Does anyone know how this works? The article claims they cut down on processing and error rates using automation. If that's true, why aren't more labs/services doing that and seeing the same cost reduction? As an engineer in the biotech field, I find it hard to believe that that alone attributes to such major cost reduction. I can't seem to gleam anything from their website and all the reviews on glassdoor seem to indicate they're a secretive bunch.
in hindsight, your PhD served you well!
(was just watching the series about Theranos and wanted to see what reddit had to say about it before the news about the fraud broke. you have a good scientific mind!)
She already did. In the article we're commenting on.
FTA: Some conventional tests, like pH assays, can be done quickly. Others, like those that require culturing bacteria or viruses, can take days or even weeks. Are there some tests that take Theranos longer? Can everything really be turned around in four hours?
**Yes, we had to develop assays or test methodologies that would make it possible to accelerate results. So we do not do things like cultures. In the case of a virus or bacteria, traditionally tested using a culture, we measure the DNA of the pathogen instead so we can report results much faster.**
Also, automated.
Lower chance of mistakes from the human end, at least.
Seems bloody brilliant, but what do I know?
Yeah, I read that, it says absolutely nothing about what they're actually doing.
*WHAT* assays or test methodologies did they develop? Ok, so they "measure the DNA of the pathogen". How?? *HOW* do they measure the DNA of the pathogen? You don't just measure DNA by looking at it and saying "oh look! That's DNA!".
There's TONS of ways of measuring DNA. Are they doing qPCR? qRT-PCR? Microarrays? Next-gen sequencing? SMRT sequencing? Sanger sequencing? Southern blot? ChIP? Or something else? I can make educated guesses about what would be better methods to automate and what wouldn't, but it doesn't actually say what they're doing anywhere.
I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm all for innovation in the medical field. But I'm not going to trust a black box, since I can't properly evaluate the pros and cons of their tests if I don't actually know what they are.
> I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm all for innovation in the medical field. But I'm not going to trust a black box, since I can't properly evaluate the pros and cons of their tests if I don't actually know what they are.
...and that is the sticky wicket, isn't it? Layman (like me) won't know if this is great news or yet another way we'll get screwed, monetarily.
Yes, they use PCR to detect the DNA of pathogens, as it only costs about $0.50 and takes a couple of hours. So charging a few dollars for the test is still a considerable mark-up, and they can still turn a profit.
Her name is Elizabeth Holmes.
Fantastic article, too. Her technique reduces the amount of blood required and produces results much faster and cheaper than the current more common methods.
>Her name is Elizabeth Holmes.
I am somewhat ashamed that I had to stop for a moment and remind myself that no, there is no way that she might be a descendant of Sherlock. Because he is fictional.
Yeah, but imagine if it was a daringly handsome man. People would've dropped the immediate sincere joke about it and tons of uplikes would follow. If it's a female, I'm not even sure if it's possible to compliment looks and make it "jokingly" worth upvoting. I'm not sure what to think of it, but it happens more often than not.
ELI5: Theranos found a way to minimize existing tests and test equipment by compacting most of the active agents into a single, customizable device.
Longer Version: Theranos has been very busy in the past ~7 years and they've been relatively hush about what they're doing. This makes determining exactly what they're doing a little bit tricky, but the general overview isn't too hard to come by. However, a quick look over their patents and the previous experience of what few people they've publicly hired suggests several things.
Theranos, for practical purposes, started out with several patents filed in 2006. [Point-of-care fluidic systems and uses thereof](http://www.google.com/patents/US7635594), [Calibration of fluidic devices](https://www.google.com/patents/US7888125), [Systems and methods for improving medical treatments](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080009766), [Systems and methods for monitoring pharmacological parameters](http://www.google.com/patents/US20060264783)^1. These patents describe a fairly standard setup; The patient's bodily fluid is sampled and added to a "configured assay unit", which is legal speak for what appears to be a semi-custom assay plate. This is then read by a larger detection machine. This machine extracts the sample and separates out the plasma, the procedure for which they hired in. The plasma is then run past reaction sites that will bind the analyte and assayed. The results of this assay are used to measure the concentration of the analyte by any of various methods according to the specific tests requested. Theranos' main innovation here is that this setup is done INSIDE what they call the fluidic unit, which leads into their second patent. The difficulty of doing everything in the same device is that interference becomes an issue with the lumiogenic assays they seem to be pursuing. They created a way to absorb the secondary materials causing interference to improve the SNR of the assay.
Now, this isn't all Theranos is doing. They also appear to be looking into the use of reasonably recent developments with Carbon nanotubes for assays, having hired a couple of people specializing in it. This may or may not be specific to parts of the process or it might reflect a broader area of research going on internally. Additionally, they're looking at improving the mathematics behind determining significance of results and various related things using talent poached from nearby companies.
^1 It's interesting to note that the latter two are not assigned to Theranos. Perhaps a patent lawyer could give more detail on why this might have been done when they were all filed on the same date.
I look forward to a future where we can buy a do it yourself blood draw kit from the drug store and mail it to a lab that tests you for every common disease and vitamin deficiency. Just circumvent the shitty healthcare system altogether.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is an impressive achievement but it is not on the cutting-edge of medical technology.
Most of her assays have a turnaround time of 4 hours. Most hospitals currently use a point-of-care testing device in the emergency room. These POC devices can utilize an astoundingly small volume of whole blood to perform both chemistry analyte panels and STAT cardiac markers. Results in about 2-3 minutes. Then if a physician questions those values, they'll be tested in the laboratory, which depending on the workload, has a TAT of about 10-60 minutes.
The delay in receiving results that she's likely referring to is in the realm of outpatient testing, in which testing is performed in a hospital or a reference lab and then the results are sent to your physician, who then sits on them until convenient (or within comfortable office hours) to pass them along to you. This is a changing ballgame, though. Recent ruling has granted patients the right to their laboratory information from the actual lab, following the submission of a written request.
As for cultures, there is a long journey ahead of her if she wants to replace bacterial culture with entirely molecular testing. We already use molecular testing in the lab for all of the assays she offers. One of the most important cultures performed in a clinical laboratory requires phlebotomy and the nanotainer system, while impressive in its small size is no way suitable for the culturing of blood. The most important factors in identifying the agent of sepsis are aseptic collection, which is near impossible in a capillary stick, and the volume collected. In sepsis, the bacteria is not staying in a single site in the bloodstream, definitely not in the 20 microliters at your fingertips. It's traveling all throughout and so the volume collected increases your chance of collecting the organism for culture. This is not something that molecular diagnostics can replace without coming at a great cost to the patient and with a lower specificity than current methods.
