Scientifically correct statements and procedures are our top priority. Therefore, in this article I would like to explain to you how strong the scientific basis of the statements and programs in our portfolio are.

The symbol system

To make the status of science clear, we have developed a symbol system that shows you on what scientific basis each program is based.

• Wissenschaft zu den Genen vorhanden
• Wissenschaft zu den Empfehlungen vorhanden
• Program based on logical reasoning
• Customer feedback given on effectiveness
• Internal experiments have proven mode of action
• External studies have demonstrated effectiveness of the combined recommendation

Wissenschaft zu den Genen vorhanden

This is the first step we scientifically investigate before we include a gene variation in one of our analysis programs. Here we are also very strict. As a medically approved laboratory, we require at least… for a statement about the effect of a gene variation:

• 3 independent scientific studies that have investigated this effect.
• These must be peer-reviewed and internationally recognized – Conducted by at least 3 different scientists
• On at least 3 different groups of people

If these 3 independent studies provide the same result (e.g. genetic defect X leads to lactose intolerance) it is considered by us to be scientifically sufficiently well-founded and released for the programs. This is the usual procedure in medical diagnostic genetic laboratories and the minimum requirement according to the Austrian Law on Medical Genetics.

Wissenschaft zu den Empfehlungen vorhanden

This step is essential to ensure that recommendations can have an impact. The recommendations we make must therefore either have been tested several times in published studies and found to be effective, or have been published in official medical or government guidelines.

Examples are:

• Increase folic acid intake lowers homocysteine in blood
• Increase antioxidant intake fights free radicals (oxidative stress)
• Avoiding lactose reduces digestive problems in lactose intolerant people
• Drug X should be avoided in case of genetic defect Y – phlebotomy therapy helps to reduce excess iron in the blood

Thus, only recognized and scientifically studied recommendations for action based on a genetic result are recommended.

Program based on logical reasoning

In some situations, recommendations are based on logical conclusions as a consequence to a specific genetic outcome that have not yet been explored in formal guidelines or studies.

Examples:

Person has deficiency of vitamin XYZ in blood.

Logical conclusion: increase these vitamins through supplementation.

Person carries genes that increases fat sensitivity in relation to body weight.

Logical recommendation: reduce fat content in the diet

Person carries gene variations that make weight loss through exercise more effective.

Logical recommendation: exercise more to lose weight better

Person does not have a functioning gene necessary to convert coenzyme Q10 to the active form.

Logical conclusion: do not recommend coenzyme Q10 as a dietary supplement

Person has gene variations that predispose to lactose intolerance.

Logical conclusion: warn person that dairy products can cause digestive problems

Person carries genetic variations that make them have side effects with drug X.

Logical conclusion: warn person to be careful with this drug.

So these are logical conclusions from the genetic results. Many areas of medicine are based on this principle.

Customer feedback given on effectiveness

Giving a person genetic information is often not enough. It is important that persons can also implement the recommendations properly. For these reasons, we collect a lot of information and feedback from our customers to continuously improve the programs. Since we do not sell directly to end users, but to caregivers who use our programs as tools to achieve weight loss, for example, our programs must also achieve results or we lose our partners. For this reason, it is important to us that we collect feedback on the effectiveness or potential for improvement of the analysis and continuously improve it.

Internal experiments have proven mode of action

In some situations, it is possible to study the effectiveness of our programs in internal experiments. Examples include our internal study of the effectiveness of our weight loss program on 302 individuals.

Here is an important point to mention: Critics see studies conducted or funded by commercial entities that would benefit from a particular outcome as biased and not to be taken seriously. Of course, we try to be scientifically correct and neutral in our own studies, but this accusation is definitely a critical point that should not be ignored. On the other hand, it presents serious scientific companies with a difficult problem to solve: it is required that the effect of exactly that company’s program be scientifically studied and published. However, the company should neither conduct these experiments itself nor pay for the external research. Then, unless an independent scientist can build a career and resources around examining the claims and programs of this company, this kind of research will never happen.

In some situations, it is not so easy to prove the effect of recommendations in our own experiments, because the effects only become apparent over several years (osteoporosis prevention measures) or are difficult to study, for example (side effect of drug X, which only a few people worldwide take). In these cases, the recommendations are based on external guidelines and large external studies, rather than on their own experiments. In such cases, this icon is grayed out.

External studies have demonstrated effectiveness of the combined recommendation

Critics of genetic analysis programs of this type have an important argument that you should be aware of: a logical conclusion based on a genetic result (reduce fat with a genetic fat sensitivity) is not sufficient for some/many to call it scientifically proven. They first demand scientific proof that people who follow these logical conclusions have experienced statistically significant added value.

So it’s not enough in that view:

Person has genetics for lactose intolerance = Warn against foods containing lactose

It is required:

Person has genetics for lactose intolerance = Warn against lactose-containing foods = Do own study to see if people with these genetics who were warned ended up healthier than if they had not done the genetic test. If so, it is scientifically proven.

We, too, would be delighted to have such studies on any topic that examines the effectiveness of any program. Unfortunately, it is in the nature of basic research that many universities and scientists are interested in the cause of effects (e.g. cause of lactose intolerance) and therefore investigate this elaborately in studies. A demonstration of the effectiveness of logical reasoning are a focus of only a few scientists and thus no science of this type has been published in many fields.

Thus, if this icon is grayed out, they need to be aware that while the science of the impact of genes does exist and the recommendations are obvious logical conclusions based on the results, the effectiveness of the corresponding program in this form is has not yet been clearly scientifically proven.

For these reasons, advertising with such statements must also be viewed critically and is prohibited in many cases.