3 ms·

I was not remarking about Theranos, but rather to ThomPete's statement. Rigorous science is not sufficient (e.g. the Shechtmans/Warrens that we don't know abou

by beagle3 11y ago

I was not remarking about Theranos, but rather to ThomPete's statement. Rigorous science is not sufficient (e.g. the Shechtmans/Warrens that we don't know about -- it is pure hubris to believe that all those were eventually vindicated), nor is it required (e.g. Vioxx, Thalidomide, ADA recommendations, baby peanut allergy recommendation, dietary cholesterol recommendation, dietary sodium recommendation). If Theranos is a lesson to entrepreneurial scientists it is probably: "Don't waste your time failing quietly and cheaply, when you can fail extravagantly and retire rich"

hammock 11y ago
They might have also learned that lesson with Solyndra in 2011.
ThomPete 11y ago
Not sure what you mean. Their product is scientific. It's not just a health app or some nutriment recommendation which can be claimed successful without any scientific claims to back it. Theranos has a very a scientific product with a binary output and so it's claims will stand up to that (i.e. being approved by passing a number of tests) My lesson was for those who wanted to change the world via healthcare, not those who wanted to get rich.
- beagle3 11y ago
  > Their product is scientific. It's not just a health app or some nutriment recommendation which can be claimed successful without any scientific claims to back it. So was VioXX[0]. Read the Withdrawal section, especially the last paragraph. As someone who was following the case closely while it was happening, I can tell you that everyone involved looked guilty as hell, even though the court found only the marketing people "overzealous". You see, "science" doesn't lie. But scientists do. Some liars are better than others, though. Also, the standard US medical advice about things like nuts that might cause allergy are "delay introduction as much as possible" (e.g., do not introduce peanuts before age 3 or so, for fear of allergic reaction). You will hear this from doctors and find this in official manuals, although there is no science to support this (never was), and in fact, there's data indicating that early exposure to nuts reduces allergy. > Theranos has a very a scientific product with a binary output and so it's claims will stand up to that (i.e. being approved by passing a number of tests) Output is not binary. Most (often all) data used to evaluate medical products is provided exclusively by manufacturer, who is able to massage data to yield specific desired results, see e.g. VioXX. > My lesson was for those who wanted to change the world via healthcare, not those who wanted to get rich. Well then, they shouldn't look to Theranos - those guys obviously care more about getting rich than about changing the world (well, changing the world for the global good, anyway). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

by beagle3 11y ago

hammock 11y ago

They might have also learned that lesson with Solyndra in 2011.

ThomPete 11y ago

Not sure what you mean. Their product is scientific. It's not just a health app or some nutriment recommendation which can be claimed successful without any scientific claims to back it. Theranos has a very a scientific product with a binary output and so it's claims will stand up to that (i.e. being approved by passing a number of tests) My lesson was for those who wanted to change the world via healthcare, not those who wanted to get rich.

beagle3 11y ago
> Their product is scientific. It's not just a health app or some nutriment recommendation which can be claimed successful without any scientific claims to back it. So was VioXX[0]. Read the Withdrawal section, especially the last paragraph. As someone who was following the case closely while it was happening, I can tell you that everyone involved looked guilty as hell, even though the court found only the marketing people "overzealous". You see, "science" doesn't lie. But scientists do. Some liars are better than others, though. Also, the standard US medical advice about things like nuts that might cause allergy are "delay introduction as much as possible" (e.g., do not introduce peanuts before age 3 or so, for fear of allergic reaction). You will hear this from doctors and find this in official manuals, although there is no science to support this (never was), and in fact, there's data indicating that early exposure to nuts reduces allergy. > Theranos has a very a scientific product with a binary output and so it's claims will stand up to that (i.e. being approved by passing a number of tests) Output is not binary. Most (often all) data used to evaluate medical products is provided exclusively by manufacturer, who is able to massage data to yield specific desired results, see e.g. VioXX. > My lesson was for those who wanted to change the world via healthcare, not those who wanted to get rich. Well then, they shouldn't look to Theranos - those guys obviously care more about getting rich than about changing the world (well, changing the world for the global good, anyway). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib