Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DragonGarlicBreath t1_ize4fx8 wrote

Reply to comment by pinniped1 in Pioneering method can detect 14 types of cancer with a blood test by spymish

In fairness, the biggest problem with Theranos wasn't the concept, it was the small amount of blood they were fixated on requiring. I mean, apart from the fraud, obviously.

Detecting cancer traces in blood or even hair isn't unreasonable. Skepticism is good, but we also can't let ones (or a few) can artist poison the well. Given that this was published in PNAS, the research is coming from not a for-profit company, and they seem to have reasonable successes (62% is the overall), is believe it.

79

BloodlustyGummybear t1_izeahzj wrote

Open-minded skepticism is a keystone of science.

27

mags87 t1_izf76yg wrote

But people here aren't scientists, they are snarky commentators fishing for easy upvotes. 7 parent comments on this post and 4 are directly related to Theranos, and one with some 'hmm' emojis I assume are referencing Theranos.

10

wirral_guy t1_izfbmw4 wrote

I'll respond as I'm one of the top level commentators - it was nothing more than a jokey reference, no snark involved (well, except to Theranos), to the fact that we'd been here before with claims like this and it didn't end well. I was also, obviously not alone in making that connection.

Life doesn't always have to be serious!

7

Mrischief t1_izetjz4 wrote

Honestly it is good, but at the point of finding blood in vascular plasma, are we not seeing systemic spread ?

3

DragonGarlicBreath t1_izfadnx wrote

Depends what they're measuring. Cancer cells? Yeah. But other chemical markers? Not necessarily.

3

Mrischief t1_izfwkd0 wrote

How so ? Asking as we dont have pathomorph or oncology yet

1

fredandlunchbox t1_izf2iso wrote

62% specificity? That’s not great for something like cancer.

3

DragonGarlicBreath t1_izfatn2 wrote

62% sensitivity. And 89% accuracy at locating tumors they detect.

It's not ideal, but it's up from 10% and for a $50 test that's not particularly invasive? I can see it being worth it to screen for and catch cancers earlier.

9

FinndBors t1_izfkhnv wrote

> In fairness, the biggest problem with Theranos wasn't the concept, it was the small amount of blood they were fixated on requiring. I mean, apart from the fraud, obviously.

The biggest problem is that they pulled away funding from other outfits that wanted to improve blood tests but were way less aggressive in their claims. VCs were like, why fund this if Theranos can test for more stuff with just a drop of blood?

1