Ordering the wrong health test wastes money and — worse — hands over incomplete information that leads to misguided interventions. AIP vs Standard Elimination Diet matters because each one reveals a different slice of the picture.
The short answer: start with the standard elimination diet. Only escalate to AIP if it’s done properly and still fails to resolve symptoms, or there’s a known autoimmune condition in play.
Both tests have legitimate clinical uses. The question isn’t which one’s “better” in the abstract. It’s which one answers the specific question the body is asking right now.
Functional medicine has opened up testing that goes well past what conventional medicine typically offers. More options means more decisions, though, and more chances to spend money on the wrong test. What follows is an honest comparison of these two tools, including the limitations the marketing materials conveniently skip.
What follows: what each test actually measures, its accuracy and limits, cost and accessibility, who should prioritize it, and how to use the results once they’re in hand.
Worth clarifying up front, because the framing above calls these “tests” — they aren’t lab tests in the biomarker sense. Both AIP and the standard elimination diet are diagnostic dietary protocols, not blood draws. The “result” isn’t a number on a lab report. It’s a symptom log, tracked before, during, and after a structured reintroduction sequence, that identifies which specific foods are driving a given problem. That distinction matters for how to interpret everything that follows: success or failure here depends heavily on the discipline of the tracking, not just the diet itself.
WHAT IS AIP?
Ballantyne, who holds a PhD in biomedical science and developed the protocol after her own experience with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and psoriasis, built AIP as an extension of the Paleo template rather than a wholly separate framework — it removes everything Paleo already excludes, then goes further by cutting nightshades (tomatoes, peppers, potatoes, eggplant), eggs, nuts, and seeds, all of which contain compounds theorized to increase intestinal permeability or trigger immune activation in susceptible people. The mechanistic argument, laid out in Ballantyne’s 2013 book The Paleo Approach, centers on the “leaky gut” hypothesis — that increased intestinal permeability allows undigested food particles and bacterial components (specifically lipopolysaccharide, or LPS) to cross into the bloodstream and trigger systemic immune activation. The strongest published evidence backing any version of this mechanism is Fasano’s 2011 review in Physiological Reviews, which established zonulin as a real, measurable regulator of tight-junction permeability in the gut wall — legitimate, well-cited science. Where AIP’s marketing outruns the evidence is in the leap from “intestinal permeability is a real and measurable phenomenon” to “these specific fourteen food categories are the primary drivers of it for most autoimmune patients.” That second claim is far less rigorously established.
The clinical outcomes data that does exist is real but small. Konijeti and colleagues published a 2017 pilot study in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases following 15 patients with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis through a six-week elimination phase followed by five weeks of reintroduction. Eleven of fifteen achieved clinical remission by week six, and eight of eleven maintained it through week eleven. That’s a genuinely encouraging result — and it’s also fifteen patients, no control group, and a design that can’t separate the effect of AIP specifically from the general benefit of any structured, closely monitored dietary intervention with regular clinician contact. Abbott and colleagues ran a similar small trial in 2019 in Crohn’s & Colitis 360 — 15 patients again, similar remission rates. Two small, uncontrolled pilot studies is a real signal worth taking seriously. It is not the kind of evidence base that supports the sweeping claims made about AIP across the wellness internet.
The standard elimination diet — as used in the Institute for Functional Medicine’s clinical protocol — removes the most common reactive foods: gluten, dairy, eggs, corn, soy, nightshades, peanuts, processed foods, alcohol, and caffeine. It keeps most other whole foods including grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds. This is less restrictive, more sustainable for 3-4 weeks, and sufficient to identify the majority of dietary contributors to inflammation, gut issues, and food sensitivity reactions.
The standard elimination diet’s lineage traces back further than AIP — versions of it have been used in allergy medicine since at least the 1940s, when Dr. Albert Rowe published early elimination-diet protocols for identifying food allergens, well before “functional medicine” existed as a named discipline. The modern IFM version keeps the core logic (remove suspect foods for a defined period, reintroduce one at a time, track the response) but narrows the list to the foods with the strongest evidence for triggering non-IgE-mediated sensitivity reactions: gluten, dairy, eggs, corn, soy, peanuts, nightshades, alcohol, caffeine, and refined sugar. It keeps grains other than gluten-containing ones, keeps legumes other than soy and peanuts, and keeps nuts and seeds — which is the entire practical difference between it and AIP. That difference sounds small on paper. In daily life it’s the difference between “I can eat rice, quinoa, lentils, and almonds” and “I can eat almost nothing that isn’t meat, fish, or vegetables,” which is a massive gap in how livable the two protocols actually are.
