[ohnometo]

Has anyone heard of the Great Smokies Diagnostic Lab....I was wondering if it wasworth a try to get in touch with them abouttheir testing ???? http://www.gsdl.com/assessments/findsystems/gastro.html http://www.gsdl.com/assessments/cdsa/index.html

 

[britta]

I've had testing done at GSL, you might want to do a search on the name, you'll find alot of info out here already. Good luck to you.ErinPS-You'll have to go into the archives of the board to find them, but there are plenty. I just checked.[This message has been edited by britta (edited 09-25-2001).]

 

[britta]

I've had testing done at GSL, you might want to do a search on the name, you'll find alot of info out here already. Good luck to you.ErinPS-You'll have to go into the archives of the board to find them, but there are plenty. I just checked.[This message has been edited by britta (edited 09-25-2001).]

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

They are a fully licensed clinical laboratory which does mainstream and esoteric testing. They have a very broad prooduct line with many different "applications" for their various tests.MNL______________ www.leapallergy.com

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

They are a fully licensed clinical laboratory which does mainstream and esoteric testing. They have a very broad prooduct line with many different "applications" for their various tests.MNL______________ www.leapallergy.com

 

[Guest]

I have just seen a dr. who uses great smokies lab. I am now doing some tests that will be sent there. (stool cultures and a saliva hormone test)......I don't know too much about this lab, but I will let you know how things work out with the tests. It will be several weeks before I find out.In the meantime, I think I will look it up to! Please post any info you find out.ThanksTired

 

[Guest]

I have just seen a dr. who uses great smokies lab. I am now doing some tests that will be sent there. (stool cultures and a saliva hormone test)......I don't know too much about this lab, but I will let you know how things work out with the tests. It will be several weeks before I find out.In the meantime, I think I will look it up to! Please post any info you find out.ThanksTired

 

[SteveE]

tired--Please don't put too much faith in the results you get back. I have yet to meet an IBSer who has been helped directly from the results of those tests. Please search this bulletin board to find more details on my experience with it.The upshot of it all is this: even if the tests were 100% accurate (which of course not many tests can ever claim that), the science behind what to do with the results simply isn't there yet. Therefore, there is no scientifically accepted way of using those results to get better! If a doctor tells you otherwise, he or she is just experimenting with alternative methods that have not been researched adequately yet. If you are up for experimenting, that is your call, but be aware that such experimenting is often costly (since insurance usually doesn't pay for things like grapefruit seed extract) and can make you feel worse than you do now. Great Smokies has yet to supply me with studies showing what they know about the alleged pathenogens (bacteroides fragilis and citrobacter freundi) my test turned-up. I took these results to 2 MDs and a GI all of whom use the test. The last one admitted to me that this is shakey science.Whew...don't get me started, huh?Peace.

 

[SteveE]

tired--Please don't put too much faith in the results you get back. I have yet to meet an IBSer who has been helped directly from the results of those tests. Please search this bulletin board to find more details on my experience with it.The upshot of it all is this: even if the tests were 100% accurate (which of course not many tests can ever claim that), the science behind what to do with the results simply isn't there yet. Therefore, there is no scientifically accepted way of using those results to get better! If a doctor tells you otherwise, he or she is just experimenting with alternative methods that have not been researched adequately yet. If you are up for experimenting, that is your call, but be aware that such experimenting is often costly (since insurance usually doesn't pay for things like grapefruit seed extract) and can make you feel worse than you do now. Great Smokies has yet to supply me with studies showing what they know about the alleged pathenogens (bacteroides fragilis and citrobacter freundi) my test turned-up. I took these results to 2 MDs and a GI all of whom use the test. The last one admitted to me that this is shakey science.Whew...don't get me started, huh?Peace.

 

[Marina]

Isn't it strange that every few months someone drops into this bulletin board from the blue and asks this question about this lab. Do the math.

 

[Marina]

Isn't it strange that every few months someone drops into this bulletin board from the blue and asks this question about this lab. Do the math.

 

[Guest]

I agree 100% with Steven E.Unless you want to be a guinea pig, GSDL is a waste of your time and your money.There is NO science to support any therapies they recommend. I know..I visited them about four years ago and saw first hand...

 

[Guest]

I agree 100% with Steven E.Unless you want to be a guinea pig, GSDL is a waste of your time and your money.There is NO science to support any therapies they recommend. I know..I visited them about four years ago and saw first hand...

