4 ms·

>The problem isn't the tech How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together >you aren'

by kmonad 11y ago

>The problem isn't the tech How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together >you aren't lying and covering up data What? From reading, admittedly only, this article here, it sounds at least reasonable to complain given the hugely negative press when it is also true that "the study authors made no attempt to find out which measurements were right". So if I understand this correctly, the new method showed different results from the old method, but nothing was done to show which was right, and it was clearly insinuated the new one was wrong. I would complain, too. But perhaps you know more about this incident.

searine 11y ago
>How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together From the reported independent results. +-5% compared to Quest and LabCorp at a fraction of the cost is good enough to make a profit. >It sounds at least reasonable to complain It makes sense to complain in Silicon Valley... But it makes you look like a slimeball trying to cover your ass in the medical/scientific industry. Industrial science is different than tech. In tech, if it works, it works, and nobody really cares how. In fact, it is in your best interest to hide how you did it, because that is your IP. In industrial science, if it works, but you fight people trying to open the black box, it makes you look like you're faking data.
avs733 11y ago
>>The problem isn't the tech >How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together kmonda, your statement requires some very important clarifications 1) your phrasing implies that there was a flaw in the methodology of the journal article rather than specifically noting that Theranos asserted there to be flawed methodology (A claim which other, independent, experts interviewed by the NYT did not agree with) 2) The blood clumping comment is, similarly, not an accurate representation of the article. The Dr. who noted the potential blood clustering issue was not noting it as a problem with the study methodology, he was noting it as a problem with Theranos' technology. This would contribute to error in Theranos' measurements, and the shift seen in the study. It would not contribute to error in the study itself. Theranos' assertion of error was about the vein blood draw causing error in the Theranos readings. Further, the same Dr. whos words you are implying damages the credibility of the study is, instead, quite blunt about his opinion of Theranos >“This represents just another effort for a failing company to cover up bad press for a technology that is not ready for prime time,” Dr. Frederick L. Kiechle, medical director for clinical pathology at Memorial Healthcare System in Hollywood, Fla., said about Theranos’s letter to the journal. >Dr. Kiechle said it was known that cells in blood “tend to clump together and travel in groups,” so the tiny amount collected from a finger prick might not be representative. EDIT: in the interest of transparency, I edited one sentence of this for clarity.

by kmonad 11y ago

searine 11y ago

>How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together From the reported independent results. +-5% compared to Quest and LabCorp at a fraction of the cost is good enough to make a profit. >It sounds at least reasonable to complain It makes sense to complain in Silicon Valley... But it makes you look like a slimeball trying to cover your ass in the medical/scientific industry. Industrial science is different than tech. In tech, if it works, it works, and nobody really cares how. In fact, it is in your best interest to hide how you did it, because that is your IP. In industrial science, if it works, but you fight people trying to open the black box, it makes you look like you're faking data.

avs733 11y ago

>>The problem isn't the tech >How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together kmonda, your statement requires some very important clarifications 1) your phrasing implies that there was a flaw in the methodology of the journal article rather than specifically noting that Theranos asserted there to be flawed methodology (A claim which other, independent, experts interviewed by the NYT did not agree with) 2) The blood clumping comment is, similarly, not an accurate representation of the article. The Dr. who noted the potential blood clustering issue was not noting it as a problem with the study methodology, he was noting it as a problem with Theranos' technology. This would contribute to error in Theranos' measurements, and the shift seen in the study. It would not contribute to error in the study itself. Theranos' assertion of error was about the vein blood draw causing error in the Theranos readings. Further, the same Dr. whos words you are implying damages the credibility of the study is, instead, quite blunt about his opinion of Theranos >“This represents just another effort for a failing company to cover up bad press for a technology that is not ready for prime time,” Dr. Frederick L. Kiechle, medical director for clinical pathology at Memorial Healthcare System in Hollywood, Fla., said about Theranos’s letter to the journal. >Dr. Kiechle said it was known that cells in blood “tend to clump together and travel in groups,” so the tiny amount collected from a finger prick might not be representative. EDIT: in the interest of transparency, I edited one sentence of this for clarity.