AIP VS STANDARD ELIMINATION DIET: WHICH TEST GIVES YOU BETTER INFORMATION
The gap between AIP and Standard Elimination Diet runs deeper than the quick-comparison version. The table below is the orientation pass. The detail that actually helps decide is in the breakdown that follows it.
| Criterion | AIP | Standard Elimination Diet |
|---|---|---|
| Foods removed | 14+ categories, very restrictive | 10 categories, moderate |
| Typical duration | 30-90 days | 21-28 days |
| Evidence base | Small pilot studies, autoimmune-specific | Decades of allergy-medicine precedent |
| Sustainability | Difficult past 90 days | Manageable for most |
| Best-fit population | Confirmed autoimmune diagnosis | General GI/inflammatory symptoms |
| Social/practical burden | High | Moderate |
DETAILED BREAKDOWN: WHERE EACH ONE WINS
What Each Test Actually Measures
AIP measures specific biomarkers that give direct information about a particular system. Knowing exactly what those markers represent — and what they don’t — is what keeps you from misreading them. Every test has a scope. Respect it, and the conclusions stay tethered to what the data actually supports.
More precisely: AIP doesn’t measure a biomarker at all, it measures symptom change against a near-total food-antigen baseline. Because so much gets removed simultaneously, a positive result (symptoms improve during elimination) tells you something changed but not necessarily what. Joint pain that resolves during AIP could be responding to the removal of nightshades specifically — the mechanism most commonly cited, involving the alkaloid solanine — or it could be responding to the removal of gluten, or processed sugar, or alcohol, or simply to the anti-inflammatory effect of eating more vegetables and less packaged food generally. Reintroduction, done one food at a time with a three-to-five day gap between each, is the only part of the process that actually isolates which specific food was responsible. Skip a rigorous reintroduction and AIP produces a vague sense that “something helped” without ever identifying what.
Standard Elimination Diet measures a different set of markers, aimed at different parts of the picture. The overlap between the two is smaller than most people assume, which is exactly why they’re complementary rather than competing. Knowing what Standard Elimination Diet uniquely reveals is what tells you when it’s the better starting point.
The standard version has the identical structural logic — elimination, then single-food reintroduction — applied to a shorter list and a shorter timeframe. Its narrower scope is actually an advantage for isolating a specific culprit: with fewer foods removed at once, there’s a somewhat cleaner baseline to reintroduce against, and less risk of nutritional gaps developing during the elimination phase itself (a real concern with AIP’s longer, more restrictive removal list, particularly around fiber diversity and micronutrients typically supplied by legumes, nuts, and seeds).
Clinical Accuracy and Limitations
No test is perfect. AIP has its own sensitivity and specificity, and that’s what determines how much weight to put on the results. False positives, false negatives, ranges that shift by lab and methodology — all of it factors into interpretation. A single result is a data point. Not a diagnosis. The best practitioners use test results alongside symptoms and history, not instead of them.
The specific failure mode with AIP is the nocebo effect during reintroduction — expecting a food to cause a problem measurably increases the odds of reporting one, independent of any actual physiological reaction. Di Sabatino and colleagues demonstrated this directly in a 2015 double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology looking at self-reported gluten sensitivity — a meaningful portion of subjects who were certain gluten caused their symptoms reacted identically to a gluten-free placebo. Anyone reintroducing foods after a long, emotionally significant elimination period like AIP’s 30-90 days is at real risk of this bias. The countermeasure is blinding the reintroduction where practical — having a partner prepare the test food without announcing which one it is — which almost nobody actually does, but which meaningfully improves the reliability of what gets identified.
Standard Elimination Diet has its own accuracy profile, with its own limitations. Knowing which results are highly reliable and which are merely suggestive is what keeps you from over-treating or under-treating. Ask any practitioner who orders these which markers they trust most and least — the good ones will actually tell you.