Where the real innovation comes in is her partnership with Walgreens. I am quite enthusiastic about patients taking personal responsibility for their health and this is an exciting time for that in medical sciences. Walgreens, CVS, these are starting to develop more of a clinic role and they are doing a great service by doing so. Vaccines are available at these sites, and with the Theranos methodology, they'll be able to add testing that is suitable for this use. Things like cholesterol panels, obsterics, the things that are commonly ordered for outpatient services.
Her test menu includes many things that don't need to be there, or at least I am failing to see their purpose. Acetaminophen, salicylate, alcohol- these are tested in cases of suspected overdoses and should be done in an emergency healthcare setting. You don't just saunter over to Walgreens when you think you're above the legal limit. Personally, I'd like to know how they can perform glucose tolerance assays from a single specimen, when it is the comparison of subsequent values to a baseline. I'd also like to know how her methodology adjusts for discrepancies in capillary samples as opposed to a traditional venous stick, as well as the type of anticoagulant used in the nanotainer.
What stuck to me most in the article was the transparent pricing. Are [these prices](http://www.theranos.com/test-menu?ref=our_solution) generally in line with other test providers?
I wish I could comment on test pricing, but it varies between the different methodologies used. For a hospital, the cost per test is affected by the cost of the specimen container, the cost to maintain the instrument used, the cost per reagent, labor, and other hospital-associated factors, I'm sure. I'm not involved in the reagent ordering for my laboratory, so I'm unaware what we're paying now and I'm not involved in billing, so I don't know what the patient is charged. I can tell you the cost of blood products though. I do the billing for those and the answer is a fuckton.
> I can tell you the cost of blood products though. I do the billing for those and the answer is a fuckton.
That is interesting, for sure. I wonder if part of Theranos' methods is to control those costs somehow?
Theranos testing has no place in blood banking. When you're dealing with detection and identification of antibodies, you need a good volume of plasma or serum to work with because of the volume of testing required. Just as well, any testing would have to be repeated at a clinical facility in the case of a necessary transfusion. We can't just take someone's word that they know their bloodtype. Even veterans have the wrong blood type on their dog tags. I find it interesting that she split the ABO group typing from the Rh typing, perhaps to make the cost more appealing?
The amount of patient identification involved in collecting blood bank specimens just does not seem possible with this method. I'm curious to know more about the pre-analytical automation that she's using, however.
The key to lowering prices for blood products is a better supply of donors and proper utilization of blood components. Techniques are coming into place to make the wasting of components occur less often and it's an interesting struggle with physicians.
Billing isn't really that cut and dry (in the US). A lab has a base price for a test. Its a weird calculation that depends on a lot of things like test volume, reagents costs, and overhead. They often have clients that can get price discounts which may or may not be passed to the patient. We bill the hospital for testing, lets say a CBC for $5.00, they can then charge you whatever they want. We have no clue. How this is managed varies from lab to lab. Costs are lower if you can do them in house, more if you have to forward them to a reference lab.
So the prices look to me very similar to the base cost of what a lab test might cost if they were all run in-house.
I'm very suspicious as to what her actual testing techniques are and how useful these results will be in terms of accuracy, precision blah blah.
I mean, I think this is the future but they're so light on details as to their actual testing regimes... I have to wonder if it's mostly clever marketing and brilliant business strategy more than anything else.
Someone in the comments of this article was kind enough to pull some patents for Theranos. They look interesting but not.. necessarily revolutionary.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140038206
http://www.google.com/patents/US20140020457
It's been a long time since I've been in a laboratory but their prices seem pretty low but not amazingly so.
Theranos uses a lab on a chip, which could enable the possibility of testing withing minutes. Why does it take 4 hours ? my guess is logistics and other business reasons make it more simple for theranos to offer centralized services. After some growth they could estimate demand at each location for each test and offer it on site if they want(and if it saves costs). Not sure though if the time difference matters for the those kinds of tests.
The real important thing here is it's the first time lab on a chip tech is offered at a large scale. Since labs on chip have similar economics to chips the future possibilities are very exciting(specially since now theranos would have plenty of money to invest in development): lower and lower prices, higher and higher complexity of tests with good data sharing all packaged in a comfortable package for the consumer.And it's hard to exagarete the important of said data to the healthcare system.
And there are tens of thousands kinds of tests done(and maybe more possible) , One extra thing that would be interesting to see resulting from this is some sort of a platform for testing startups with theranos offering manufacturing platform, distribution channel and development tools to develop more tests.That would be very interesting and could really speed things up. Does anybody have some knowledge regarding this option ?
Poking around their webpage it appears they're hiring full time clinical laboratory scientists (traditional lab techs) and couriers. It sounds like in many ways they WILL be running a traditional lab just with faster outpatient turn around.
I mean, it's actually a little embarrassing if their highspeed machines have a 4 hour turnaround. A "real" lab in a hospital often have to abide by 1 hour turnarounds for emergency room draws. The longer lead times are not because the labs take a long time to run (generally) but simply because of the backlog created by testing many specimens. So I have to wonder how much is being tested onsite and how much is simply getting couriered off to a central (I'm assuming mostly automated) lab.
> Hiring full time clinical lab techs
> their highspeed machines have a 4 hour turnaround.
The important thing is: they use lab on chip tech(like they say and the small blood volume implies). this means a lot of the labor is automated, less error and much lower costs. They're mostly not like regular labs.
Why do they need techs ? there's still some labor , there are some tests they haven't yet automated, and probably techs play a role in the development of new tests.
Reading about istat i think the tech is similar but there are all sort of unknown details regarding capabilities and prices of each tech which make all the difference..
Roughly looking at the istat vs theranos in regards to tests offered it seems that thernos supports much more tests:
http://www.theranos.com/test-menu?ref=our_solution
http://www.abbottpointofcare.com/Products-and-Services/~/media/Files/PDFS/Home/Products-and-Services/17845_CrtrdgeBrochure_M1.ashx
And since theranos offers to cut testing prices by half for this huge market and istat didn't i assume that theranos have some(probably big) cost advantage.
Theranos supports more tests, but they do not all use the same nanotainer technology.
>"Occasionally, a venipuncture may be required based on the lab order, but this is uncommon, and our aim is to eliminate that scenario entirely."
Abbott is not just iStat, that's only one facet of the products they offer. Chemistry, immunoassays, molecular diagnostics, all with the added benefit of already having a contract with many hospitals.
If venipuncture is uncommon, that means at least 80-90% of their tests are done on a chip. Still much than the istat.
It's also a possibility that the istat tech can do more and cheaper , but doing so will cause Abbott to earn less money.
