Dubious blood testing at the fringes of medicine

[mattbell]

As I was doing followup research to make my final decisions on which blood tests to take as part of my self-tracking project, I stumbled upon some difficulties.

I was deciding between two labs for one particular test, one of which had a sketchy-looking logo (Doctors' Data).  I typed its name into Google, and Google suggested the auto-complete "Doctors Data fraud".  Oh my.  I spent a good bit of time poking around for the next couple of hours, and learned a lot of disturbing things. 

Apparently there are certain tests at certain testing labs that are commonly known to produce "abnormal" readings for just about everyone who takes the tests.  Scam nutritionists and other shady alternative medicine practitioners know this and will tend to use these companies to produce official-looking documents to back up their claims to the patients.  (Every lab that the Scientologist nutritionists at HealthNOW used is on the list)  There's plenty of morally conflicted economic self-interest going on.   Apparently there was a big lawsuit a while back, when a toxic metals test with poor methodology led a woman to choose a dangerous chelation therapy that killed her.  

It's hard to tell how far I should let this mistrust spread.  Only one of the tests I was considering (the IgG/IgE food allergy test) is on the list of dubious tests.  However, should I not trust other tests from the same lab?  Should I not trust Direct Labs for offering these tests, or should I think of them more like an Amazon that offers everything for sale, good and bad.  Can I trust the site (quackwatch) that has come up with the labs-not-to-trust list, or is the site's owner being too reactionary?  It's kind of maddening, like this picture except less funny:



I think I'm going to pull back on the couple of tests from Metametrix and Genova that I was considering, but I'm going to keep the bulk of the remainder.  If many labs offer a particular test (and they're not just rebranding a third party lab's test), it's probably a legitimate test.  In addition, if I get results from a test that imply that I should do something radical, I'll talk with a doctor and have the test redone by different labs.  I should also accept that some of my money in doing these tests will likely be wasted, and some of the changes I make will be pointless, but on the whole it's most likely still a lot better than doing nothing. 

Comments

[dixiemouse.livejournal.com]

The Scientologists use sketchy tests to further their claims? Say it isn't so!! They are such an honest, open, and forthcoming group.

(yes, that's sarcasm you smell ;] )

[nasu-dengaku.livejournal.com]

I didn't know they were Scientologists. It took some digging to figure it out.

[sarcazm.livejournal.com]

just out of curiosity, have you looked into quest's blueprint for wellness?

[sarcazm.livejournal.com]

also, this: http://www.physicianswellnessnetwork.com/data/contentfiles/file/press_releases/PWN.Microsoft.HealthVault.3.27.08.pdf

[nasu-dengaku.livejournal.com]

Looks like they're offline for the moment:

https://my.blueprintforwellness.com/direct/Index.aspx

Pretty sad that the labs...

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

...don't get sued for fraud by some state AG or such.

[klrmn.livejournal.com]

hmm. my doctor using a lot of tests from genova diagnostics and doctor's data.

on one hand, i've already rejected taking one of the tests (gluten sensitivity) as not being accepted by the rest of the medical establishment and unlikely to change my habits (i already don't eat wheat).

i may just have to agree about the results for mercury testing (comparing provolked to unprovolked)...and chelation sucks

on the other hand, NutrEval (another genova test) did get us pointed in the right direction that a lack of stomach acid / enzymes means no matter how healthy i eat, the vitamins, minerals, and protein were not getting absorbed.

in fact, i had been taking 5000IU of D3 for 6 moths before my last Vitamin D check, which was just barely into 'normal' (test performed by Quest). so it's not always safe to assume that just because you're eating healthy foods that your body has the nutrients it needs.

Gluten sensitivity test

[dandv.livejournal.com]

I've also been through HealthNOW and learned later from actual medical doctors and specialty literature that the gold standard test is a biopsy.

Re: Gluten sensitivity test

[klrmn.livejournal.com]

i am sure as hell not going to get a biopsy that isn't going to change my behavior or lead to better treatment.

Re: Gluten sensitivity test

[dandv.livejournal.com]

I had the biopsy (completely painless) and was told that my intestine was fine and I can eat anything. That changed my behavior dramatically, ending a gluten-free year of frustration bordering on depression.

[nasu-dengaku.livejournal.com]

It's possible that a lot of the tests themselves are legitimate, but the reference ranges or conclusions are not. For example, I noticed that the lactulose/mannitol absorption "leaky gut" test has been commonly used by researchers studying malnutrition in the third world since the 1980s. "Leaky gut" just happens to be a new fad diagnosis that comes from it.

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

I would say that quackwatch has a noticeable anti-contrarian / pro-mainstream bias which I also see elsewhere in the Skeptic world. It's quite understandable - they are so used to seeing all the mystical pseudo-scientific crap from the fringes of science and so they develop a strong association between "not recommended by mainstream doctors" and "completely spurious". So they end up going too far and assuming anything fringey is bogus.