Thank you both for your thoughtful comments and for engaging so deeply with the series—it's great to see readers connecting the dots and sharing their experiences.
Regarding the OligoScan (also known as Oligo/Check in some regions): Yes, I'm familiar with it, in part from researching for this seven part series, although I haven't used it. For the benefit of other readers: OligoScan is a non-invasive handheld device that uses spectrophotometry (measuring light absorption/reflection through the skin, typically on the palm) to estimate tissue levels of minerals, trace elements, vitamins, oxidative stress, and heavy metals in real time. Practitioners often value it for providing quick "intracellular" or "tissue" insights without blood draws, urine collections, or hair samples, which can feel more direct than circulating levels in serum/plasma.
That said, my opinion on its accuracy and reliability is cautious, leaning towards skeptical, and aligns with the broader evidence landscape we've discussed in this series (e.g., the need for robust validation of any biomarker). Strengths noted by users and some practitioner reports include its convenience, speed, and potential to reflect longer-term tissue storage (rather than transient blood fluctuations). Some comparative studies cited by manufacturers or users suggest reasonable correlation with lab methods for certain elements in controlled settings.
Limitations and criticisms from skeptical reviews (e.g. discussions on platforms like ResearchGate) highlight a lack of strong, independent, peer-reviewed validation. Key concerns include:No large-scale, blinded studies comparing OligoScan results head-to-head with gold-standard lab methods (e.g., ICP-MS on tissue biopsies or validated blood/urine/hair panels) across diverse populations. Listen, I bristle at the demands for large-scale, blinded studies before mainstream practitioners will adopt ANY therapy or testing, BUT, we're talking about a testing method which will guide treatment. It's really important to note whether a test is validated or not.
Potential variability from factors like skin thickness, temperature, hydration, calibration drift, or operator technique—common with handheld spectrophotometric devices.
Claims of "intracellular" or "tissue" accuracy are appealing in functional/integrative contexts but aren't strongly supported by rigorous external evidence; the technology measures optical properties at the skin surface, and extrapolating to whole-body intracellular status requires more substantiation.
It's not classified as a diagnostic medical device in many regulatory frameworks (e.g., not FDA-cleared for quantitative mineral/heavy metal assessment), so results are often positioned as "functional insights" rather than definitive clinical values.
In short: OligoScan could maybe, possibly be a useful screening or monitoring tool in the hands of experienced practitioners who integrate it with symptoms, history, diet, and other labs (similar to how we use hair or spot urine tests). But like serum/RBC zinc (which we've critiqued for capturing only a tiny fraction of total body zinc), it shouldn't stand alone as the definitive measure of status—especially for guiding major interventions. If your OligoScan shows low cellular zinc and other imbalances, it's worth correlating with additional markers (e.g., plasma zinc with inflammation adjustment, 24-hour urine for excretion dynamics, or even the Doctor's Data panel I mentioned in the post) to build a fuller picture.
I'm open to learning more—have you found the OligoScan trends consistent over time in your own follow-ups, or correlated well with symptom improvements? Thanks again for sharing your journey, and best wishes as you address those dental factors and support your thyroid health.
Feel free to reply with more details if you'd like to discuss further—I'm here! Because I'm a real clinician who sees real patients, it may be a hot minute before I respond, but I'll try.
Dear readers and fellow travelers in the zinc wilderness,
With this post—Part 7: Zinc Testing: Sand Castles in the Air?—we're reaching what feels like a natural pause in the Lightning Bug zinc series. We've journeyed from ketamine bridges and hippocampal sieges, through NMDA/AMPA balances, missed thresholds, double-edged swords, paradoxes, and now the shaky foundations of how we even measure zinc status.
For now, this marks the final installment... but only for now. My ongoing IRB-approved study (now four months in) with Adya Clarity and the Doctor's Data 24-hour Urine Toxic & Essential Elements test is generating intriguing preliminary data on real-time mineral dynamics, excretion shifts, and how ionic sulfated coherencing might unlock better utilization from the diet we already eat—no extra trace mineral megadosing required. As we analyze and extrapolate from those results over the coming months, I'll almost certainly return with updates, refinements, or even a "Part 8: Zinc Revisited" when the picture sharpens.
In the meantime, I'd love your input to see how this series has landed in real life. If you've been reading along, have you changed your approach to zinc assessment, supplementation, or testing? Noticed any shifts in symptoms, energy, mood, immunity, or other markers? What resonated most—or what questions remain?
It should take less than one minute, and your anonymous responses will help shape whatever comes next. (Substack surveys/polls are subscriber-only by default, but feel free to share thoughts in the comments too.)
Thank you for joining this exploration—your engagement has made it richer than I could have imagined. Let's keep the conversation going.
As Bill has already mentioned, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on oligoscans. Have you heard of it and/or utilized it? I also use oligocans for measuring heavy metals, minerals, and intercellular contents of these materials rather than contents in the blood stream, which can be misleading or inconclusive. Thanks for the great series of articles.
Further comment: my cellular zinc levels are quite low as are other issues. My first step now is addressing two root canals and three implants (with titanium posts). I believe they are the cause of poor thyroid performance. I’ve upped iodine to 50mg/day with 200 mg selenium to assure proper absorption. A large increase of zinc is involved as well. Please don’t comment on this regime, but kindly do so regarding the oligiscan. Thank you!
I believe you are on the right track with oligoscan. I use that as well. Also, it's great that you are addressing root canals, amalgam, and implants. Hope all this improves your thryoid performance - that was my goal as well.
Dear Cathryn and Bill,
Thank you both for your thoughtful comments and for engaging so deeply with the series—it's great to see readers connecting the dots and sharing their experiences.
