Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Yet-Another_Burner t1_iqmesed wrote

If I were in this field I’d be real careful making any claims about “a drop of blood”


archimedesrex t1_iqmhhlp wrote

For real. Everything I've heard from experts in field is that a drop of blood is just too small of a sample size. Too easy not have any trace of pathogen simply because your drop was the wrong drop.


Estesz t1_iqpp72y wrote

I'm so excited.

Either we get cool new diagnostics or a dozen of unsettling documentaries and filmings.


Kaeny t1_iqo3fa0 wrote

Just googled and the biggest physically possible drop of water is 9mm in diameter.

I wonder how small “less than a drop of blood” is


jpollack40 t1_iqoetos wrote

I'm not familiar with this field at all, but I would hazard a guess that this statement is more a way to communicate how sensitive this equipment is as opposed to the workflow to use it. I'm sure whatever that workflow is it accounts for the minimum volume of blood necessary to achieve the most accurate results. That wouldn't necessarily change the fact that all the equipment needs is one drop of the "right" blood that includes the material to detect a tumor.

The cynic side of me would say phrasing like that is more geared towards potential investors than anything. Because I don't disagree that this may be technically correct but at the very least hyperbolic if not misleading.


Sparkybear t1_iqomare wrote

Phrasing like this is straight out of Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos playbook.