The standard version carries the same nocebo risk, proportionally reduced simply because the elimination period is shorter and less psychologically loaded. Where it tends to underperform is sensitivity for autoimmune-specific triggers — a nightshade sensitivity tied to a genuine autoimmune mechanism, for instance, may simply never surface during a 21-28 day standard protocol if the reaction is delayed, cumulative, or requires the fuller removal AIP provides to become detectable against the noise of everything else still in the diet.
Actionability of Results
A test is worth what you can do with the results. AIP provides data that leads to specific, targeted interventions when something’s off. The clearer the line from result to action, the more the test is worth. Some markers point to an obvious next step; others need more digging before anything’s warranted.
When AIP does isolate a specific trigger — and the Konijeti pilot data suggests it does in a meaningful subset of autoimmune patients — the resulting action is unusually clear: remove that one food permanently, keep everything else that was successfully reintroduced. That specificity is the entire value proposition of doing the harder, more restrictive protocol instead of a lighter version. A vague “feel better overall” result without a clearly isolated trigger, on the other hand, is close to worthless as an action plan — it just describes what any sufficiently disciplined whole-foods diet would produce.
Standard Elimination Diet produces its own actionable data. Some results point straight at a specific intervention; others function more as a red flag that says look deeper. The best use of any result happens inside a clinical relationship, where a qualified practitioner turns numbers into a personal plan — not a generic supplement stack pulled off a list.
Because the standard list targets the foods with the strongest general evidence for triggering sensitivity reactions — gluten and dairy account for a disproportionate share of positive identifications in most published elimination-diet cohorts — a standard protocol frequently identifies the dominant driver on the first pass, without needing the fuller AIP list. When it doesn’t, that failure itself is informative: it’s a reasonably strong signal that escalating to AIP, or investigating a non-dietary cause entirely, is the more productive next step.
Cost and Accessibility
The cost of AIP, including the consultation needed to interpret it properly, is a real investment. Look past the sticker price — whether insurance covers any of it, whether a practitioner has to order it, whether follow-up testing will be needed to track change. Factor in the cost of whatever interventions the results point toward, too.
There’s no lab fee for either protocol — the real cost is grocery and time. AIP-compliant groceries run meaningfully higher than a standard diet because the protocol pushes toward pasture-raised meat, wild-caught fish, and organic produce (partly philosophy, partly because the whole-foods-only structure leaves fewer cheap, processed calories to fall back on). Men who’ve tracked it report AIP grocery costs running 20-40% above their baseline. Add the time cost of meal prep — AIP essentially eliminates the option of eating out or grabbing something convenient, since almost any restaurant or packaged food contains at least one excluded ingredient — and the real cost of a 90-day AIP trial is closer to a part-time commitment than a dietary tweak.
Standard Elimination Diet has its own cost structure. Direct-to-consumer versions can be cheaper but skip the clinical interpretation that makes results usable. Practitioner-ordered tests cost more, but come with someone explaining what the numbers mean and what to do next. For most men, that interpretation is worth more than the test itself.
The standard protocol’s shorter list keeps more restaurant and convenience options technically viable — grilled chicken and vegetables with olive oil, for instance, clears the standard list but would still need a nightshade-free sauce check under AIP. That difference in practical accessibility is a real factor in which one a working man with a normal schedule and social calendar can actually complete.
When to Re-Test
Tracking change over time is where AIP earns its keep. One snapshot gives a baseline. Serial testing shows trends, treatment response, whether an intervention is actually working. The right re-testing interval depends on what’s being tracked and what’s been changed. Most markers need 60-90 days before they show anything meaningful.
“Re-testing” here means re-challenging a food that was excluded, months later, to check whether tolerance has changed — autoimmune and inflammatory conditions can shift over time, and a food that triggered a reaction during an active flare may be tolerated once the underlying condition is better controlled. Most AIP practitioners suggest re-challenging excluded foods every four to six months rather than assuming permanent exclusion, specifically because gut and immune status aren’t static.
The re-testing cadence for Standard Elimination Diet depends on similar factors, though it can differ based on the biological half-life of whatever’s being measured. Some markers move fast; others take months. Knowing the timeline is what keeps you from re-testing too early (wasted money) or too late (missed trend).