Regarding the OligoScan (also known as Oligo/Check in some regions): Yes, I'm familiar with it, in part from researching for this seven part series, although I haven't used it. For the benefit of other readers: OligoScan is a non-invasive handheld device that uses spectrophotometry (measuring light absorption/reflection through the skin, typically on the palm) to estimate tissue levels of minerals, trace elements, vitamins, oxidative stress, and heavy metals in real time. Practitioners often value it for providing quick "intracellular" or "tissue" insights without blood draws, urine collections, or hair samples, which can feel more direct than circulating levels in serum/plasma.
That said, my opinion on its accuracy and reliability is cautious, leaning towards skeptical, and aligns with the broader evidence landscape we've discussed in this series (e.g., the need for robust validation of any biomarker). Strengths noted by users and some practitioner reports include its convenience, speed, and potential to reflect longer-term tissue storage (rather than transient blood fluctuations). Some comparative studies cited by manufacturers or users suggest reasonable correlation with lab methods for certain elements in controlled settings.
Limitations and criticisms from skeptical reviews (e.g. discussions on platforms like ResearchGate) highlight a lack of strong, independent, peer-reviewed validation. Key concerns include:No large-scale, blinded studies comparing OligoScan results head-to-head with gold-standard lab methods (e.g., ICP-MS on tissue biopsies or validated blood/urine/hair panels) across diverse populations. Listen, I bristle at the demands for large-scale, blinded studies before mainstream practitioners will adopt ANY therapy or testing, BUT, we're talking about a testing method which will guide treatment. It's really important to note whether a test is validated or not.
Potential variability from factors like skin thickness, temperature, hydration, calibration drift, or operator technique—common with handheld spectrophotometric devices.
Claims of "intracellular" or "tissue" accuracy are appealing in functional/integrative contexts but aren't strongly supported by rigorous external evidence; the technology measures optical properties at the skin surface, and extrapolating to whole-body intracellular status requires more substantiation.
It's not classified as a diagnostic medical device in many regulatory frameworks (e.g., not FDA-cleared for quantitative mineral/heavy metal assessment), so results are often positioned as "functional insights" rather than definitive clinical values.
In short: OligoScan could maybe, possibly be a useful screening or monitoring tool in the hands of experienced practitioners who integrate it with symptoms, history, diet, and other labs (similar to how we use hair or spot urine tests). But like serum/RBC zinc (which we've critiqued for capturing only a tiny fraction of total body zinc), it shouldn't stand alone as the definitive measure of status—especially for guiding major interventions. If your OligoScan shows low cellular zinc and other imbalances, it's worth correlating with additional markers (e.g., plasma zinc with inflammation adjustment, 24-hour urine for excretion dynamics, or even the Doctor's Data panel I mentioned in the post) to build a fuller picture.
I'm open to learning more—have you found the OligoScan trends consistent over time in your own follow-ups, or correlated well with symptom improvements? Thanks again for sharing your journey, and best wishes as you address those dental factors and support your thyroid health.
Feel free to reply with more details if you'd like to discuss further—I'm here! Because I'm a real clinician who sees real patients, it may be a hot minute before I respond, but I'll try.
Warm regards,
Scott Marsland, FNP-C
Dear readers and fellow travelers in the zinc wilderness,
With this post—Part 7: Zinc Testing: Sand Castles in the Air?—we're reaching what feels like a natural pause in the Lightning Bug zinc series. We've journeyed from ketamine bridges and hippocampal sieges, through NMDA/AMPA balances, missed thresholds, double-edged swords, paradoxes, and now the shaky foundations of how we even measure zinc status.
For now, this marks the final installment... but only for now. My ongoing IRB-approved study (now four months in) with Adya Clarity and the Doctor's Data 24-hour Urine Toxic & Essential Elements test is generating intriguing preliminary data on real-time mineral dynamics, excretion shifts, and how ionic sulfated coherencing might unlock better utilization from the diet we already eat—no extra trace mineral megadosing required. As we analyze and extrapolate from those results over the coming months, I'll almost certainly return with updates, refinements, or even a "Part 8: Zinc Revisited" when the picture sharpens.
In the meantime, I'd love your input to see how this series has landed in real life. If you've been reading along, have you changed your approach to zinc assessment, supplementation, or testing? Noticed any shifts in symptoms, energy, mood, immunity, or other markers? What resonated most—or what questions remain?
To make it easy, I've created a quick reader survey: https://lightningbug.substack.com/i/188323692/zinc-dosing-pollyour-turn
It should take less than one minute, and your anonymous responses will help shape whatever comes next. (Substack surveys/polls are subscriber-only by default, but feel free to share thoughts in the comments too.)
Thank you for joining this exploration—your engagement has made it richer than I could have imagined. Let's keep the conversation going.
In health and curiosity,
Scott Marsland, FNP-C
@RhusToxidendron on X
As Bill has already mentioned, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on oligoscans. Have you heard of it and/or utilized it? I also use oligocans for measuring heavy metals, minerals, and intercellular contents of these materials rather than contents in the blood stream, which can be misleading or inconclusive. Thanks for the great series of articles.
Further comment: my cellular zinc levels are quite low as are other issues. My first step now is addressing two root canals and three implants (with titanium posts). I believe they are the cause of poor thyroid performance. I’ve upped iodine to 50mg/day with 200 mg selenium to assure proper absorption. A large increase of zinc is involved as well. Please don’t comment on this regime, but kindly do so regarding the oligiscan. Thank you!
Hi Bill,
I believe you are on the right track with oligoscan. I use that as well. Also, it's great that you are addressing root canals, amalgam, and implants. Hope all this improves your thryoid performance - that was my goal as well.
I have had mineral and heavy metal testing done via oligiscan. Are you familiar with that method? Do you have an opinion on its accuracy?