP”, alongside a sub-1% reaction rate. Three things determine how much weight it carries. The denominator: completers of a 2.5-to-4-year program, not starters — and completion rates are unpublished. The verification: self-reported, with the main supporting study a 51-patient retrospective without controls. And the definition: “success” is the clinic’s own endpoint. Journalists in 2021 quoted academic allergists who found the figure implausible; thousands of families report real graduations. Both facts stand. Curex competes with FAI — and publishes no food-allergy outcome data of its own, which you should weigh by exactly the same standard.
Medically reviewed by Dr. Chet Tharpe, M.D. · Last reviewed September 2026
The claims
What the clinic publishes
- “success rate after completing TIP” — their wording
- 99%“success rate after completing TIP” — their wording
- reported reaction rate during the program
- <1%reported reaction rate during the program
- patients in the main supporting publication
- 51patients in the main supporting publication
- the course a completer has finished
- 2.5–4 yrsthe course a completer has finished
Competitor figures are what each provider published on its own site or what patients reported publicly, dated where checked. Prices and policies change — confirm current figures with each provider, including us, before enrolling.
The method
Three questions that price any success rate
- Who is in the denominator? “After completing” excludes everyone who stopped. Ask what share of starters finish. No answer is itself an answer.
- Who verified it? Self-reported internal data and peer-reviewed independent data are different species. FAI’s headline figures are the former; a 2021 patient petition asked for the latter.
- What counts as success? Clinic-defined endpoints (like “food freedom”) are meaningful but not standardised — two programs’ “success” can measure different things.
Same standard, applied to us
Our numbers, priced identically
Curex has published no food allergy outcome data. Our real-world cohort study (2,897 patients) covers environmental allergies and we refuse to stretch it. Our food-program claims — a much higher graduation rate because patients don’t drop out from side effects, typical savings above $10,000 — are program-design arguments and internal figures. Ask us the same three questions; any provider that resents them is telling you something.
Curex competes in this market — we run the only fully at-home food allergy program — so read this page as a competitor’s honest summary of the public record, check every claim against the sources, and ask each provider your own questions.
❓Frequently Asked Questions
“99% success rate after completing TIP” and “less than 1% reaction rate for the duration of TIP”, on its own site, plus roughly 56,000 food challenges and introductions annually and 130+ allergens assessed. These are the clinic’s own figures, stated in its own words.
A success rate measured “after completing” excludes everyone who stopped — and in a multi-year, five-figure program, people stop for cost, moves, side effects, or life. Public threads include long-time observers saying many families drop out and that attrition data is not released. Without a published starters-to-completers ratio, 99%-of-completers and a much lower share-of-starters can both be true simultaneously.
A 2021 Undark investigation quoted several academic allergists reacting to the figure with open disbelief, and reported that the clinic’s main supporting study — 51 patients, retrospective, no control group — had been declined by larger journals before appearing in an open-access one. That reporting is five years old; ask the clinic what has been published since.
No. Graduated-exposure immunotherapy works — that is settled science — and thousands of families publicly credit TIP with exactly the outcomes it advertises. The open question is not whether patients succeed there; it is whether the true success rate across everyone who starts justifies the figure on the homepage. Those are different claims, and the difference is the whole point of this page.
On food allergy specifically: no published outcome data. Our published real-world study covers 2,897 patients treated for environmental allergies, not food — applying it to food would misrepresent it, so we don’t. Our food-program claims — gentler protocol, higher graduation rate because fewer patients drop out from side effects, $10,000+ typical savings — come from our program design and internal figures, and you should question them exactly as hard as anyone’s 99%.
If you experience sudden difficulty breathing, throat swelling, or other signs of anaphylaxis, call 911. A prescribed epinephrine auto-injector is the first-line treatment — not antihistamines.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider with questions about a medical condition. Content reviewed by board-certified allergists at Curex.
Keep reading
- Is Curex legit?The company, the evidence, and the concerns worth knowing — including full context on the 2025 FDA warning letter.Read
- How Curex worksThe treatment process end to end, from at-home testing to daily drops.Read
- Curex reviewsWhat patients actually report — both clusters, including the complaints.Read
- Is Curex worth the money?Plan pricing against allergy-shot costs, and who it is not worth it for.Read
- Evidence & guidelinesWhat the FDA approved, what the AAAAI/ACAAI practice parameter does and does not endorse, and what has been added since.Read
- Providers comparedCurex, Wyndly and Nectar on published prices, guarantees and evidence — including where a competitor is ahead.Read