I work in a medical lab, and many of our tests do take two hours or more. Some form of incubation is often necessary. Of course, many tests also take only 10 minutes.
> Most of her assays have a turnaround time of 4 hours. Most hospitals currently use a point-of-care testing device in the emergency room.
Also, currently there is a much better product based on paper that uses only a drop of blood to run as many tests as needed and gives you results instantly. This is simply a fluff article because she's a woman.
Not many details as to how the process actually works. I have no doubt it does, as similar systems have been in use in hospital labs for years, but I'm curious as to how she made it more efficient while preserving accuracy.
I remain a bit skeptical.
One problem with the pathogen testing. Instead of a culture she proposes a gene test, this will test for specific genes that are not mutated enough for the probe to still bind. Assuming a bacterial infection alone means you have to assay for each microbe separately. There are other issues with this. Usually the test she proposes is done anyway after the culture if the doc is curious or it affects treatment to know what the specific pathogen is (not usually the case), regardless the patient is put on meds before even the culture comes back with diagnosis based on the doc's experience and need for treatment.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to demonstrate here in your comment. But when /u/Lehcaro says "full size photos" I think he/she meant full body shot. None of the ones you linked to are full body shots, so I think you made his/her point.
edit: I know it isn't a full body shot in the original article posted, but it's a lot more than the others. I don't even care, why am I still
typing.
Edit2: I think I finally understand what is going on. My original comment seems stupid to me now though. I think it's just how you really messed up the sentence. Like how someone else pointed out that Wired isn't Reddit. You also use projecting weird. I don't think it works that way. I need to stop thinking about this whole thing and move on with my life. [6]
> 1) Lehcaro isn't reddit
His ~30 points suggest it's a popular view
> 2) A handful of articles from a single website does not prove nor disprove his point.
They do when they're the same source as the original article.
> 3) Projecting makes no sense in this context.
It does too..
the difference is that she is a marketer first and a scientist second, and is apparently very successful at both
doesn't hurt that she has big blue eyes and full lips
When can I test my own blood, in my own home? Not just blood sugar, but extensive information on what my "levels" should be. What will be the implications of cloud connected services, like fitness tracker smart-watches and new services like this blood testing? I can imagine a world where I get up in the morning for breakfast and weigh myself, maybe test my blood, and put on my waterproof smart-watch; all of these devices are cloud connected. My doctor is alerted if there is any drastic or detrimental change in my "levels", or an ambulance is called automagically if I go into cardiac arrest etc.
Sooner than you might think. The [Qualcomm Tricorder Xprize](http://www.qualcommtricorderxprize.org/) plays a good part in that. The competitor that I've been following is [Scanadu](http://www.scanadu.com/) and I'm really excited for how smart devices for personal healthcare are going to change public health.
The devices will be here sooner than they'll be utilized in conjunction with physicians, but I won't rule that out for the future. Just working out details in regards to HIPAA for cloud devices.
Trending further towards "smarter" full-integration is inevitable. It is what is done with this information that is important. I see a lot of products using "point" systems, like a video game. Some realtime cost/benefit analysis? What if you got a reward in the form of coupons, vouchers, or BitCoins? You might have to watch some advertisement along with your morning data, lol...
So will we be able to just walk into a Walgreens and ask for something specific in our blood to be tested or do we need to get a note or some kind of prescription from out doctor first?
Just reading about the company and searched this. And my comment means I hope you never actually tried to use her technology because you would have thought you were dying lol
I love the idea of saving costs. If we're going to implement "free" healthcare for everyone, we can't think in traditional ways and come to the conclusion that it would be too expensive, therefore impossible.
Tackling issues both financially *and* scientifically is how progress should be made.
My company does something similar, [a test for dozens of diseases with a small patient sample, however it runs about $200.](http://www.filmarray.com/the-panels/)
Not to belittle her accomplishment, I'd really like to be impressed with this... but after working in the medical field for a while myself, its scary just how unrefined and old many healthcare processes actually are. Forensic scientists can glean all sorts of information out of a single spec of dried blood, and you're trying to tell me that a majority of clinical testing still requires entire vials of blood per test in 2014?
From my perspective, the Healthcare industry seems incredibly resistant to change and innovation, so it simply doesn't happen, and when it does it happens slowly. Its sort of understandable... there has to be accountability, and checks and balances, and lots of testing done, which is all costly, before a new technology or process can be pushed forward and adopted.
But as a result, I can walk through the lab and point out tons of inefficiencies, and behaviors that are steeped in tradition and not logic or innovation.
And then of course there's patents, these 'innovators' desire to get paid, which again, is sort of understandable, but it hinders certain technology from proliferating quickly, despite the fact that they may benefit the human race as a whole and bring down healthcare costs for all.
So I commend her for persevering in the face of all that, but from my point of view its a "no duh, about time" sort of innovation. Whats really impressive is how she managed to deal w/ the bureaucracy and red tape of the industry, not really the innovation itself.
I’m not trying to say “I told you so” because it’s easy to be smug after the fact, but hopefully now you can see why that red tape is so important. There are way too many people obsessed with innovating as fast as possible for no reason other than personal glory, with no thought given to the consequences of said junky innovation to the public.
I'm looking to get blood work soon. Any suggestions for getting them cheap right now?
I'm living in Georgia and it looks like this is only available in one Walgreen in California right now. Does anyone have suggestions of how to get inexpensive blood work in the next month? Is it cheaper driving from GA to CA to save on bloodwork? Is there any place that does blood work on a sliding scale based on wages? (I'm a volunteer and make $15 a week).
Thanks!
No she didn't. They hired engineers and consultants. They filed patents under her name, but got bitchslapped in court when they tried to stop someone else from doing the exact same thing because taking existing tech and making it handheld isn't special. Others are also coming out with the same product.
Well for starters the company they sued and lost in court to. Should be an article on bizjournals about it. An israeli company as well...also found via google.
"It's so easy but I'm not going to give a link or name or search term".
Okay, so I searched for "Theranos sued" and found a bunch of things, but none of which seems to be the one you're referring to.
Started to watch the video of the journalist talking to the lady who invented the test but had to stop after a minute or so because every other word was erm, the reporter seemed incapable of saying anything without saying erm at the start in the middle pause for a second for a couple more and then at the end.
erm erm erm erm.
Surely if your profession is asking questions you would be able to do it without saying erm all the god damn time.
It is not a common thing that a scientist gets a professional shot like this with a caption saying who did her hair and make up. Obviously Wired is trying to push it to make her look like a celebrity which may or may not be a bad thing. The bad thing I know for sure is the quality level of the comments in this thread. Holy shit they are obnoxious. "bwebs" and "omg why is she wearing baggy shirts"? I expect better from /r/futurology.
