I was updating myself on biomarkers and I can across this video by the CEO of Optimal DX. This platform is WIDELY used by functional doctors as providing the authoritative interpretation of blood chemistry. They also enjoy the system because it automates a report and gives a vast number of suggestions leading to the sale of supplements.
Immediately, this presents a problem. For example, let's consider that you and me have the same level of hs-CRP. Should we get the same treatment. Should we get the same supplements? Maybe not!
Biomarkers from the blood are objective but do NOT indicate root causes. I know surveys are boring, but the "subjective" from the surveys define root-causes - THE WHY - while the blood biomarkers provide - THE WHAT. Biomarkers are best used to define physiological risk and follow the efficacy of treatment.
For instance, I have root canals and you have a poor diet leading to elevated fibrinogen. Should we both get the same supplements?
Listen to the talk.
How he explains fibrinogen is mostly correct. It is actually a circulating signal molecule that converts to fibrin to repair tissue damage and recruits other cytokines.
His reference range for fibrinogen is: 295 - 369 mg/dL
THE CORRECT REFERENCE RANGE IS:
185 - 285 mg/dL
HERE IS ONE OF MANY STUDIES PROVING MY POINT.
Reference: American Heart Association
Do you want to be above 285?
Would you relish being called "normal" at 350 where the excess mortality is 21%
Where did Optimal DX go wrong?
Although he sited many studies, they have variable endpoints. We know you cannot compare apples to oranges. This was the main issue with his interpretation.
Ugh.... Also he indicates that achieving a fibrinogen level in the range he suggests may be difficult to achieve.
I HOPE SO - because healthy people have a value below his 295!
Do NOT strive to RAISE your fibrinogen if you are 185 - 285.
Before you look at these charts, allow me to quote Dr. Thomas Sowell.
"COMPARED TO WHAT?"
Optimal DX provides a very long report to both patients and practitioners, creating all kinds of fancy charts. Here are a couple.
Punch line... One of the charts is called "COMPARATIVE REPORT"
If each biomarkers reference range (risk) is based on DIFFERENT ENDPOINTS - how can you create such a chart and deem it accurate?
YOU CANNOT - APPLES - TO - APPLES IS NOT PRESENTED IN THESE REPORTS.
SIDE NOTE - HE THINKS HIGH CHOLESTEROL IS A BIG CARDIOVASCULAR RISK FACTOR.....
Note, the cholesterol value is marked as quite high and optimal is 160 - 180. For the person in question, that data is COMPLETELY WRONG.
Regarding fibrinogen. That Standard-of-Care reference range is much more accurate compared to the Optimal DX value on the low side.
At least the standard of care range includes a segment of a range defining optimal health wrt to fibrinogen levels.
In the case of Optimal DX - there is no value they consider optimal THAT IS ACTUALLY OPTIMAL.......
Weekly Webinar Links: Join us for detailed health information - at no charge. All are welcome.
Monday at noon EST -
Wednesday at 8 pm EST -
Be Bold - Be Brave - Stay Well