I'm interested. I've already tried to invest in lower-cost diagnostic kits for other diseases, but the company never achieved their price goals.

I am, I might add, probably the last person on earth that should be investing in life sciences since all my experience is in business/financial services, marketing and software. I have a decent amount of experience with patents, though.

Quick question: What is the real benefit of the saliva test you mention on your site? I mean, your HIVgene diagnostic kit seems to approach the issue from the wrong angle, IMHO. If anything, it seems like telling someone they have heightened natural resistance to a disease is almost irresponsible - it's like handing a "Get Out of Jail Free - MAYBE" card to them. Am I missing something?

For people that are HIV+, the CCR5 delta32 mutation indicates a slower progression to AIDS. It's not a reliable enough measure to adjust dosages of anti-retroviral drugs though eventually we expect CCR5 delta32 to be part of a suite of tests to determine optimal HIV drug dosage.

For HIV- individuals, the test can provide relative peace of mind. We still strongly advocate safe sex to everyone but certain populations of people are very interested in eliminating a lingering fear of HIV that persists even when safe sexual practices are followed.

One of the reasons we chose this mutation to test for is because CCR5 delta32 is a mutation that you want to have -- it's a positive mutation. Most genetic tests tell you things like you are destined to get Huntington's Disease and most people just aren't interested in learning bad things about their genetic makeup.

I'm confident in the economics of our business, send me an email and we can talk numbers. :)

Yeah, I read your site. I'll email you, but I'm posting this here to get input on this issue from others. Cheap marketing research. I really don't mean to bust chops.

I'm just not sure I agree with the 'feel good' angle of your diagnostic kit. There seems to be three options you can take with a genetic testing kit:

1."You are naturally resistant to X. Yay for you."

2."You are going to get or already have X disease. Sucks to be you. Please take your diseased carcass elsewhere to cry."

3. "You have an increased risk for X. Here are some things you can do about it."

I can see wanting to avoid option two, but I like option three better than option one. I guess I'm a pessimist. I'd much rather learn that I have an increased risk than a reduced risk (Well, I don't really want ANY bad news...but you know what I mean.) Knowing my wife was genetically predisposed to skin cancer, for example, would have allowed us to be more proactive in monitoring her skin and making appropriate decisions regarding food, stress, sunlight, etc. Instead, we were just lucky. Now we know, and we were also able to have the rest of her family get checked out. There is a known gene mutation for skin cancer and it would have been nice to know about it.

I agree that option 3 is a great thing to go, but the problem is that most people won't pay to have these tests done unless their insurance covers it. I doubt an insurance company will pay for it because it costs them more money to have regular screenings done if the individual is at higher risk, or the insurance company could drop coverage all together. It's unfortunate that the US health care system works this way. Also, I doubt people will decide to go get tested for increased risks for diseases unless their doctor recommends it; for most, ignorance is bliss, and they would rather not know. It's illogical, but that seems to be how a lot of people think.

I think it's a good idea to pursue both options 1 and 3; option 1 will allow you to get a steady income to allow you to expand to other more "useful" tests in option 3 and to pay for their FDA approval. Once more tests are developed, a package option could be offered which tested for all mutations, both the "feel good" ones and the increased risk ones.

As long as the resistance isn't 100%, aren't the options 1 and 3 basically the same from an individual's point of view? That is, can't you rephrase "You are naturally resistant" as "You don't have increased risk", as long as you talk to individuals rather than to societies? Like you explain, what people can do with this kind of information individually is get health advice that applies to them personally.

Edit: I think I should explicate that I think people take a doctor's opinion more seriously if they can see it's tailored to them more.

Hoo boy, I can hear it now. "Hey, according to this genetic test, it looks like your body naturally produces lots of LDLs, now let me tell you about Vytorin!"

OR: "Lay off the bratwursts, Lardass!"

Maybe they just need a "Don't be evil" motto? [chuckles]

Wow. It's after 4am here. Goodnight.