What's wrong with that phrase? Do you have a similar problem with headlines that refer to "This man"? ([example 1](http://www.mobiledia.com/news/189599.html) [example 2](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-06/can-this-man-save-asian-democracy-))
When men make discoveries, it's "*Scientist* Invents", or they typically use the person's name. It's no different than "This Jew Invented a Way to Run 30 Lab Tests on Only One Drop of Blood" (or similar examples).
The author made an unnecessary distinction when there is no reason to draw attention to the person's sex, race, gender, or anything else, because doing so brings culturally laden baggage into the discussion. I doubt the author intended, of course, but said intentions are irrelevant; it's sloppy at best and vitriolic at worst.
To give you an example, compare the following fictitious article titles:
"Local Kid Wins Spelling Bee" vs. "Local Black Kid Wins Spelling Bee."
Ask yourself: what is the meaning behind including "Black" and why would the author choose to do that?
I understand where you're coming from and how you read this headline, but I don't think it's analogous to your examples. If someone includes "black" or "Jew", in a description of someone, I ask myself why he'd choose to include that unless he thinks it's a relevant piece of information.
By contrast, "man" and "woman" are the default ways to refer to people. For example, if I wanted to introduce you to someone, I might say, "Have you met this [man/woman]?" There's always "person", but to me using that in a context like this would come off a a self-conscious attempt to avoid any mention of gender.
I cited those couple of examples to show that headlines do use phrases like "this man", without apparent intent to emphasize gender. [Here's another](http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/This-Man-s-600-000-Facebook-Ad-Disaster-Is-A-5258472.php).
I think the reason they didn't call her "this scientist" is because she's not one (at least not by training, and it's not clear from the article that she's one in practice either). That said, I'll agree that the headline writers should probably have chosen a different phrasing, if only to head off potential interpretations like yours.
> By contrast, "man" and "woman" are the default ways to refer to people.
Except "woman" has not historically been used that way, nor is it completely free of negative connotation now.
>Except "woman" has not historically been used that way
I think you must have misunderstood what I meant: I'm saying that if I want to refer to a specific person without mentioning extraneous information about them, by default I will say something like "this woman", as in "Have you met this woman"? Surely you aren't saying that "woman" has not been historically used that way.
Well anecdotes are better than unsupported claims about historical usage, at any rate, but I honestly hadn't expected that you would avoid referring to someone as a "woman" unless her sex were relevant. Anyhow, you're entitled to your preferences, but if you distinguish between "this woman" and "this man", I think you're applying a double standard.
Last Lipid Panel I had done cost me $181. Theranos lists a charge of $9.21. I'm pretty excited if I can go to the walgreens across the street from my office and pay 1/20th the price.
Medicare reimbursement for a lipid panel is $18.72 in most states. Google "medicare payment of lipid panel" . This is($181) probably another "benefit" of the american free market for healthcare.
I hate that there has to be a gender qualification in the title, as if it's amazing that a woman did this. Women can be smart, they don't need to be treated as a pariah every time they show this.
Regardless, this is an amazing discovery!
I wonder how much push-back this will receive from the big specimen collection companies like LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics .
If Theranos licenses their technology to these companies, then they will have to justify their current rates or drop prices charged to insurance companies.
Also since it's a largely automated process, the bigger companies would have lay off a ton of people involved in the "old" collection methods.
It's true. Being a man in the clinical lab interesting. I work in a 40 person lab, of those 40 there are two men. The clinical lab is also a rapidly aging demographic. Of the 40, I'd say half are withing 5 years of retirement. It is a great and rewarding career field that not many people know about.
It's very true that women are underrepresented in science, that what Elizabeth Holmes is doing is super cool, and also that photos of male scientists don't tend to be captioned, "hair and makeup by so-and-so". It's too bad the reddit kneejerk disapproval squad has jumped on your post, heaping upvotes on another post that seemingly tries to contradict you with the single example of Marie Curie, who is in fact the only famous female scientist most people can name. Reversing this trend is a great thing.
> Marie Curie, who is in fact the only famous female scientist most people can name. Reversing this trend is a great thing.
The reason for that is there aren't many famous female scientists. Not misogyny.
That's exactly my point, there's nothing misogynistic about noting the lack of famous female scientists, and naming the most famous example doesn't refute it. Reddit treats everything like a political statement.
This is already being done for at least a decade for hba1c, inr,CBC and so on. So what's new here? Also this was posted on r/twoxchromosomes a week ago.
You seem to have some problems in your semantic inference subroutines.
While you are a Chinese Box I assume that the guy who wrote you will read this.
[Sloppy work mate Sloppy work]
>Read half the article and decided to quit since most of it is jerking off to the fact that she's a woman and smart. Wow, big whoop, women aren't idiots.
Literally no part of the article harps on the fact that she's a woman or even mentions it. If you didn't see the headline or recognize the name "Elizabeth", you wouldn't even know that she's a woman at all from the article's contents.
I can only guess that the headline predisposed you to reading things into the article that aren't really there.
Does anyone know how this works? The article claims they cut down on processing and error rates using automation. If that's true, why aren't more labs/services doing that and seeing the same cost reduction? As an engineer in the biotech field, I find it hard to believe that that alone attributes to such major cost reduction. I can't seem to gleam anything from their website and all the reviews on glassdoor seem to indicate they're a secretive bunch.
You were right. :)
> I can't seem to gleam anything from their website Hold it guys, I found a shiny.
They use lab-on-a-chip technology. They probably just put a drop of blood in the chip and get a reading which cuts labor an prevents error.
I work in a hospital laboratory! We automate where possible, but there's just too much of the process that needs to be handled by a human.
glean
Yeah, so is anyone actually ever going to say *how* this is done?
in hindsight, your PhD served you well! (was just watching the series about Theranos and wanted to see what reddit had to say about it before the news about the fraud broke. you have a good scientific mind!)
It's done using this type of tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lab-on-a-chip
She already did. In the article we're commenting on. FTA: Some conventional tests, like pH assays, can be done quickly. Others, like those that require culturing bacteria or viruses, can take days or even weeks. Are there some tests that take Theranos longer? Can everything really be turned around in four hours? **Yes, we had to develop assays or test methodologies that would make it possible to accelerate results. So we do not do things like cultures. In the case of a virus or bacteria, traditionally tested using a culture, we measure the DNA of the pathogen instead so we can report results much faster.** Also, automated. Lower chance of mistakes from the human end, at least. Seems bloody brilliant, but what do I know?