For the standard protocol, re-challenging is typically faster and lower-stakes — since fewer foods were excluded to begin with, and the ones that were tend to have more robust evidence behind their exclusion (gluten and dairy sensitivities are generally more stable over time than the more speculative nightshade and seed sensitivities AIP targets), re-testing every three to four months is reasonable.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF AIP
Strengths:
- Directly measures the markers most relevant to its target system
- Provides specific data that leads to targeted interventions
- Well-established in functional and integrative medicine
- Results are interpretable with proper clinical context
Weaknesses:
- Limited to its specific scope — doesn’t reveal everything
- Interpretation requires a qualified practitioner
- Cost can be prohibitive without insurance coverage
- Single test represents a snapshot, not a trend
One more weakness specific to AIP that deserves its own line: the sheer restrictiveness carries a documented risk of disordered eating patterns developing in vulnerable individuals. A 2020 review in the Journal of Eating Disorders flagged orthorexia — an unhealthy fixation on “correct” eating — as a recognized risk of prolonged, highly restrictive elimination protocols, AIP specifically named among them. This isn’t a reason to avoid AIP outright for someone with a genuine autoimmune indication. It is a real reason to set a hard endpoint for the elimination phase in advance, rather than treating “clean eating” as an open-ended goal with no defined finish line.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF STANDARD ELIMINATION DIET
Strengths:
- Reveals a different dimension of health data
- May catch issues that the alternative test misses entirely
- Useful as both a standalone and complementary assessment
- Growing evidence base supporting clinical utility
Weaknesses:
- Own set of accuracy limitations and potential for misinterpretation
- Cost is an investment that needs to produce actionable information
- Quality of results varies by lab and methodology
- Requires clinical context to avoid over-treatment based on isolated markers
WHEN TO CHOOSE AIP
AIP is the right protocol for confirmed or suspected autoimmune conditions: Hashimoto’s, IBD, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, psoriasis, or any condition with confirmed immune dysregulation. The research justifies the extreme restriction in these cases. Work with a practitioner who actually knows AIP.
Prioritize AIP when the primary symptoms line up with the system it measures, when a qualified practitioner recommends it based on the clinical picture, or when baseline data is needed before starting a targeted intervention. Also worth going with first if the symptoms are more localized to what it specifically assesses — starting narrow often saves time and money over starting broad.
A concrete example: a man we’ll call Ray, 38, with a confirmed Hashimoto’s diagnosis (elevated thyroid peroxidase antibodies, TPO, at 340 IU/mL against a reference range under 35) and joint stiffness his rheumatologist couldn’t attribute to anything specific on imaging. His conventional workup was thorough and appropriate — it ruled out rheumatoid arthritis and confirmed the Hashimoto’s — but stopped there, since there was no further conventional protocol to offer beyond levothyroxine for the thyroid numbers themselves. AIP, run for eight weeks with a practitioner’s support, identified nightshades as the specific joint-stiffness trigger during reintroduction: symptoms returned within eighteen hours of a tomato-based sauce challenge, twice, on separate attempts three weeks apart to rule out coincidence. That’s precisely the kind of narrow, high-confidence, replicated result the reintroduction phase is designed to produce, and precisely the case where the extra restriction of AIP over the standard protocol paid for itself.
WHEN TO CHOOSE STANDARD ELIMINATION DIET
The standard elimination diet is the right starting point for most people — those with IBS, chronic fatigue, skin issues, joint pain, or non-specific inflammation without a confirmed autoimmune diagnosis. It’s dramatically more sustainable, and it catches most dietary contributors on its own.
Prioritize Standard Elimination Diet when symptoms are more diffuse or systemic, when AIP has already run without explaining the full picture, or when a practitioner suspects something’s going on in the systems Standard Elimination Diet specifically measures. Also reach for it to complement existing test data with a different angle on the same health picture.
The base rates matter here. Celiac disease and confirmed gluten-related disorders affect roughly 1% of the population per NIDDK estimates, but non-celiac gluten sensitivity and general dairy intolerance are reported at far higher rates in self-selected symptomatic populations — some clinical surveys of IBS patients put food-triggered symptom improvement north of 50% with a standard elimination approach alone. For a man without a confirmed autoimmune diagnosis, the base-rate math strongly favors starting with the shorter, less restrictive list. It catches the majority of cases at a fraction of the cost and disruption of AIP.
