That's exactly what I did.

Let me be the one to beg forgiveness if I've said any of this, of if you've heard it, before. Some of it will be for the benefit of others, current & future, who may come upon this thread.

When I read (present tense) your words—many of which I could have written myself—I recognize and feel where so many of us are—or have been. I perceive anxiety/fear, frustration, and desperation. I also infer/perceive a vulnerability that can arise from those feelings.

PN is a life-changing event/illness. Those of us it affects severely enough to come here are (virtually without exception) experiencing the Kübler-Ross model with respect to life-changing events (in this case health/illness issues) whether chronic or curable/reversible.

One of those stages is bargaining; we're willing to believe/do/try almost anything to help ourselves.
I've been there. I may be there again (and again). There are no rules when it comes to those stages except that we all go through them—some of them more than once.

None of this is any secret. Neither is it a secret that there are countless people in the world ready to exploit other peoples' pain & suffering and resultant vulnerability in order to part them from whatever they have, and they have no compunction about what they're willing to say/do to accomplish that.

With that in mind, this test isn't the first new thing to come down the pipe. The archives, google, youtube... are full of more than I can even imagine—supplements/formulas, electronic devices, books, topicals, and yes... tests that allegedly tell us what's wrong with us and what we need to do/take to rectify/purify/cure us. Another controversial test deemed "inappropriate" is the ALCAT test.

Quote:

"These results have been shown to not be reproducible, give different results when duplicate samples are analysed blindly, don't correlate with those from conventional testing, and 'diagnose' food hypersensitivity in subjects with conditions where food allergy is not considered to play a pathogenic role."

Some of these "advances" may have some scientific basis in theory, and some even have FDA approval (my previous comment about FDA approval goes both ways). Many of these "advances" have been discussed here. The Rebuilder comes to mind (E Pluribus Unum). Search the archives for Rebuilder. (Links to archive searches don't always work here. )

Some things these "advances" all have in common include: Names with letters following them (people who seem very intelligent), glowing endorsements/recommendations/testimonials (mention in many places), scientific "proof" of their efficacy/value (seemingly cogent explanations), new cutting-edge technology that no-one else has, or recognizes... in short, everything you'd expect to find in a top-shelf bonafide advance—except supporting evidence/science.

I've been sucked in myself, and have spent/p'd-away literally thousand$ chasing rainbows. I'm too embarrassed to mention some of them. What's worse, my DW was willing to spend even more, because she loves me, can't bear to see me suffer, and would sacrifice all.

When some of these advances actually yield positive results (which can happen in ANY crapgame, and that's something purveyors [can] count on) it complicates/obscure matters. Unfortunately, the placebo effect has lots of inadvertant results beyond therapeutic statistical anomaly. One is a flawed cause-effect rationale.

With experience(s) on this board, awareness of the stages of grief, some formal training in objective observation, a somewhat skeptical nature, and ongoing self-interest in improving my own plight, when I see some new development mentioned here or elswhere, and/or my curiosity is piqued, I look into them.

First, I look at the links/webpages originally provided, and at the company's (when applicable) website in general. Then I look to see what other kinds of links come up—what are they selling, where are they being talked about—credible mainstream sites/publications or healthcare/scientific fringe? What I do not see can sometimes be more telling than what I do see. Then I look for supporting evidence/studies. Then I look for/at criticisms.

I have done, and do, pretty much the same kind of analysis on other things, so please don't feel singled out, or that I have some kind of grudge here. I went into it with an open mind because I'd never heard about this before you mentioned it, and in the spirit of what you asked:

...I offered what I found out. Like others here (Neuropathy / Health forums skew perception??), my desire/intent is to share my experience. My experience tells me in this case, caveat emptor.

I take it the same applies to testing? I appreciate your willingness to take a flyer. I'm fond of saying, "If it can't hurt to try it, then it can't hurt to try it." But I'm generally talking about a supplement, exercise, diet, things like that. What harm is there in a bogus test? Beyond the financial, no test is infallible/without error (which can happen with a serum test as well, but not at ~$400 a pop). Time/energy wasted pursuing potentially false leeds that could have been spent in supportable protocols. I don't know enough medicine to even think of all the potential pitfalls/problems, but I know that I don't know. Maybe that's a good follow-up question to ask.

Doc