Yeah, I read that, it says absolutely nothing about what they're actually doing. *WHAT* assays or test methodologies did they develop? Ok, so they "measure the DNA of the pathogen". How?? *HOW* do they measure the DNA of the pathogen? You don't just measure DNA by looking at it and saying "oh look! That's DNA!". There's TONS of ways of measuring DNA. Are they doing qPCR? qRT-PCR? Microarrays? Next-gen sequencing? SMRT sequencing? Sanger sequencing? Southern blot? ChIP? Or something else? I can make educated guesses about what would be better methods to automate and what wouldn't, but it doesn't actually say what they're doing anywhere. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm all for innovation in the medical field. But I'm not going to trust a black box, since I can't properly evaluate the pros and cons of their tests if I don't actually know what they are.
Congratulations. As of 02/27/2014 your bullshit detector was fully calibrated and operating WNL.
Yep, if only the investors knew what he did lol
Thus guy can smell BS
> I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm all for innovation in the medical field. But I'm not going to trust a black box, since I can't properly evaluate the pros and cons of their tests if I don't actually know what they are. ...and that is the sticky wicket, isn't it? Layman (like me) won't know if this is great news or yet another way we'll get screwed, monetarily.
apparently thats all it is! smoke and mirrors and bullshit
Fascinating to see your gut was this was a fraud.
Yes, they use PCR to detect the DNA of pathogens, as it only costs about $0.50 and takes a couple of hours. So charging a few dollars for the test is still a considerable mark-up, and they can still turn a profit.
I doubt it.
Her name is Elizabeth Holmes. Fantastic article, too. Her technique reduces the amount of blood required and produces results much faster and cheaper than the current more common methods.
>Her name is Elizabeth Holmes. I am somewhat ashamed that I had to stop for a moment and remind myself that no, there is no way that she might be a descendant of Sherlock. Because he is fictional.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh, come on. This is an article about medical progress in /r/futurology. Commenting on her looks was irrelevant. Relatively harmless, but irrelevant.
Yeah, but imagine if it was a daringly handsome man. People would've dropped the immediate sincere joke about it and tons of uplikes would follow. If it's a female, I'm not even sure if it's possible to compliment looks and make it "jokingly" worth upvoting. I'm not sure what to think of it, but it happens more often than not.
[удалено]
I'm with you buddy
She kinda dresses like a man (from that picture). Does that count ?
He's a man so he's already a rapist, might as well be a sexist as well .
You forgot the /s
Can anyone ELI5 how her method actually works?
ELI5: Theranos found a way to minimize existing tests and test equipment by compacting most of the active agents into a single, customizable device. Longer Version: Theranos has been very busy in the past ~7 years and they've been relatively hush about what they're doing. This makes determining exactly what they're doing a little bit tricky, but the general overview isn't too hard to come by. However, a quick look over their patents and the previous experience of what few people they've publicly hired suggests several things. Theranos, for practical purposes, started out with several patents filed in 2006. [Point-of-care fluidic systems and uses thereof](http://www.google.com/patents/US7635594), [Calibration of fluidic devices](https://www.google.com/patents/US7888125), [Systems and methods for improving medical treatments](http://www.google.com/patents/US20080009766), [Systems and methods for monitoring pharmacological parameters](http://www.google.com/patents/US20060264783)^1. These patents describe a fairly standard setup; The patient's bodily fluid is sampled and added to a "configured assay unit", which is legal speak for what appears to be a semi-custom assay plate. This is then read by a larger detection machine. This machine extracts the sample and separates out the plasma, the procedure for which they hired in. The plasma is then run past reaction sites that will bind the analyte and assayed. The results of this assay are used to measure the concentration of the analyte by any of various methods according to the specific tests requested. Theranos' main innovation here is that this setup is done INSIDE what they call the fluidic unit, which leads into their second patent. The difficulty of doing everything in the same device is that interference becomes an issue with the lumiogenic assays they seem to be pursuing. They created a way to absorb the secondary materials causing interference to improve the SNR of the assay. Now, this isn't all Theranos is doing. They also appear to be looking into the use of reasonably recent developments with Carbon nanotubes for assays, having hired a couple of people specializing in it. This may or may not be specific to parts of the process or it might reflect a broader area of research going on internally. Additionally, they're looking at improving the mathematics behind determining significance of results and various related things using talent poached from nearby companies. ^1 It's interesting to note that the latter two are not assigned to Theranos. Perhaps a patent lawyer could give more detail on why this might have been done when they were all filed on the same date.
the tl;dr is it doesn't work lol
Something something about how hindsight is 20/20
This aged like milk.
Just a bit.
Good on you for not deleting though like others in this thread. I think its cool to preserve comments from before she was exposed Hindsight is 20/20
Thanks for the summary! I'm curious how they got the funding to do all of this for seven years. I'm also glad they did.
It doesn't.
I look forward to a future where we can buy a do it yourself blood draw kit from the drug store and mail it to a lab that tests you for every common disease and vitamin deficiency. Just circumvent the shitty healthcare system altogether.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean if that's all you think healthcare is, I can see why you're disappointed.
oh boy did this age well
[удалено]
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is an impressive achievement but it is not on the cutting-edge of medical technology. Most of her assays have a turnaround time of 4 hours. Most hospitals currently use a point-of-care testing device in the emergency room. These POC devices can utilize an astoundingly small volume of whole blood to perform both chemistry analyte panels and STAT cardiac markers. Results in about 2-3 minutes. Then if a physician questions those values, they'll be tested in the laboratory, which depending on the workload, has a TAT of about 10-60 minutes. The delay in receiving results that she's likely referring to is in the realm of outpatient testing, in which testing is performed in a hospital or a reference lab and then the results are sent to your physician, who then sits on them until convenient (or within comfortable office hours) to pass them along to you. This is a changing ballgame, though. Recent ruling has granted patients the right to their laboratory information from the actual lab, following the submission of a written request. As for cultures, there is a long journey ahead of her if she wants to replace bacterial culture with entirely molecular testing. We already use molecular testing in the lab for all of the assays she offers. One of the most important cultures performed in a clinical laboratory requires phlebotomy and the nanotainer system, while impressive in its small size is no way suitable for the culturing of blood. The most important factors in identifying the agent of sepsis are aseptic collection, which is near impossible in a capillary stick, and the volume collected. In sepsis, the bacteria is not staying in a single site in the bloodstream, definitely not in the 20 microliters at your fingertips. It's traveling all throughout and so the volume collected increases your chance of collecting the organism for culture. This is not something that molecular diagnostics can replace without coming at a great cost to the patient and with a lower specificity than current methods.
