[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by pstinard

I've read the chunks of Dr. Dodds' writings quoted earlier in this thread by mimimono (https://my.imatrixbase.com/clients/1...ce_Testing.pdf). Dr. Dodds doesn't cite any specific sources for her information. It's pure speculation on her part. And the references that ARE cited at the end of the document are not used to support any particular point that Dr. Dodds is making--most have to do with antibodies to bacterial infections. Mixing fact, fiction, and speculation is the WORST kind of pseudoscience that can be practiced. Dr. Dodds is selling a commercial product. It has no scientific support that has been published to date. The only mitigating factors are that the test is harmless, and the only tangible loss is peoples' money. HOWEVER, people might be duped into ignoring treatments that DO work.

I'm almost afraid to mention it, but Dr. Dodds recently published a book titled "Canine Nutrigenomics." It is a speculative work that has just enough real facts thrown in to deceive the less discerning reader. And of course it promotes the Nutriscan test. I read about 84 pages of the book for free in Google Books online, and all it did was make me furious. Among her scholarly discussions of DNA, epigenetics, and the immune system, she throws in unproven dietary recommendations such as bee pollen and royal jelly. Here is what WebMD has to say about bee pollen (http://www.webmd.com/balance/bee-pol...side-effects):

You may also hear recommendations for using bee pollen for alcoholism, asthma, allergies, health maintenance, or stomach problems, but there is no proof that it helps with these conditions. Before you take any natural product for a health condition, check with your doctor. Bee pollen is also recommended by some herbalists to enhance athletic performance, reduce side effects of chemotherapy, and improve allergies and asthma. At this point, medical research has not shown that bee pollen is effective for any of these health concerns.

Until Dr. Dodds publishes her results on saliva testing in a reputable refereed journal--and even then, the results will have to be replicated by others--I cannot take her recommendations seriously.

I love your entire post/review/opinion regarding this unsubstanciated saliva test. The highlighted part is what is so concerning to me because I know better than to take this sales pitch as such. It's those owners that are unfamiliar with how science bases medicine works that will be fooled into believe the sales pitch for this product. Somewhere in this thread another member stated something like if it might help it's money well spent. But what about all the money that is collected where the test doesn't work because it hasn't been proven? Isn't it like a crap shoot with most coming out just wasting their money on false hopes for a noninvasive test.