Cpnhelp.org

Do you think that we ought to delete this? Telemedicine can cost a lot but give you very little in return.

Sarah

Seems like a reasonable enough outfit to me.

Well personally Norman, $319.00 might not be a fortune to me but for many people it is, so expecting to get a  result in just three days of  your general state of health worked out within just three days using 50 biomarkers pointing at how long you are likely to live, will you get a deadly heart attack or a stroke and what cancer you are likely to die from, seems to be taking advantage of people, maybe telling them that they only have to spend another $319.00 a month for the next  however long  and they will be totally fit and healthy.

Sarah

That particular test panel doesn't have all that much to do with Cpn.  It doesn't even include a test for Cpn.  (Some of their other offerings do.)  It's more of what they'd offer just to get a general overview of how a patient was doing.  Diabetes, kidney status, vitamin D level, thyroid level, and such; almost all pretty normal tests.

They talk about using some fancy algorithm, but I doubt that algorithm's outputs are much different from what any doctor would tell you: if the lab reports high HbA1c, the algorithm will almost certainly say you have diabetes.  The main point of using the algorithm is probably to enable them to save money by having that "one hour consultation"  be with a technician rather than an MD; an hour of an MD's time costs about that much, which would leave no money for the lab tests themselves.

It's actually low enough of a price that I'd be somewhat suspicious of it being a loss leader meant to draw patients in for further expenditures: you'll be told that to actually get drugs prescribed you'll have to pay for a consultation with an actual MD and maybe additional tests too.  Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that; it's a normal feature of health care for doctors to want more tests and more time with you.  But it can be abused, and often is; keep your eyes open rather than going in with blind trust.

I'm leery of some of that stuff; for instance what is this "chronic disease temperature" about?  But people who are a bit flaky can still be useful; an outfit that was thoroughly mainstream and conventional wouldn't be into Cpn treatment in the first place.

Okay, "chronic disease temperature" is just their name for the fancy algorithm; it's not another test.

But I'm not pleased by their libels against the Covid vaccines.

Yeah, they're selling people tests on the fear that the jab might have given them a clotting problem: you pay an extra hundred bucks to get several blood clotting tests too.  It's the usual business of riffing off actual risks but relying on people's innumeracy to make them seem worth thinking about.  (The blood clotting side effect is officially acknowledged, but it's literally a one-in-a-million thing with the J&J vaccine, ten-in-a-million with AZ, and not a problem for the mRNA vaccines.  So this would be tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to find an instance of it, where when it's really a problem it's pretty immediately apparent even with no testing.)

On the other hand, they also offer genetic sequencing to look for not just one pathogen but all of them, and that's a sort of testing I've been waiting for someone to offer:

https://www.healthrevivalpartners.com/product-page/deep-shotgun-metagen…

There's way too much they don't say about that metagenomic test:

- who performs it.

- what the source material is. (Blood, probably, but which fraction(s) of blood?  This matters: Cpn infects white blood cells so if they use another fraction they may not find it.  And they're actually likely to use another fraction so as to lessen the amount of human DNA they're dealing with.)

- what database of pathogens they compare against.  (They make it sound like the database is some special sauce, but really the big public databases are probably the best ones to use.)

- what sort of results they deliver. (Do they attempt to quantify the amount of each pathogen, or do they just tell you if it's there?)

- what computational techniques they use.

This sort of test is a new innovation, experimental and investigational, so should be sold with full disclosure, not as a black box.

Here's a review of "diagnostic metagenomics":

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41576-019-0113-7

It talks about using it for hard cases.  A lot of people here are hard cases.  But it focuses on obvious infections, rather than stealth infections.

There's also a similar but less complicated and expensive sort of test, 16S genotyping.  That's where they take a gene that all bacteria have (for the 16S part of the ribosome), isolate it using PCR and "universal" primers, get its genetic sequence, and look it up in a database of what bacterial species has what 16S sequence.  This has become a widely offered clinical test in recent years, though often offered only for obvious infections (as in they expect the doctor to submit a culture growing in a Petri dish).  But the Mayo Clinic does offer a version of it that is for samples from places that should be sterile (like cerebrospinal fluid) and where the bacteria may be unculturable.  That's getting more into our territory.