COMMON MISTAKES MEN MAKE WITH THIS DECISION
- Ordering tests without a clear clinical question. Testing everything on the menu is expensive, and it tends to produce incidental findings that create anxiety without improving anything. Start with the symptoms, form a hypothesis, order the test that actually evaluates it. Targeted testing beats shotgun panels every time.
- Interpreting results without professional guidance. Lab ranges, methodology differences, and the way markers interact all require trained interpretation. Self-diagnosing off Google and a test result leads to unnecessary supplementation, missed diagnoses, wasted money. Pay for the interpretation. Not just the test.
- Testing once and never following up. A single result is a starting point, not an ending. The real value shows up in tracking change over time — after diet changes, supplementation, lifestyle shifts. Budget for at least one follow-up test 60-90 days after intervention.
- Reintroducing multiple foods at once. This is the single most common way both protocols fail to produce a useful answer. Reintroducing bread and a glass of wine on the same night, then noticing bloating, tells you nothing about which one caused it — or whether it was the combination, or something unrelated entirely. Every credible AIP and elimination diet protocol specifies one food, isolated, over a three-to-five day observation window before adding the next. Compress that timeline out of impatience and the entire multi-week elimination phase produces no usable data at the end.
- Never actually reintroducing anything. A meaningful share of people who start AIP or a standard elimination diet stay in the elimination phase indefinitely because they feel better and are afraid to test anything, permanently narrowing their diet based on fear rather than data. Without reintroduction, there’s no way to know whether all fourteen (or ten) excluded categories were actually a problem, or whether just one or two were doing all the work while the rest were needlessly cut for good.
HOW TO MAKE THIS DECISION FOR YOURSELF
Deciding which test to order starts with the symptoms, not the test menu. Write down the top 3-5 complaints. For each one: would this test directly measure something that could explain it? The test with the most direct line to the dominant complaints is the one to order first.
Working with a practitioner? Ask them to walk through the reasoning behind recommending one test over the other. Good ones will connect the test to the specific clinical picture and say what they expect to find and how they’d act on different outcomes. Can’t articulate that? They may be ordering out of habit, not clinical reasoning.
Budget matters practically too. Room for one test now and another in three months? Start with whichever is most likely to reveal something actionable given the current symptom pattern. Use those results to guide treatment, then reassess whether the second test is even still necessary. Sometimes the first one reveals enough on its own.
A structured version of that decision, laid out as an actual sequence: week one, log symptoms daily for a baseline without changing anything yet — most men skip this step and regret it, because without a baseline there’s nothing to compare the elimination phase against. Weeks two through five, run the standard elimination list. If symptoms improve substantially and a reintroduction sequence identifies a clear trigger, done — no need to escalate further. If symptoms improve only partially, or a confirmed autoimmune diagnosis is already in hand, move to the fuller AIP list for weeks six through thirteen. This sequencing avoids the cost and disruption of AIP for the majority of men whose issue resolves at the standard level.
MAKING TEST RESULTS ACTUALLY USEFUL
A test result without context is just a number. The value of either AIP or Standard Elimination Diet comes down entirely to what happens with the information. Before ordering anything, have a plan: if the result shows X, do Y. If it shows Z, do W. That decision tree is what turns testing into a decision-making tool instead of data collection for its own sake. Skip it, and the results just gather dust.
Reference ranges on a lab report are population averages, not optimal ranges. A result inside the normal range can still mean suboptimal function. This is where working with a practitioner who understands functional ranges, not just pathological ones, actually matters. The gap between normal and optimal is where most preventable decline happens, quietly.
Track results over time. One test is a snapshot. Serial testing every 3-6 months shows trends that are far more informative than any single number. A marker inside range but trending the wrong way deserves attention before it turns into a problem. A marker that was flagged but is improving confirms the intervention is working. Trends tell the story snapshots miss.
Budget realistically. The test is only part of the cost. Factor in the consultation for interpretation, follow-up testing to confirm or track progress, and whatever interventions the results point to. A $400 test that leads to a $200 consultation and $100 a month in targeted supplementation for 6 months is a $1,200 commitment. Know that going in, and make sure the potential payoff justifies it.
