Re: Great Smokies and other testing

[Guest guest]

Mike, the skeptic, wrote:

> Has ANYONE ever gotten a test result back

> from GS that said 'everything is OK'? This is a very expensive lab

and

> remember that the docs (your local doc who orders the test) get half

of the

> cost of the test. Who has perfect gut flora? Who digests all of

their protein?

> Plus, I have never heard of anyone getting a GS test, implementing

treatment,

> and having substantial recovery. Sorry for the skepticism, but

> sometimes a healthy dose is good medicine. "

As the person whose post sparked Mike's comments, I've already replied

to the

above (but strangely, no response from Mike). However, it has been on

my mind a lot ...

Most, if not all, of us are searching for some black and white

evidence to

show that something is wrong with us. Some 'thing' that we can point

at

and deal with. Hence, the many people who get tested at all sorts of

labs in order to find any kind of evidence. You cannot believe what a

relief it was after 17 years to have something concrete that was wrong

with me. Something that I could attempt to deal with, and something

that I could show to my doctor. It cost me a lot of money to have this

test done, but I felt it was worth it. Now, along comes Mike, and

casts

doubts on the reliability of this particular lab. Fair enough. We

should

all be skeptics until things are proven otherwise. But rather than

simply

dismissing Great Smokies I, for one, would have found it more helpful

if there were some *constructive* criticism. What are the

alternatives?

Are there other labs which carry out the same kinds of tests? Is there

any literature to back up Mike's misgivings?

From what I read on this list, ALL testing is subject to criticism.

Professionals

often disagree about the kind of test which should be used, the

interpretation

of the results, etc. Some people are so convinced that they are

infected with

a certain something that this belief persists REGARDLESS of the test

results.

How many times have we seen advocates pointing out that there are

often

many false positives and/ or negatives for certain tests?

Sure, testing is not perfect. In an ideal world there would be

double-blind

experiments carried out to test the reliability of the different labs

(e.g. same

sample sent to several labs, known pathogen sent in to see if they

detect it,

same sample sent to same lab at later date to see if results come back

the

same, etc.). But we don't live in an ideal world. In the absence of

proper medical

support and treatment of this illness, many of us have to fall back on

our own

resources and use labs such as Great Smokies. Please don't take this

small

victory away from me.

I would love to hear Mike's response. Especially where he got his

information

from (e.g. that the doctor gets half the fee).

All the best

Chris

Coventry, UK

[Guest guest]

I dont know about the business that doctors get half of the fee but lately

an agency here in Israel opened up as a representative for the Great Smokies

Labs, they send samples of blood serum, hair, saliva etc. overnight express

to the USA to be tested. I am having a hair test and blood amino acids and

the fee for the two tests, including overnight shipping overseas, Federal

Express, is about three hundred dollars (which in local currency is a

tremendous amount of money). The fee quoted me was for the two tests - a

flat fee for each, and shipping fees. I can't believe that the guys here are

representing GS for free so I assume they make something on each test. Hence

I also assume that the same holds true all over the world including the USA.

Does that mean GS is no good? I dont know, have looked into it and some of

their tests are better while others are not as good. Is it worth trying?

Whynot, expecially if you are ill and are looking for anything to help.

Should you check out if other labs do the same tests? Certainly, only over

here I know that they dont....

Judy

RE: Great Smokies and other testing

> Mike, the skeptic, wrote:

>

> > Has ANYONE ever gotten a test result back

> > from GS that said 'everything is OK'? This is a very expensive lab

> and

> > remember that the docs (your local doc who orders the test) get half

> of the

> > cost of the test. Who has perfect gut flora? Who digests all of

> their protein?

> > Plus, I have never heard of anyone getting a GS test, implementing

> treatment,

> > and having substantial recovery. Sorry for the skepticism, but

> > sometimes a healthy dose is good medicine. "

>

> As the person whose post sparked Mike's comments, I've already replied

> to the

> above (but strangely, no response from Mike). However, it has been on

> my mind a lot ...

>

> Most, if not all, of us are searching for some black and white

> evidence to

> show that something is wrong with us. Some 'thing' that we can point

> at

> and deal with. Hence, the many people who get tested at all sorts of

> labs in order to find any kind of evidence. You cannot believe what a

> relief it was after 17 years to have something concrete that was wrong

> with me. Something that I could attempt to deal with, and something

> that I could show to my doctor. It cost me a lot of money to have this

> test done, but I felt it was worth it. Now, along comes Mike, and

> casts

> doubts on the reliability of this particular lab. Fair enough. We

> should

> all be skeptics until things are proven otherwise. But rather than

> simply

> dismissing Great Smokies I, for one, would have found it more helpful

> if there were some *constructive* criticism. What are the

> alternatives?

> Are there other labs which carry out the same kinds of tests? Is there

> any literature to back up Mike's misgivings?

>

> >From what I read on this list, ALL testing is subject to criticism.

> Professionals

> often disagree about the kind of test which should be used, the

> interpretation

> of the results, etc. Some people are so convinced that they are

> infected with

> a certain something that this belief persists REGARDLESS of the test

> results.

> How many times have we seen advocates pointing out that there are

> often

> many false positives and/ or negatives for certain tests?

>

> Sure, testing is not perfect. In an ideal world there would be

> double-blind

> experiments carried out to test the reliability of the different labs

> (e.g. same

> sample sent to several labs, known pathogen sent in to see if they

> detect it,

> same sample sent to same lab at later date to see if results come back

> the

> same, etc.). But we don't live in an ideal world. In the absence of

> proper medical

> support and treatment of this illness, many of us have to fall back on

> our own

> resources and use labs such as Great Smokies. Please don't take this

> small

> victory away from me.

>

> I would love to hear Mike's response. Especially where he got his

> information

> from (e.g. that the doctor gets half the fee).

>

> All the best

>

> Chris

> Coventry, UK

>

>

>

>

>

>

> This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each

other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment

discussed here, please consult your doctor.

>

>