[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by pstinard

One other thing that bothers me about the Nutriscan test is that Dr. Dodds makes vague statements about "studies" without citing references:

"Today, new studies have revealed that delayed food sensitivity is more accurately identified by measuring food associated IgA or IgM antibodies." (from https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1..._to_Gluten.pdf)

"Recent studies have proven salivary diagnostics to be a highly accurate form of canine food intolerance testing."
(from https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...iagnostics.pdf)

And then there is this admission:

"Saliva hormone or food antigen testing is a new technology. It's been used only in the last decade and, therefore, is not yet widely accepted by the medical community."
(from https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf)

I can't tell whether she is trying to scam people, or whether she thinks she's onto something new and wants to get it into production before it's been scientifically accepted, but either way, it makes me uneasy.

Originally Posted by pstinard

That's what Dr. Dodds claims--it's the basis of her theories on saliva testing and nutrigenomics. I'm just waiting for the peer reviewed paper, which should have come first, before selling the tests and possibly giving people false hope. Right now, it's all theories and no proof. It makes me very uneasy.

Somewhere, buried in one of Dr. Dodd's articles (which doesn't have any references to peer reviewed papers), Dr. Dodds says this:

"Saliva testing also is not readily available in many laboratories. Furthermore, there's room for human error when gathering the saliva sample, as food or blood can easily contaminate the specimen. The good news is saliva collection is noninvasive, painless, relatively inexpensive and convenient for the patient."

I take this as an admission that her test may not work, but at least it's harmless, and the only thing you are losing is money. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Thank you for all of this information, Phil!