5 ms·

Wow so 2 whole things are able to be identified by volatile chemicals and this leads to all?! And I wonder how people like Holmes are able to survive for >10 y

Wow so 2 whole things are able to be identified by volatile chemicals and this leads to all?! And I wonder how people like Holmes are able to survive for >10 years. We can deliver nicotine via patch, so obviously all drugs should be delivered that way. We can measure glucose from a drop of blood so obviously it follows that all blood tests run that way. Where is the evidence that even a small fraction of the most common diseases have such a characteristic?

bitexploder 8y ago
He was just speculating. Also, dogs can smell cancer in humans.
- anisppp 8y ago
  Dogs have been shown to detect certain cancers at later stages (which greatly limits use as a screener.. not to mention how does the sensitivity/specificity compare to state of the art). This is not surprising since as cancers advance they cause gross biochemical changes. The further issue diagnosing cancer/no cancer or epilepsy/no is an easy problem. But train a dog/machine on 1000 or more rare diseases. Now selectivity is an actual issue. And unless you manage to overcome that, how is all this scent stuff clinically useful?
  - hobs 8y ago
    So the original "sniffer dog" study (The Lancet 8640)[0] pretty much covers a dog sniffing out a melanoma BEFORE it got to a later stage, and saved a woman's life. I also dont understand how training a machine would have selectivity issues. Machines dont "get trained" on one thing. 0: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673689922575?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067368...
    - tepper09 8y ago
      That is not a study. That is a case report written as a letter to the editor. That meets no scientific rigor at all and no generalizable conclusions can be drawn from it, it provides an anecdote for further research. It also doesn’t suggest that sniff tests would fare better compared to any other screening system for melanoma.
- tzs 8y ago
  > Also, dogs can smell cancer in humans ...and the impending onset of dangerously low blood sugar, well before the person realizes that something is wrong. There are diabetes assist dogs available for this [1]. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/expert-answers/service-dogs-should-i-get-one-if-i-have-diabetes/faq-20388892 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/expe...
izuchukwu 8y ago
This is needlessly antagonistic. Though all pathology may be a stretch, the evidence for these two was only recently convered and all new fields start somewhere. Indeed, this line of thought brought us Theranos, but also brought us so much else.
baxtr 8y ago
"We know Earth revolves around the Sun, so obviously all planets revolve around the sun? Ridiculous!"
- monocasa 8y ago
  Last count I saw was that we know of 4016 planets, and only 8 revolve around the sun, so...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dang 8y ago
Curiosity is the entire point of this site. Cross-examining someone on fraud charges is way over the top! Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN? These include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

bitexploder 8y ago

He was just speculating. Also, dogs can smell cancer in humans.

anisppp 8y ago
Dogs have been shown to detect certain cancers at later stages (which greatly limits use as a screener.. not to mention how does the sensitivity/specificity compare to state of the art). This is not surprising since as cancers advance they cause gross biochemical changes. The further issue diagnosing cancer/no cancer or epilepsy/no is an easy problem. But train a dog/machine on 1000 or more rare diseases. Now selectivity is an actual issue. And unless you manage to overcome that, how is all this scent stuff clinically useful?
- hobs 8y ago
  So the original "sniffer dog" study (The Lancet 8640)[0] pretty much covers a dog sniffing out a melanoma BEFORE it got to a later stage, and saved a woman's life. I also dont understand how training a machine would have selectivity issues. Machines dont "get trained" on one thing. 0: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673689922575?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067368...
  - tepper09 8y ago
    That is not a study. That is a case report written as a letter to the editor. That meets no scientific rigor at all and no generalizable conclusions can be drawn from it, it provides an anecdote for further research. It also doesn’t suggest that sniff tests would fare better compared to any other screening system for melanoma.
tzs 8y ago
> Also, dogs can smell cancer in humans ...and the impending onset of dangerously low blood sugar, well before the person realizes that something is wrong. There are diabetes assist dogs available for this [1]. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/expert-answers/service-dogs-should-i-get-one-if-i-have-diabetes/faq-20388892 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/diabetes/expe...

izuchukwu 8y ago

This is needlessly antagonistic. Though all pathology may be a stretch, the evidence for these two was only recently convered and all new fields start somewhere. Indeed, this line of thought brought us Theranos, but also brought us so much else.

baxtr 8y ago

"We know Earth revolves around the Sun, so obviously all planets revolve around the sun? Ridiculous!"

monocasa 8y ago
Last count I saw was that we know of 4016 planets, and only 8 revolve around the sun, so...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dang 8y ago

Curiosity is the entire point of this site. Cross-examining someone on fraud charges is way over the top! Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN? These include: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."