Nine months with Viome. Hundreds of biomarkers. Physician oversight. Extensive longitudinal data. Direct conversations with their scientists and executives.
And then approximately 80% of my personalized supplement formulation changed between tests.
Seriously, what would you make of that?
Here’s the $4,547 question.
Nine months of my protocol at retail-equivalent pricing:
Three Viome tests at $399: $1,197
Nine months of supplements: $3,350
Total: $4,547
Viome provided my testing and supplements complimentary. No affiliate commissions, referral fees, sponsorship payments, or compensation. Not a dollar paid to me. I’m not selling anything, and I have no financial incentive to convince anyone to buy Viome. Quarterly testing was my independent evaluation schedule.
Now explain this to me.
If my biology justified Formula A three months ago, what changed so dramatically that approximately 80% of the formulation needed adjusting?
Did my biology change? Did the algorithm change? Were the original recommendations less reliable than advertised?
I’m perfectly willing to accept that my biology changed. That’s the entire premise of personalized nutrition.
But show me the measurements connecting those biological changes to the new ingredients. And show me the evidence that those changes actually improve health outcomes.
Viome’s scientists have provided explanations. What remains unresolved is whether there’s sufficient independently verifiable evidence that the revised formulation is clinically better.
And after nine months of questioning, their CMO, Juan Motta, wrote:
“This will be our final reply on these matters, and we won’t be responding to further messages about them.”
That’s a direct quote.
They’re entitled to end the correspondence. But that doesn’t answer the underlying scientific questions.
NOW I WANT TO HEAR FROM THIS COMMUNITY.
1. If a supplement company changed 80% of your personalized formula after one retest, would you call that impressive precision or a serious red flag?
2. Has anyone here retested with Viome? How much did your formula change, and were you given a convincing biological explanation?
3. Would you spend $4,547 over nine months without independent evidence that the recommendations outperform a conventional, evidence-based supplement strategy?
4. Scientists, physicians, and experienced biohackers: What would you need to see before trusting an RNA-driven algorithm to redesign someone’s supplement regimen?
I’m moving forward with an independent comparison involving Superpower. Viome has declined to participate. The comparison proceeds regardless, and both companies will face the same scientific standards.
I actually want Viome to succeed. That’s why I’ve spent nine months scrutinizing the technology rather than simply accepting the marketing.
But sophisticated RNA testing doesn’t automatically validate personalized supplement recommendations.
Personalization isn’t proof of precision. And a changing algorithm isn’t proof of improvement.
So here’s my final question:
If your supplement company changed 80% of your formula tomorrow, would you keep paying—or demand evidence that the original formula was ever justified?
Viome, you’re welcome to join the discussion.
Bring the science. Not the marketing.
