Thanks for the interest.
The results of the GI-Map test from DSL were negative for all the protozoans it looked for including blastocystis.
However, the story doesn't quite end there as the other results in the panel raised some cause for concern.
Both my partner and I also had an alternate stool quantitative PCR test performed only a couple of months ago by another industry-leading testing company (Ubiome).
Where the same taxa are tested in both tests the comparison of results raises some concerns.
Specifically –
1. Even at Phyla level (where the testing companies tell us their results are most accurate and reliable), the results are radically different
a. DSL result
b. uBiome result
Summary
i. DSL firmicutes / Bacteroidetes ratio 0.30
ii. Ubiome firmicutes / Bacteroidetes ratio 1.28
Ie The results of the two tests are radically inconsistent
2. at the genus level, which all manufacturers and testing companies tell us can be reliably detected using this wonderful molecular technology, there are even more radical differences....
a. DSL result
b. Ubiome result
Summary -
i. All of the DSL detected bacteria are entirely absent from the Ubiome result -
(with the exception of organisms from the enterococcus genus which appears at a count 36 times higher than the normal healthy maximum in the dsl result. Whereas this entire genus is detected at around 100 times lower than the average in the ubiome result. So this is also an opposite conclusion)
Now, gut flora in humans is known to be quite stable over time, largely from childhood onwards, and especially so in the shorter term and particularly if diet has remained the same between samples, which in our case has definitely been the case.
In fact, we have done none of the things that are known to impact the gut microbiome the most:
- Neither of us has had antibiotics in the intervening time ( nor any other pharmaceuticals for that matter)
- Nor undertaken any other gut treatments of any kind in that time
- Nor have we changed our diet in any way ( in fact we are strictly observing the same diet from well before the first test).
- Nor has our lifestyle changed ( again we have stuck to the same protocol for the last 18months)
It is therefore
extremely unlikely that both our bacterial communities have changed so radically in this time.
If they did change, then the chances of both mine and my partners changing in the same direction at the same time are even smaller and the chance that multiple( many)genera detected only a few months ago in both of us in high numbers are no longer present at all in either of us is smaller still.
I think it fair to say we would be talking of vanishingly small probabilities of this hypothetical scenario having actually taken place. And since we are talking of more than one individual sample tested in both labs, this is clearly not a one-off anomaly.
We must, therefore, assume the largest variable is the tests themselves.
Put simply one (or both) tests are a long way from correctly identifying and counting the organisms present.
For those of you who are familiar with stool PCR testing methodologies. There are two methods in use. Some simply put the sample in an airtight tube and ship it to be processed, others choose to preserve the sample in a preservative solution at the point of sample taking to prevent further microbial growth.
In this case, both of the above companies test methodologies involve stabilizing the sample at source such that no further microbial growth occurs, which removes this variable as a potential explanation in this case.
This also indicates that the difference in the tests lies downstream in the process.
Every company will, I am sure, insist that theirs is the reliable and more accurate test, but, given the above, this simply cannot be the case.
As a patient people need to know the tests offered are reliable and consistent with each other to a significant degree and this is clearly not the case yet.
Simply put, if there is no standardized way of knowing which test has value and which test does not, then they are all equally suspect to the consumer.
I raised these concerns to both companies involved and asked for their comment on the above, however despite promises of responses, after chasing them for many weeks no such reply has been forthcoming.
Sorry it's not a more positive result for anyone interested in similar illness/testing path
My advice (as many of the better practitioners also recommend) when using independent test labs, and especially if it's using any of the newer (less than around 30 years of clinical use) bear in mind its an industry and its first objective is to make money. Therefore it's wise to do more than one test for the same thing at a time to put yourself in a better position to verify the results you get.