Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

pinniped1 t1_izdxfg6 wrote

I've seen this movie before.

124

DragonGarlicBreath t1_ize4fx8 wrote

Replying to pinniped1 (#884,474)

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

md4moms t1_izef017 wrote

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

19

try2bcool69 t1_izewa0g wrote

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

6

mags87 t1_izf76yg wrote

Replying to BloodlustyGummybear (#885,205)

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

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

DragonGarlicBreath t1_izfatn2 wrote

Replying to fredandlunchbox (#886,832)

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

wirral_guy t1_izfbmw4 wrote

Replying to mags87 (#887,081)

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

lowbwon t1_izfk1q2 wrote

But does it all take place in a box?

2

FinndBors t1_izfkhnv wrote

Replying to DragonGarlicBreath (#884,855)

> 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

SilverNicktail t1_izihyau wrote

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

1