5 ms·
In the tests, she's presumably smelling people known to have the disease or not, and maybe she can pick up on that knowledge through subtle social cues. Impres
by BurningFrog 3y ago
In the tests, she's presumably smelling people known to have the disease or not, and maybe she can pick up on that knowledge through subtle social cues.
Impressive in itself, but that's useless for diagnosing people who don't know they have a disease, which would be the medical breakthrough.
- shermantanktop 3y agoNo presuming necessary. In the article, it describes a test involving smelling t-shirts in boxes.
- martynr 3y agoThis would be totally necessary for a robust conclusion-trust me, the social cues of having PD are not subtle ;)
- keltor 3y agoShe was able to detect a person who they thought was a false positive and turned out several months later did have Parkinson's. She detected her husbands before he had signs as well. They also found the molecule she was smelling which was expressed with sebum. This isn't entirely unfounded as they already knew about dogs smelling cancers and other various diseases.