Can you address the criticism I’ve read about MALDI-TOF being limited due to the reliance on bacteria culture of the stool specimen, i.e., only the organisms that grow can be ID’d with MALDI-TOF? What about the anaerobes and parasites that can’t be cultured? I know you use both Doctor’s Data and BioHealth stool tests, but I’m trying to find a one-stop-shop for both convenience and cost and catching all the critters we need to find. Have you looked at Diagnostic Solutions Lab? I’m going to get a stool sample myself and send it to all three labs and see what I can get.

Chris Kresser: Yeah, I’ve looked at that lab. They are also using DNA/PCR technology, and they offer a pretty limited range of markers, so they are testing for some organisms, but you don’t get a lot of the crucial information that you get from the Doctor’s Data panel on digestion and absorption and inflammatory markers like calprotectin and lactoferrin, etc. I think I went through this in pretty good detail. All of the methodologies have some pros and cons, like in the beginning of the stool testing unit. The DNA/PCR technology, while it will eventually certainly be what we use, it’s not commercially ready for primetime yet, as I argued there. We’re continuing to talk with all of the key players at all of these labs to learn more about their methodologies because they’re evolving quickly, as I’m sure you’ve noticed. The Genova stool test has changed pretty considerably over the last couple of years. As a matter of fact, I have another call scheduled with Dr. Quig and a couple of other folks at Doctor’s Data about some new information that they have, and so I’ll keep you posted on anything that I learn about from this ongoing investigation.