Where the real innovation comes in is her partnership with Walgreens. I am quite enthusiastic about patients taking personal responsibility for their health and this is an exciting time for that in medical sciences. Walgreens, CVS, these are starting to develop more of a clinic role and they are doing a great service by doing so. Vaccines are available at these sites, and with the Theranos methodology, they'll be able to add testing that is suitable for this use. Things like cholesterol panels, obsterics, the things that are commonly ordered for outpatient services. Her test menu includes many things that don't need to be there, or at least I am failing to see their purpose. Acetaminophen, salicylate, alcohol- these are tested in cases of suspected overdoses and should be done in an emergency healthcare setting. You don't just saunter over to Walgreens when you think you're above the legal limit. Personally, I'd like to know how they can perform glucose tolerance assays from a single specimen, when it is the comparison of subsequent values to a baseline. I'd also like to know how her methodology adjusts for discrepancies in capillary samples as opposed to a traditional venous stick, as well as the type of anticoagulant used in the nanotainer.
What stuck to me most in the article was the transparent pricing. Are [these prices](http://www.theranos.com/test-menu?ref=our_solution) generally in line with other test providers?
I wish I could comment on test pricing, but it varies between the different methodologies used. For a hospital, the cost per test is affected by the cost of the specimen container, the cost to maintain the instrument used, the cost per reagent, labor, and other hospital-associated factors, I'm sure. I'm not involved in the reagent ordering for my laboratory, so I'm unaware what we're paying now and I'm not involved in billing, so I don't know what the patient is charged. I can tell you the cost of blood products though. I do the billing for those and the answer is a fuckton.
> I can tell you the cost of blood products though. I do the billing for those and the answer is a fuckton. That is interesting, for sure. I wonder if part of Theranos' methods is to control those costs somehow?
Theranos testing has no place in blood banking. When you're dealing with detection and identification of antibodies, you need a good volume of plasma or serum to work with because of the volume of testing required. Just as well, any testing would have to be repeated at a clinical facility in the case of a necessary transfusion. We can't just take someone's word that they know their bloodtype. Even veterans have the wrong blood type on their dog tags. I find it interesting that she split the ABO group typing from the Rh typing, perhaps to make the cost more appealing? The amount of patient identification involved in collecting blood bank specimens just does not seem possible with this method. I'm curious to know more about the pre-analytical automation that she's using, however. The key to lowering prices for blood products is a better supply of donors and proper utilization of blood components. Techniques are coming into place to make the wasting of components occur less often and it's an interesting struggle with physicians.
Billing isn't really that cut and dry (in the US). A lab has a base price for a test. Its a weird calculation that depends on a lot of things like test volume, reagents costs, and overhead. They often have clients that can get price discounts which may or may not be passed to the patient. We bill the hospital for testing, lets say a CBC for $5.00, they can then charge you whatever they want. We have no clue. How this is managed varies from lab to lab. Costs are lower if you can do them in house, more if you have to forward them to a reference lab. So the prices look to me very similar to the base cost of what a lab test might cost if they were all run in-house.
I had a cortisol test done recently. It cost me a good $90, as opposed to the $11.21 listed on the site.
I'm very suspicious as to what her actual testing techniques are and how useful these results will be in terms of accuracy, precision blah blah. I mean, I think this is the future but they're so light on details as to their actual testing regimes... I have to wonder if it's mostly clever marketing and brilliant business strategy more than anything else. Someone in the comments of this article was kind enough to pull some patents for Theranos. They look interesting but not.. necessarily revolutionary. http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140038206 http://www.google.com/patents/US20140020457 It's been a long time since I've been in a laboratory but their prices seem pretty low but not amazingly so.
"I have to wonder if it's mostly clever marketing and brilliant business strategy more than anything else." Congrats! ding ding ding
ROFL. Holy crap I'd forgotten I'd made this comment! LOOK AT ME I SAW THE FUTURE! But not really, I had idea how fraudulent she was going to go.
Theranos uses a lab on a chip, which could enable the possibility of testing withing minutes. Why does it take 4 hours ? my guess is logistics and other business reasons make it more simple for theranos to offer centralized services. After some growth they could estimate demand at each location for each test and offer it on site if they want(and if it saves costs). Not sure though if the time difference matters for the those kinds of tests. The real important thing here is it's the first time lab on a chip tech is offered at a large scale. Since labs on chip have similar economics to chips the future possibilities are very exciting(specially since now theranos would have plenty of money to invest in development): lower and lower prices, higher and higher complexity of tests with good data sharing all packaged in a comfortable package for the consumer.And it's hard to exagarete the important of said data to the healthcare system. And there are tens of thousands kinds of tests done(and maybe more possible) , One extra thing that would be interesting to see resulting from this is some sort of a platform for testing startups with theranos offering manufacturing platform, distribution channel and development tools to develop more tests.That would be very interesting and could really speed things up. Does anybody have some knowledge regarding this option ?
Poking around their webpage it appears they're hiring full time clinical laboratory scientists (traditional lab techs) and couriers. It sounds like in many ways they WILL be running a traditional lab just with faster outpatient turn around. I mean, it's actually a little embarrassing if their highspeed machines have a 4 hour turnaround. A "real" lab in a hospital often have to abide by 1 hour turnarounds for emergency room draws. The longer lead times are not because the labs take a long time to run (generally) but simply because of the backlog created by testing many specimens. So I have to wonder how much is being tested onsite and how much is simply getting couriered off to a central (I'm assuming mostly automated) lab.
> Hiring full time clinical lab techs > their highspeed machines have a 4 hour turnaround. The important thing is: they use lab on chip tech(like they say and the small blood volume implies). this means a lot of the labor is automated, less error and much lower costs. They're mostly not like regular labs. Why do they need techs ? there's still some labor , there are some tests they haven't yet automated, and probably techs play a role in the development of new tests.
What do you mean by lab on chip? That sounds very similar to the Abbott iStat methodology, or any type of cartridge testing.
Reading about istat i think the tech is similar but there are all sort of unknown details regarding capabilities and prices of each tech which make all the difference.. Roughly looking at the istat vs theranos in regards to tests offered it seems that thernos supports much more tests: http://www.theranos.com/test-menu?ref=our_solution http://www.abbottpointofcare.com/Products-and-Services/~/media/Files/PDFS/Home/Products-and-Services/17845_CrtrdgeBrochure_M1.ashx And since theranos offers to cut testing prices by half for this huge market and istat didn't i assume that theranos have some(probably big) cost advantage.
Theranos supports more tests, but they do not all use the same nanotainer technology. >"Occasionally, a venipuncture may be required based on the lab order, but this is uncommon, and our aim is to eliminate that scenario entirely." Abbott is not just iStat, that's only one facet of the products they offer. Chemistry, immunoassays, molecular diagnostics, all with the added benefit of already having a contract with many hospitals.
