[kathysgeek]

Unfortunately, urine mycotoxin testing is not diagnostically significant.

"Even if we are presented with impeccable lab results from ELISA and thorough use of standard differential diagnosis (we aren’t), based on world-wide control data, and a robust literature on CIRS, there is no basis to ascribe any diagnostic significance to urine mycotoxin testing" https://www.survivingmold.com/Publications/Urinary_mycotoxin...

However, there are significant blood tests including Transforming Growth Factor Beta-1 and Complement C4-A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGF_beta_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4A

[notslow]

I recognize urine mycotoxin tests are potentially controversial, but these tests were very diagnostically significant for us and our mold journey. The mycotoxins that were off the charts in our tests matched the mold that was eventually found in our house (after multiple mold inspectors missed it).

This area is definitely more "gray" than implied by your comment. I have tremendous respect for Shoemaker, but there are some gaps in that paper that did not appear to address how our practitioner used those tests for us. Many of the studies mentioned in the meta-review focus on the presence or absence of mycotoxins not the measured amount. Also, our practitioner used the test "backwards" compared to procedure outlines in the review paper. Our practitioner used the test before we had any evidence that we lived in a water-damaged building, whereas the paper is specifically focused on determining cause of illness after exposure to a water-damaged building.

[hda111]

I thought the tests were controversial because mycotoxins is also contained in some foods. Most research papers don’t use a reference group that isn’t affected by mold.