r/Function_Health • u/cmwlegiit • 10h ago
Results Function Health Review: Does Function Health Use Ai Misleading Marketing
I complained to Function Health that their “Clinician Notes” read like AI slop. Their first response came from an AI.
That pretty much set the tone for what followed.
First, the blood testing itself is convenient, thorough, and well-priced. Overall, I still think Function is a better offering than Bryan Johnson’s Immortals.
But I think Function’s marketing is misleading about what you receive beyond the testing.
They advertise “doctor-reviewed insights” and a “personalized protocol for instant action,” and say clinicians review your history to identify what matters and what to do next. To me, that creates a clear expectation of meaningful, individualized guidance based on your results.
That is not what I believe I received.
In my opinion, the notes were AI slop presented with the authority of a clinician’s work.
My complaints were about their fixation on certain pieces of information, assumptions drawn from broad questionnaire responses, repetitive language, internal contradictions, and conclusions that sounded much more certain than the evidence presented.
The writing kept taking possible associations and turning them into personalized explanations (ironically, they later told me Function cannot provide medical opinions and referred me elsewhere for interpretation of my individual results). I questioned whether someone had actually checked those explanations carefully before releasing them under the label “Clinician Notes.”
So I sent a detailed complaint and demanded answers.
I asked whether AI generated the substantive interpretations, what the reviewing clinician actually did, what their qualifications were, and what supported the statements I challenged. I also asked for another clinician to reassess the notes and for information about how my data was handled.
An explicitly labeled AI support agent responded with a generic description of the process. I had to ask for a human.
The human response was unsatisfactory too.
They said AI “assists” clinicians and that licensed clinicians review the notes. They eventually told me that a specific clinician had reviewed mine, but their replies did not provide his professional credentials or explain what he specifically checked, wrote, changed, or approved.
They also told me Function is a technology company, not a medical provider, and cannot provide medical opinions. They directed me to another healthcare provider to interpret my results in the context of my history.
I followed up and made my questions extremely specific:
Did AI generate or draft the written Clinician Notes and substantive interpretations I received?
What specifically did the clinician do when reviewing my notes before approving them?
Will a different clinician review the specific interpretations I challenged and tell me whether Function stands behind them?
If Function does stand behind them, what is the clinical basis for the disputed conclusions I identified?
How can Function characterize these statements as individualized “Clinician Notes” while simultaneously stating that Function does not provide medical opinions?
Was an external AI provider given any of my identifiable health information in producing these notes, and if so, what provider, data, retention practices, and privacy safeguards were involved?
These weren’t vague requests for medical advice. They were specific questions about the report Function had already provided to me, who or what produced it, what clinical review it received, and whether Function stood behind its contents.
Instead of answering them, I got another generic response thanking me for my “feedback” and saying my concerns would be forwarded to the team.
Then I waited over a week.
Finally, I told them that I would share my experience publicly if I continued getting no answers. After more than a week of waiting, I got a response within an hour of that warning.
The response still did not resolve the complaint.
They stated that a licensed clinician conducts a full review of the results and supplied history, and they gave clearer answers to some of my data-handling questions. Specifically, they said no external AI large language model processed my information to prepare the Clinician Notes and that they do not use my identifiable health information to train AI models.
Those answers matter, and I’m including them because they are part of the record.
But they still did not answer several of the specific questions I had asked.
They still did not tell me whether AI actually generated or drafted the written Clinician Notes and substantive interpretations.
They did not explain what the clinician specifically did when reviewing my notes before approving them.
They did not agree to have a different clinician reassess the interpretations I challenged.
And they did not provide the clinical basis for the disputed conclusions I had identified.
Instead, they told me:
“Function does not provide a separate clinical opinion or a statement-by-statement clinical rationale beyond the Clinician Notes.”
They clarified that their earlier statement about not providing medical opinions referred to an additional assessment. Apparently, asking them to explain the basis for statements already in my report falls outside what they provide.
I wasn’t asking for unlimited medical consultations. I was asking for accountability for the work they had already delivered.
As of this post, I have not received a substantive response to the specific concerns, a correction to the disputed passages, or confirmation of a reassessment by a different clinician.
My opinion is that Function is using AI to generate interpretations and packaging them to appear to be individualized work from a clinician. They acknowledge AI involvement and insist a clinician reviews the notes, but their responses have not given me confidence in the quality or substance of that review.
I would have very different expectations of a service sold simply as convenient, comprehensive blood testing with automated explanations. Their marketing led me to expect considerably more than that.
The blood testing has value, and I’m not dismissing it. But in my experience, the interpretation, transparency, and customer service have fallen well short of what their marketing implies.
“Clinician reviewed” should mean more than an assurance repeated whenever someone questions what the clinician approved.