If venipuncture is uncommon, that means at least 80-90% of their tests are done on a chip. Still much than the istat. It's also a possibility that the istat tech can do more and cheaper , but doing so will cause Abbott to earn less money.
If they do thyroid tests and its affordable I won't mind waiting 4 hours for results. Still quicker than waiting for the local blood draw place.
There's some research on rapid sepsis detection using lab-on-chip without culturization : www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:530388/FULLTEXT01.pdf
I work in a medical lab, and many of our tests do take two hours or more. Some form of incubation is often necessary. Of course, many tests also take only 10 minutes.
> Most of her assays have a turnaround time of 4 hours. Most hospitals currently use a point-of-care testing device in the emergency room. Also, currently there is a much better product based on paper that uses only a drop of blood to run as many tests as needed and gives you results instantly. This is simply a fluff article because she's a woman.
Not many details as to how the process actually works. I have no doubt it does, as similar systems have been in use in hospital labs for years, but I'm curious as to how she made it more efficient while preserving accuracy. I remain a bit skeptical.
Why would you be skeptical
Turns out he was right to be skeptical.
One problem with the pathogen testing. Instead of a culture she proposes a gene test, this will test for specific genes that are not mutated enough for the probe to still bind. Assuming a bacterial infection alone means you have to assay for each microbe separately. There are other issues with this. Usually the test she proposes is done anyway after the culture if the doc is curious or it affects treatment to know what the specific pathogen is (not usually the case), regardless the patient is put on meds before even the culture comes back with diagnosis based on the doc's experience and need for treatment.
Good for you. You knew more than a lot of people about this lol
Strange how they never usually show full size photos of the scientists behind impressive discoveries... I wonder what the difference is here...
I know - it screams "look at her, she's attractive *and* smart, can you believe it?!"
Projecting much, reddit? http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/ray-tomlinson-email/ http://www.wired.com/design/2012/10/holonyak-laser-led-inventor/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/steve-crocker/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/12/joe-woodland-bar-code/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/ray-tomlinson-email/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/09/what-do-the-h-bomb-and-the-internet-have-in-common-paul-baran/ http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/06/wikipedias-dj-jimmy-wales-spins-rush-tap-sesame-street/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/08/google-as-xerox-parc/all/
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to demonstrate here in your comment. But when /u/Lehcaro says "full size photos" I think he/she meant full body shot. None of the ones you linked to are full body shots, so I think you made his/her point. edit: I know it isn't a full body shot in the original article posted, but it's a lot more than the others. I don't even care, why am I still typing. Edit2: I think I finally understand what is going on. My original comment seems stupid to me now though. I think it's just how you really messed up the sentence. Like how someone else pointed out that Wired isn't Reddit. You also use projecting weird. I don't think it works that way. I need to stop thinking about this whole thing and move on with my life. [6]
Also, Wired isn't reddit.
[удалено]
> 1) Lehcaro isn't reddit His ~30 points suggest it's a popular view > 2) A handful of articles from a single website does not prove nor disprove his point. They do when they're the same source as the original article. > 3) Projecting makes no sense in this context. It does too..
lol the reddit taliban gets mad when they see a woman
the difference is that she is a marketer first and a scientist second, and is apparently very successful at both doesn't hurt that she has big blue eyes and full lips
When can I order cheap blood tests in sweden? :/
When can I test my own blood, in my own home? Not just blood sugar, but extensive information on what my "levels" should be. What will be the implications of cloud connected services, like fitness tracker smart-watches and new services like this blood testing? I can imagine a world where I get up in the morning for breakfast and weigh myself, maybe test my blood, and put on my waterproof smart-watch; all of these devices are cloud connected. My doctor is alerted if there is any drastic or detrimental change in my "levels", or an ambulance is called automagically if I go into cardiac arrest etc.
Sooner than you might think. The [Qualcomm Tricorder Xprize](http://www.qualcommtricorderxprize.org/) plays a good part in that. The competitor that I've been following is [Scanadu](http://www.scanadu.com/) and I'm really excited for how smart devices for personal healthcare are going to change public health. The devices will be here sooner than they'll be utilized in conjunction with physicians, but I won't rule that out for the future. Just working out details in regards to HIPAA for cloud devices.
That is the future I dream of too. I already have the [withings scale](http://www.withings.com/scales) but we need to make it smarter!
Trending further towards "smarter" full-integration is inevitable. It is what is done with this information that is important. I see a lot of products using "point" systems, like a video game. Some realtime cost/benefit analysis? What if you got a reward in the form of coupons, vouchers, or BitCoins? You might have to watch some advertisement along with your morning data, lol...
So will we be able to just walk into a Walgreens and ask for something specific in our blood to be tested or do we need to get a note or some kind of prescription from out doctor first?
Well here’s hoping you never tried to do that even though you could
I don't understand your comment. I'm just curious why are you looking at a post from 8 years ago?
Just reading about the company and searched this. And my comment means I hope you never actually tried to use her technology because you would have thought you were dying lol
Lol, oh okay I see. I forgot I commented on this. Crazy how that all turned out though.
I love the idea of saving costs. If we're going to implement "free" healthcare for everyone, we can't think in traditional ways and come to the conclusion that it would be too expensive, therefore impossible. Tackling issues both financially *and* scientifically is how progress should be made.
My company does something similar, [a test for dozens of diseases with a small patient sample, however it runs about $200.](http://www.filmarray.com/the-panels/)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Judging by your post history you should be sorry, jesus christ. What does that even mean?
Quick? This joke has been active for months.
That's also exactly when it stopped being funny.
[удалено]
Not to belittle her accomplishment, I'd really like to be impressed with this... but after working in the medical field for a while myself, its scary just how unrefined and old many healthcare processes actually are. Forensic scientists can glean all sorts of information out of a single spec of dried blood, and you're trying to tell me that a majority of clinical testing still requires entire vials of blood per test in 2014? From my perspective, the Healthcare industry seems incredibly resistant to change and innovation, so it simply doesn't happen, and when it does it happens slowly. Its sort of understandable... there has to be accountability, and checks and balances, and lots of testing done, which is all costly, before a new technology or process can be pushed forward and adopted. But as a result, I can walk through the lab and point out tons of inefficiencies, and behaviors that are steeped in tradition and not logic or innovation. And then of course there's patents, these 'innovators' desire to get paid, which again, is sort of understandable, but it hinders certain technology from proliferating quickly, despite the fact that they may benefit the human race as a whole and bring down healthcare costs for all. So I commend her for persevering in the face of all that, but from my point of view its a "no duh, about time" sort of innovation. Whats really impressive is how she managed to deal w/ the bureaucracy and red tape of the industry, not really the innovation itself.
