[danielgomari]

Appreciate the level of scrutiny, which is important for products like ours.

Re the affiliations, it is correct that these institutions aren’t directly endorsing iollo. Though both Jan and I are actively affiliated with said institutions and are translating what we have learned through our metabolomics research into iollo.

One thing to clarify here is that currently, we don’t treat patients and our tests are only intended to improve wellness. That being said, we do see biomarkers for specific food intake. Coffee is one example, where if someone has an unusually high levels of the biomarker for it and has difficulty sleeping during the night, reducing coffee intake may improve their sleep level and quality. We also have metabolites that associate with specific food, like beer, meat, vegetables and other that we can already use and that have been published. Also as our database grows, we’ll be able identify new food intake markers and will also publish and use them.

At our current stage, we don’t recommend any supplements. It is a part of our roadmap and once we do, we will only give supplement recommendations if we identify solid research that support their health benefits that can also be detected through metabolomics analysis.

Re the age-related diseases, what we mean on the website is that the genetic population attributable fraction for age-related diseases is around 15%, and that biological layers that captures the interactions between genetics and the environment which are related to these conditions is ~85%, which includes the metabolome. Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... We’ll work on further clarifying the language in a way that it would still be understandable from people outside of the research field.

[balanoceous]

Daniel, you are working in a field that has a low tolerance for doublespeak.

Parent has politely pointed out that the website needs revision. 85% of disease is related to the blood metabome? No. You will be detecting early disease signatures in a clincally actionable manner? No, you will almost certainly not be, and you know this.

The data isn't actually PHI. Stanford isn't actually a partner. AI in this field isn't actually real. Nature Medicine isn't actually Nature. Ect.

For historical reasons the benefit of doubt with regard to the scientific credibility of your startup is low. In my opinion, it would be better if you made an effort not to prove this assumption correct.

[austinjp]

> Re the affiliations, it is correct that these institutions aren’t directly endorsing iollo.

You may want to talk to the relevant departments in the universities you list, their "innovations" or "spin-out" teams. Typically they have very specific terms under which you can use their logos and mention any form of association. You may well be in breach, and if you work in those universities this could land you in trouble.

[JshWright]

> Coffee is one example, where if someone has an unusually high levels of the biomarker for it and has difficulty sleeping during the night, reducing coffee intake may improve their sleep level and quality.

This doesn't seem like something you need a blood test to figure out...

[frittata]

A quick counter point to the parent comment: I'd actually love to have supplement recommendations from a trusted source. I've heard on multiple occasions that many supplements found in large retailers don't have the ingredients they claim to have. So that would be highly valuable to me.

[vocram]

That just moves the trust from the supplement brand to who recommends it. You are still left with a problem of trust.

[ac29]

I've heard https://www.consumerlab.com/ recommended a few times - they run a membership based service that reviews supplements.

No personal experience with them, though (and I am skeptical about supplements in general).