6 ms·

> Theranos is working on a technology that will exist in the near future, confirmed by many many other companies working on it, so it seems quite likely: someon

> Theranos is working on a technology that will exist in the near future, confirmed by many many other companies working on it, so it seems quite likely: someone will succeed in using less blood, to run more tests. Except we don't need more blood tests[0]. With uBeam, there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Theranos was facing both technical and market challenges, but with uBeam, it's a purely technical challenge. 0: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theranos-is-wrong-we-dont-need-more-blood-tests/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theranos-is-wrong-we-don...

qaq 10y ago
I can't agree more our startup is working on time travel there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Since it's a purely technical challenge we expect to raise a trillion dollars in our seed round.
- twic 10y ago
  And if not, pivot to perpetual motion, like this chap: https://vimeo.com/148032441 https://vimeo.com/148032441
- malz 10y ago
  I should point out that time travel would fix the phone charging problem quite handily. Just send your phone back in time a few hours. Not sure if there are other applications.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  You don't even need to do this - if you need a trillion dollars then just get in your time machine once it is built, head back 25 before today and invest $1 in all the hot stocks and winning lotto number so that by today you have the trillion you need to build the time machine. Simple.
vonklaus 10y ago
I disagree with that article as it makes no sense. Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. SO I found the five thirty eight article stupid so I guess I misunderstood why more health data would be bad.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kevinnk 10y ago
  The 538 article actually makes a lot of sense and is a pretty decent introduction to a common public health issue. > Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. So while you're correct in a very narrow sense, you have to use the results to make a decision about treatment. If you're going to make treatment decisions based on tests that have some amount of inherent error, you may end up over or under-treating patients. > Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. Medical tests have both random and systematic error. What you're talking about is random error (i.e. a single test result being bad). However, many tests have systematic error (i.e. the result being wrong every time the test is taken) just due to personal variation in what's "normal". The article makes the point that if more tests lead to worse outcomes[1] (due to overtreatment) then adding more tests is useless or worse than useless. This effect is particularly pronounced when testing across large populations, even if the test is highly accurate. [1] And in many cases they do. For example, early mammogram screenings result in worse outcomes for patients when done across a large population. See http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757
  - cperciva 10y ago
    Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. True, but screening tests are very useful. If you can separate the population into "definitely diabetic", "definitely not diabetic", and "needs more testing" quickly and cheaply, that's a win. The fact that it doesn't always give you an actionable result doesn't make it useless.

qaq 10y ago

I can't agree more our startup is working on time travel there's no doubt that if the technology works, it would be a game-changer. Since it's a purely technical challenge we expect to raise a trillion dollars in our seed round.

twic 10y ago
And if not, pivot to perpetual motion, like this chap: https://vimeo.com/148032441 https://vimeo.com/148032441
malz 10y ago
I should point out that time travel would fix the phone charging problem quite handily. Just send your phone back in time a few hours. Not sure if there are other applications.
danieltillett 10y ago
You don't even need to do this - if you need a trillion dollars then just get in your time machine once it is built, head back 25 before today and invest $1 in all the hot stocks and winning lotto number so that by today you have the trillion you need to build the time machine. Simple.

vonklaus 10y ago

I disagree with that article as it makes no sense. Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. SO I found the five thirty eight article stupid so I guess I misunderstood why more health data would be bad.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kevinnk 10y ago
The 538 article actually makes a lot of sense and is a pretty decent introduction to a common public health issue. > Their assertion that tests === diagnostics that map 1:1 to a disease was baseless. Tests don't answer the question "doe patient have diabetes?", they answer the question "what is the patients glucose level?" 115 mg/dl. Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. So while you're correct in a very narrow sense, you have to use the results to make a decision about treatment. If you're going to make treatment decisions based on tests that have some amount of inherent error, you may end up over or under-treating patients. > Maybe the patient forgot to fast, maybe the test was a fluke? Either way a consistent average of 85 would put that out of range. Medical tests have both random and systematic error. What you're talking about is random error (i.e. a single test result being bad). However, many tests have systematic error (i.e. the result being wrong every time the test is taken) just due to personal variation in what's "normal". The article makes the point that if more tests lead to worse outcomes[1] (due to overtreatment) then adding more tests is useless or worse than useless. This effect is particularly pronounced when testing across large populations, even if the test is highly accurate. [1] And in many cases they do. For example, early mammogram screenings result in worse outcomes for patients when done across a large population. See http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2480757
- cperciva 10y ago
  Medical tests that aren't actionable aren't useful. True, but screening tests are very useful. If you can separate the population into "definitely diabetic", "definitely not diabetic", and "needs more testing" quickly and cheaply, that's a win. The fact that it doesn't always give you an actionable result doesn't make it useless.