The Echo Chamber of the Big Lie

In this article, I examine one of the “Big Lies” made up and spread across the media.  It’s a clear example of “fake news” that was irresponsibly published first, and then reproduced and spread without any regard for journalistic ethics.  In reading the media coverage about Proove’s opioid risk test, you would think that it was a pure genetic test – yet the company was pretty clear that it wasn’t. If any reporter actually read the definition of “precision medicine”, they could’ve found the NIH web site.  But, it gets worse.  The news stories make it seem like there is no data to support it.  And so when you read these stories that make it seem like there is no scientific evidence, then the accusations about inducements and fraudulent billings make sense, right?  If the test isn’t support by science and doesn’t work, then a doctor must have a reason to order it and the billings would be unethical.  However, that couldn’t be farther from the truth.  Worse yet, companies with far less scientific evidence are reported as “scientifically valid”.  Let me share with you a chart that compares the Prescient Medicine LifeKit test with the Proove Biosciences Proove Opioid Risk test.  The contrast is startling, and when you realize that irresponsible reporters consider Prescient’s test “valid” and Proove’s not, you realize how little they really understand.




Scientific Validity of Its Algorithm Prescient Medicine Proove Biosciences
Product Features of Genetic Test to Identify Patients at Risk for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) 16 SNPs with an algorithm (which include the 11 SNPs from the Proove test) 11 SNPS and 6 non-genetic factors in a precision medicine algorithm
Patient Clinical Experience Less than 10,000 patients Over 150,000 patients
Number of Posters Presented at Major Scientific and Medical Meetings 2 posters presented in 2017 Over 100 posters presented in 2012-2017
Number of Awards or Recognitions from Major Medical Societies for the Study Posters Presented at those Meetings 0 research awards or recognitions 3 research awards or recognitions from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, American Academy of Neurology, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia
Clinical Validity Peer-Reviewed Published Studies to Establish Accuracy of Algorithm

1 published study


67 study patients (37 with patients with OUD and 30 matched controls)

3 published, peer-reviewed studies


908 patients (258 with OUD and 650 controls) in a pain management population

1,689 patients (452 with OUD and 1,237 controls) in a primary care population

187 patients (94 with OUD and 93 controls) in an addiction medicine population

Level of Accuracy ROC up to 0.92 in a study of 67 patients ROC up to 0.967 in 3 studies of 2,784 patients
Clinical Utility Peer-Reviewed Published Studies to Demonstrate that Patients Get Better and Costs Are Reduced When Clinicians Use the Algorithm 0 published studies or posters

2 published, peer-reviewed studies


5,397 patients across 100 clinics

5,315 patients across 76 clinics

Level of Value to Impact Outcomes No published data

100% effective in preventing opioid use disorder

Average reduction of 3.4 points on a 0-10 pain scale when guiding treatment based on this information results, 42% or 49% reduction in pain

Savings of $3,210 annually per patient

Lies and Mischaracterizations Spread by the Media

Reporters suggest that this Scientifically Valid?


Reporters suggest that this Not Scientifically Valid?
Objective Assessment Based on the Empirical Evidence Limited data with one small study

Extensive data with multiple published studies – both clinical validity and clinical utility

Involvement of leading researchers in pain genetics

Research awards

The most widely published, scientifically-validated measure to identify risk for Opioid Use Disorder – especially with high accuracy for low risk patients – a major clinical deficiency of existing free questionnaires like the ORT and SOAPP-R