Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

wirral_guy t1_izdve2s wrote

Is that you Theranos?

356

dramaking37 t1_izfbnq2 wrote

Theranos claimed to be doing it with way too little blood. These are nothing alike.

12

dalaiis t1_izgi5wg wrote

But thanks to theranos, it is the first thing in our mind.

5

pinniped1 t1_izdxfg6 wrote

I've seen this movie before.

124

DragonGarlicBreath t1_ize4fx8 wrote

In fairness, the biggest problem with Theranos wasn't the concept, it was the small amount of blood they were fixated on requiring. I mean, apart from the fraud, obviously.

Detecting cancer traces in blood or even hair isn't unreasonable. Skepticism is good, but we also can't let ones (or a few) can artist poison the well. Given that this was published in PNAS, the research is coming from not a for-profit company, and they seem to have reasonable successes (62% is the overall), is believe it.

79

BloodlustyGummybear t1_izeahzj wrote

Open-minded skepticism is a keystone of science.

27

mags87 t1_izf76yg wrote

But people here aren't scientists, they are snarky commentators fishing for easy upvotes. 7 parent comments on this post and 4 are directly related to Theranos, and one with some 'hmm' emojis I assume are referencing Theranos.

10

wirral_guy t1_izfbmw4 wrote

I'll respond as I'm one of the top level commentators - it was nothing more than a jokey reference, no snark involved (well, except to Theranos), to the fact that we'd been here before with claims like this and it didn't end well. I was also, obviously not alone in making that connection.

Life doesn't always have to be serious!

7

Mrischief t1_izetjz4 wrote

Honestly it is good, but at the point of finding blood in vascular plasma, are we not seeing systemic spread ?

3

DragonGarlicBreath t1_izfadnx wrote

Depends what they're measuring. Cancer cells? Yeah. But other chemical markers? Not necessarily.

3

Mrischief t1_izfwkd0 wrote

How so ? Asking as we dont have pathomorph or oncology yet

1

fredandlunchbox t1_izf2iso wrote

62% specificity? That’s not great for something like cancer.

3

DragonGarlicBreath t1_izfatn2 wrote

62% sensitivity. And 89% accuracy at locating tumors they detect.

It's not ideal, but it's up from 10% and for a $50 test that's not particularly invasive? I can see it being worth it to screen for and catch cancers earlier.

9

FinndBors t1_izfkhnv wrote

> In fairness, the biggest problem with Theranos wasn't the concept, it was the small amount of blood they were fixated on requiring. I mean, apart from the fraud, obviously.

The biggest problem is that they pulled away funding from other outfits that wanted to improve blood tests but were way less aggressive in their claims. VCs were like, why fund this if Theranos can test for more stuff with just a drop of blood?

1

md4moms t1_izef017 wrote

There is the Galleri test currently available in US…..Galleri

19

Luri27 t1_izf6sou wrote

Came here to say this. We're out here testing for 50 different types of cancer and no one knows 😅

12

Jones641 t1_izfabd5 wrote

Dad's friend died of colon cancer after one of these "blood tests" didn't pick it up. Take the finger

9

try2bcool69 t1_izewa0g wrote

Adding another $100 to my yearly bloodwork I already can't afford.

6

lowbwon t1_izfk1q2 wrote

But does it all take place in a box?

2

AutoModerator t1_izdu3rx wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

SilverNicktail t1_izihyau wrote

Is the CEO of the research company a woman very clearly putting on a Batman voice?

1