Lab Products

The Summary list at the beginning is an extremely valuable tool.

From a clinical perspective on LPS, I’d actually prefer to see IgG and IgM reported separately rather than combined. Here’s why: if I have the individual values, I can always add them together myself to get that global snapshot. But when they’re already combined, I lose the ability to pull them apart, and that’s where the clinical nuance lives. Knowing whether someone’s LPS reactivity is predominantly IgM-driven versus IgG-driven changes how I interpret what’s happening in real time. An IgM-dominant response tells me something very different than an IgG-dominant response. One suggests an active, early-phase breach of gut barrier integrity. The other points to a chronic, sustained endotoxin exposure pattern. The research is early, but potentially those are two different clinical conversations, two different levels of urgency, and potentially two different intervention strategies, but reality is the science is so new, I think it’s too early just to combine them so we can actually see the dominance of one verse the other. When we combine them, we flatten that distinction. We get a number that says “yes, there’s immune activation to LPS,” but we lose the texture of what that activation actually looks like. And for those of us making treatment decisions based on these results, that context matters. So my ask would be to consider reporting IgG and IgM separately, and then if you want to include a combined total as an additional data point, that gives clinicians the best of both worlds. We get the granularity we need for precision decision-making, and anyone who prefers the global view still has it. I’d love to see that kind of reporting flexibility built into future iterations of the panel. It would make an already excellent test even more clinically actionable.

I have noticed your Total Estrogens Reference Range is higher for a postmenopausal women vs a premenopausal woman, shouldn't it be the opposite?? I had a clinical consult and the clinician was not able to give me an answer and suggested I reach out to the lab for clarification.

This is feedback from a provider regarding corn, oats and dairy products listed in confusing ways on the report: "corn or oats listed in gluten containing grains. It's simply confusing for patients, even if there is some justification. It makes it very difficult to consider using this test. I get why milk is listed as reactive. But listing other dairy products as ok to eat can be confusing to patients. A quick search states that all dairy products contain casein"

Hi. I have several challenges with the Food Sensitivity panel that are preventing me from using it with more patients, and I'd like to use it a lot more. First, the Gluten Containing Grains section includes Corn and Oats. Having to explain to patients why these are listed this way puts me in a very bad position and makes it look like I don't know what I'm doing. There is no acceptable reason to have Corn and Oats in this section, even if they contain a different type of gluten. Corn and Oats need to be listed under Gluten Free Grains. (And if you're using contaminated oats, then we have another issue.) Including Vegan Cheese anywhere on this test is very confusing and actually embarrassing. It's not a single food, and you can't even tell us exactly what is in it, only what might be in it. Please drop this from the report. Curry powder is similar, but at least I can tell people what it includes (after having to look it up each time). I would much prefer that you either dropped curry powder, or at least list all of the ingredients on the report (where the result is, not just with the additional information later in the report). And on the Food Personalization Summary report, I recently got results where Cow's milk was low, Whey protein was low, but Beta-casein was moderately high and Cheddar cheese was high. The summary report listed cow's milk and cheddar cheese as reactive foods, but yogurt, buttermilk, and kefir as non-reactive foods. I believe that you have a problem with the logic system used to generate this report, because in this case none of those foods should be listed as non-reactive foods, because they can contain casein. I'm hopeful that you'll be able to improve this report soon, because once you do I'll be able to consider using it as my primary food sensitivity test. That would mean running several dozen tests per month. Sincerely, Stephen Wangen, ND IBS Treatment Center

We have two separate items for Cows Milk and Casomorphin on the report under Dairy. However on the food green/red report it lumps both Casomorphin and Cows Milk as one item called Cows Milk. So it is confusing when you go to one part of the report and see cows milk with no reactivity and then go to the food reaction chart and see cows milk listed. We should just list each item by its name or find another way to avoid confusion.

As the title suggests, don't cap the eGFR at 90, rather report on the actual numbers, which makes for tracking progress better.

Can you please add the number values to the new Food Sensitivity report summary page? It just shows which foods are reactive and which foods are not, but it does not show any of the values and providers do not like that. It is very important that they see the number values for each reactive food.