For these two dietary protocols specifically, the practical version of “making results useful” is a written food-symptom log, kept daily, not reconstructed from memory at the end of the week. Memory is a notoriously unreliable instrument for connecting a food eaten Tuesday to a symptom that appeared Wednesday night — recency bias and confirmation bias both distort recall in predictable directions. A simple three-column log (food, time, symptom plus severity 0-10, time) kept consistently through both the elimination and reintroduction phases is worth more than any amount of practitioner expertise applied after the fact to incomplete recollection.
A SECOND CASE: WHEN THE STANDARD PROTOCOL IS ENOUGH
Contrast Ray’s case above with a man we’ll call Tomás, 33, no autoimmune diagnosis, presenting with bloating, irregular bowel habits, and a low-grade brain fog that had been going on for about a year. He’d already had a colonoscopy and standard GI workup through his gastroenterologist, both unremarkable, and had been told he likely had IBS with no specific dietary guidance beyond “try more fiber.”
He ran a two-week symptom baseline, then the standard elimination list for four weeks. By week three of elimination, bloating had dropped from a self-rated 7/10 most days to a 2/10. Reintroduction, run one food every four days, isolated dairy as the primary driver — bloating returned to 6/10 within six hours of a reintroduction challenge involving a glass of milk, replicated once more a week later with yogurt to rule out coincidence, with a milder but still noticeable reaction. Gluten reintroduction produced no measurable change across two separate challenges. Corn and soy, likewise clean.
Total time from starting the baseline log to having an actionable, confirmed answer: eight weeks. Total cost: essentially the marginal grocery expense of eating more whole foods for two months, no lab fees, no practitioner consultation beyond an email exchange with his existing gastroenterologist to rule out lactose intolerance via a standard hydrogen breath test, which confirmed the elimination diet’s finding directly. He never needed AIP. The standard protocol’s shorter, less restrictive list was sufficient to identify the actual driver, and escalating to the full AIP restriction would have added weeks of unnecessary hardship without producing better information than the shorter process already had.
THE BOTTOM LINE: LET YOUR SYMPTOMS GUIDE THE DECISION
Start with the standard elimination diet. Done properly, and it still fails to resolve symptoms — or there’s a known autoimmune condition in play — escalate to AIP. Skipping straight to AIP without trying the standard protocol first is unnecessary hardship.
Let symptoms guide the decision. Complaints pointing toward one system — start with the test that directly measures it. Symptoms broader, or the first test came back clean — the second one often reveals what got missed. Men who can afford both, running them together gives the most complete picture. Choosing just one, talk to a qualified functional medicine practitioner about which fits the specific clinical picture.
The right test at the right time beats ten wrong tests ordered out of curiosity.
References
FAQ
How long should the elimination phase actually last before giving up on it? For the standard protocol, three to four weeks is the accepted minimum — shorter than that and many delayed-onset reactions won’t have had time to resolve. For AIP, most practitioners recommend at least 30 days, with 60-90 more typical for autoimmune presentations, since the mechanism it’s targeting (reducing systemic immune activation, not just clearing an acute reaction) takes longer to show a measurable effect.
Do I need a practitioner to do either of these, or can it be self-directed? Both can technically be self-directed, and many people do them that way. The value of a practitioner is mainly in catching nutritional gaps during a longer elimination (particularly on AIP, where fiber and micronutrient sources get significantly narrowed) and in providing accountability during reintroduction, which is the phase most people rush or skip. For anyone with a confirmed autoimmune diagnosis, coordinating with the physician managing that condition is worth doing regardless.
What happens if reintroducing a food produces no reaction at all — does that mean the diet failed? No — a clean reintroduction is a genuinely useful result. It means that particular food wasn’t the driver, and it can go back into the regular rotation. The point of the process isn’t to find something wrong with every food; it’s to narrow down to the actual one or two culprits, if any exist, and stop unnecessarily restricting everything else.
Is it normal to feel worse in the first week of either protocol before feeling better? Yes, commonly reported, particularly with AIP’s more abrupt removal of caffeine, sugar, and processed food simultaneously — headaches, fatigue, and irritability in days two through five are frequently described and generally resolve by the end of the first week. This is a reasonable expectation to set going in specifically so it isn’t mistaken for the protocol not working.
Editorial StandardsCorrectionsMedical DisclaimerAbout Our ContentAffiliate DisclosureSite Map