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Steve points out one of the problems with some esoteric tests...the lab should have some rational report reflecting at least the clinical basis for the esoteric testing (ie: at least some support in the medical literatutre for the physiologic basis of the proposed test and at least some outcome related work done by one or more separate clinicians which indicates some degree of efficacy and how you tell which patients it may be efficacious for).Some esorterinc tests are developed from the need to find more things which may be revenue generating to do with certain expensive lab equipment which has certain capabilities, and/or to create product diversification to ensure continued growth.Some "nutritional testing" profiles, for example, created by some labs are to me particularly amusing as the product information provided expounds in great detail about ths significance of the parameters based upon suppositions of the developers alone.Now if they can provide some information which backs-up a claim of effectiveness with some clincal results, while there will always be debate among those who do not necessarily accept the postulates upon which the test is based and those who offer and use it, at least as a consumer you have some outcome documentation to base a decision upon as to whether or not you beleive the esoteric test may be of benefit to you.But if all you get is a written speech from a company official and there is no other supporting documentation offered vis a vis the physiologic basis of the test in question and its clinical application I would sugest it is not provided because it does not exist. Even new technologies developed by little tiny early-stage purveyors can, if it exists, generate reference material which would support the phsyiologic basis for the test, and some outome assessments of its applications. I mean, they had to use it on some patients somewhere to see if it had some clinical value no? And it must be based upon some physiology which is known and documentable, yes?I know what Steve means, anyway, being around the biz as they say...sometimes you get a test offered with all these grandiose claims but all the customer can seem to get is the esay written by somebody in the company who conceived the test.It can be annoying to speak to one of these people and say, for example, 'So you say this [bug] does XYZ if it is present in ABC concentration. Who discovered this....is there a description of this in book or paper or article or something describing some specific cases' and to be waved off or have your question dismissively answered with this "so you are just some allopathic non-beleiver" attitude. Duh...listen to me, I am far from it, but I just would lke to know what you base the supposition upon.I am not, by the way, naming names here it just so happens that this is the thread where Steve made a good point and I felt it bore reinforcement.Eat well. Think well. Be well.MNL______________ www.leapallergy.com

 

[Mike NoLomotil]

Steve points out one of the problems with some esoteric tests...the lab should have some rational report reflecting at least the clinical basis for the esoteric testing (ie: at least some support in the medical literatutre for the physiologic basis of the proposed test and at least some outcome related work done by one or more separate clinicians which indicates some degree of efficacy and how you tell which patients it may be efficacious for).Some esorterinc tests are developed from the need to find more things which may be revenue generating to do with certain expensive lab equipment which has certain capabilities, and/or to create product diversification to ensure continued growth.Some "nutritional testing" profiles, for example, created by some labs are to me particularly amusing as the product information provided expounds in great detail about ths significance of the parameters based upon suppositions of the developers alone.Now if they can provide some information which backs-up a claim of effectiveness with some clincal results, while there will always be debate among those who do not necessarily accept the postulates upon which the test is based and those who offer and use it, at least as a consumer you have some outcome documentation to base a decision upon as to whether or not you beleive the esoteric test may be of benefit to you.But if all you get is a written speech from a company official and there is no other supporting documentation offered vis a vis the physiologic basis of the test in question and its clinical application I would sugest it is not provided because it does not exist. Even new technologies developed by little tiny early-stage purveyors can, if it exists, generate reference material which would support the phsyiologic basis for the test, and some outome assessments of its applications. I mean, they had to use it on some patients somewhere to see if it had some clinical value no? And it must be based upon some physiology which is known and documentable, yes?I know what Steve means, anyway, being around the biz as they say...sometimes you get a test offered with all these grandiose claims but all the customer can seem to get is the esay written by somebody in the company who conceived the test.It can be annoying to speak to one of these people and say, for example, 'So you say this [bug] does XYZ if it is present in ABC concentration. Who discovered this....is there a description of this in book or paper or article or something describing some specific cases' and to be waved off or have your question dismissively answered with this "so you are just some allopathic non-beleiver" attitude. Duh...listen to me, I am far from it, but I just would lke to know what you base the supposition upon.I am not, by the way, naming names here it just so happens that this is the thread where Steve made a good point and I felt it bore reinforcement.Eat well. Think well. Be well.MNL______________ www.leapallergy.com