Congrats on an audacious project! Unfortunately, main site not working for me. So, "at least two of our expert researchers will validate test results to rule

Congrats on an audacious project! Unfortunately, main site not working for me. So, "at least two of our expert researchers will validate test results to rule out any errors"? What does that mean, exactly? As a board certified pathologist, I have some idea what I mean by validation, but what do you mean? Next, the featured testimonial from "Jerry W." sounds fishy - it may be genuine, but it seems like it was written by marketing, and lacks any detail to provide credibility to skeptical evaluators. Next, when research is published, there is a p value, perhaps 0.04. When you provide your recommendations to patients, I'm sure you are smart enough to hedge appropriately. How do you communicate that? Do you guarantee follow-up if new research modifies the confidence of your previous recommendations? Finally, research evaluating one treatment versus another typically are provided in the context of routine patient care for the average patient. Your clientele here, clearly, are not run of the mill patients. With the proposed fee structure, they are also not likely pursuing routine treatment. This suggests that routinely published research will be less applicable to your customers. This amounts to being a huge selection bias. How do you plan to adjust for this issue? (As a specific example for one class of these problems, for those not familiar with these kinds of issues: the reason we don't perform routine mammograms in women starting at age 20 is not just cost - the prevalence is so low in this age range that the false positive rate is very high. So, patients who obtain a mammogram at age 20 for "screening" are at higher risk of false positives.)