4 ms·
Where oh where did I say anything about "alternative to existing licensed medical technology"? Where has 23AM indicated such a thing whereby I'm supporting tha
by crusso 13y ago
Where oh where did I say anything about "alternative to existing licensed medical technology"? Where has 23AM indicated such a thing whereby I'm supporting that argument by proxy?
Where did I or 23AM indicate that they had a cure for anything whatsoever?
The answers are "nowhere", "nowhere", and "nowhere".
- tptacek 13y agoThis is disingenuous. The FDA doesn't claim 23AM markets a "cure" either.
- crusso 13y agoNobody said anything about a cure until you brought up apricot pits as being analogous.
- tptacek 13y agoSo your position is that the FDA should not have the power to regulate diagnostic tests. I think I understand now.
- crusso 13y agoMy position is that the FDA should have better things to do with its limited budget that never seems enough to keep up with the drug and treatment approval process than to go after innovative companies like 23AM.
- chrisoverzero 13y agoAnd if only a few people die, then no big deal, right?
- crusso 13y agoAs though lives are more likely to be lost because 23andMe is putting more information out there than are going to be lost because of all the years behind we would be without extra information. Take down the giants upon whose shoulders we could be standing upon and be happy that no one is so tall that they can fall and hurt someone.
- anigbrowl 13y agohttps://www.23andme.com/store/cart/ https://www.23andme.com/store/cart/ explicitly claims the test can help you manage your health.
- crusso 13y agoAnd when the word "help" means "instead of", I'll think you might have a point... but it doesn't so you don't.
- tptacek 13y agoFor whatever it's worth for you to know, it would have been easy to make that same point without being nasty about it, and I think the nastiness harms your argument. "But it doesn't so you don't" makes one sound like an angry teenager; it's a wordier way of saying "so there!". You don't see a lot of adults tacking "so there!" onto the ends of their arguments, because it's a self-evidently silly thing to add.
- anigbrowl 13y agoI do have a point, because it's possible for one factor among several to weight someone's choice. However, you're nitpicking at my paraphrase, while ignoring the content at the link which I supplied (which was why I supplied it. The specific claim made by 23andme, without disclaimers, is: 23andMe empowers you to better manage your health and wellness. This seems to me like a straightforward claim of diagnostic value; the fact that it's non-exclusive is beside the point.
- Dylan16807 13y agoI think whether it's exclusive is a very large part of the point.
- anigbrowl 13y agoI disagree. certainly, the risk of misdiagnosis is is inverse proportion to the degree of supplementarity, but that can still affect an awful lot of people and result in significant economic loss. It seems to me that some people want to argue this on a binary basis, ie since 23andme does not purport to replace the advice of a primary physician, its liability for misdiagnosis therefore should fall to zero. To me, though, it seems quite likely that if 23andme suggests a risk factor that is greater than the probability spread between different options offered by a patient's physician(s), then it's very likely that the 23andme data will be given excess weight given the notoriously poor grasp of Bayesian inference among the general population (and even among some groups of clinicians). If anything, the supplementary nature of 23andme's test data should make compliance easier, since their burden will drop proportionately under the B<PL formula employed to assess tort liability in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_negligence I wonder if you and other folks who seem to be espousing this binary approach live in or hail from states with contributory negligence regimes.