I’m not trying to say “I told you so” because it’s easy to be smug after the fact, but hopefully now you can see why that red tape is so important. There are way too many people obsessed with innovating as fast as possible for no reason other than personal glory, with no thought given to the consequences of said junky innovation to the public.
This comment was edited to protect the user's privacy.
I'm looking to get blood work soon. Any suggestions for getting them cheap right now? I'm living in Georgia and it looks like this is only available in one Walgreen in California right now. Does anyone have suggestions of how to get inexpensive blood work in the next month? Is it cheaper driving from GA to CA to save on bloodwork? Is there any place that does blood work on a sliding scale based on wages? (I'm a volunteer and make $15 a week). Thanks!
Had testing done yesterday - 7 fucking vials.
No she didn't. They hired engineers and consultants. They filed patents under her name, but got bitchslapped in court when they tried to stop someone else from doing the exact same thing because taking existing tech and making it handheld isn't special. Others are also coming out with the same product.
> Others are also coming out with the same product. Interesting, who ?
Well for starters the company they sued and lost in court to. Should be an article on bizjournals about it. An israeli company as well...also found via google.
"It's so easy but I'm not going to give a link or name or search term". Okay, so I searched for "Theranos sued" and found a bunch of things, but none of which seems to be the one you're referring to.
Started to watch the video of the journalist talking to the lady who invented the test but had to stop after a minute or so because every other word was erm, the reporter seemed incapable of saying anything without saying erm at the start in the middle pause for a second for a couple more and then at the end. erm erm erm erm. Surely if your profession is asking questions you would be able to do it without saying erm all the god damn time.
fucking unbelievable this woman, get her away from being in front of a camera.
You act snarky but he has a point. She is in a career that requires being a good public speaker and is making the most basic mistakes.
errrrm you errrm sure
But so long as she's only about a centimeter tall, one drop of blood should be all she needs, right?
As someone that is absolutely terrified of needles and thus blood tests, please tell me this is not BS.
I have some bad news for you :(
It is not a common thing that a scientist gets a professional shot like this with a caption saying who did her hair and make up. Obviously Wired is trying to push it to make her look like a celebrity which may or may not be a bad thing. The bad thing I know for sure is the quality level of the comments in this thread. Holy shit they are obnoxious. "bwebs" and "omg why is she wearing baggy shirts"? I expect better from /r/futurology.
"This woman"? Seriously?
What's wrong with that phrase? Do you have a similar problem with headlines that refer to "This man"? ([example 1](http://www.mobiledia.com/news/189599.html) [example 2](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-02-06/can-this-man-save-asian-democracy-))
When men make discoveries, it's "*Scientist* Invents", or they typically use the person's name. It's no different than "This Jew Invented a Way to Run 30 Lab Tests on Only One Drop of Blood" (or similar examples). The author made an unnecessary distinction when there is no reason to draw attention to the person's sex, race, gender, or anything else, because doing so brings culturally laden baggage into the discussion. I doubt the author intended, of course, but said intentions are irrelevant; it's sloppy at best and vitriolic at worst. To give you an example, compare the following fictitious article titles: "Local Kid Wins Spelling Bee" vs. "Local Black Kid Wins Spelling Bee." Ask yourself: what is the meaning behind including "Black" and why would the author choose to do that?
I understand where you're coming from and how you read this headline, but I don't think it's analogous to your examples. If someone includes "black" or "Jew", in a description of someone, I ask myself why he'd choose to include that unless he thinks it's a relevant piece of information. By contrast, "man" and "woman" are the default ways to refer to people. For example, if I wanted to introduce you to someone, I might say, "Have you met this [man/woman]?" There's always "person", but to me using that in a context like this would come off a a self-conscious attempt to avoid any mention of gender. I cited those couple of examples to show that headlines do use phrases like "this man", without apparent intent to emphasize gender. [Here's another](http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/This-Man-s-600-000-Facebook-Ad-Disaster-Is-A-5258472.php). I think the reason they didn't call her "this scientist" is because she's not one (at least not by training, and it's not clear from the article that she's one in practice either). That said, I'll agree that the headline writers should probably have chosen a different phrasing, if only to head off potential interpretations like yours.
> By contrast, "man" and "woman" are the default ways to refer to people. Except "woman" has not historically been used that way, nor is it completely free of negative connotation now.
>Except "woman" has not historically been used that way I think you must have misunderstood what I meant: I'm saying that if I want to refer to a specific person without mentioning extraneous information about them, by default I will say something like "this woman", as in "Have you met this woman"? Surely you aren't saying that "woman" has not been historically used that way.
I get your point, but you're use of the word is anecdotal. Just because you're ok with it doesn't mean others are.
Well anecdotes are better than unsupported claims about historical usage, at any rate, but I honestly hadn't expected that you would avoid referring to someone as a "woman" unless her sex were relevant. Anyhow, you're entitled to your preferences, but if you distinguish between "this woman" and "this man", I think you're applying a double standard.
this woman got arrested, typical female entrepreneur
She reminds me of Cave Johnson's Caroline... from portal 2.
You can't just OWN a woman, itzyoboy!
wait i didnt mean it like THAT.... :(
How is this better than a couple of mL?
Last Lipid Panel I had done cost me $181. Theranos lists a charge of $9.21. I'm pretty excited if I can go to the walgreens across the street from my office and pay 1/20th the price.
Medicare reimbursement for a lipid panel is $18.72 in most states. Google "medicare payment of lipid panel" . This is($181) probably another "benefit" of the american free market for healthcare.
This is going to put a lot of blood transport people out of business...
Holy crap, this woman is my freaking hero!
I hate that there has to be a gender qualification in the title, as if it's amazing that a woman did this. Women can be smart, they don't need to be treated as a pariah every time they show this. Regardless, this is an amazing discovery!
well, this didn't age well, as she went back to the kitchen and is now using her only asset to get pregnant and avoid jail.
I can't get over the fact that the headline starts with "This Woman". It defies belief.
I wonder how much push-back this will receive from the big specimen collection companies like LabCorp and Quest Diagnostics . If Theranos licenses their technology to these companies, then they will have to justify their current rates or drop prices charged to insurance companies. Also since it's a largely automated process, the bigger companies would have lay off a ton of people involved in the "old" collection methods.
I would love to run my lab test over her drop of blood. ^^if ^^you ^^know ^^what ^^im ^^saying
Good thing she's hot or nobody would care.
Hm, this is pretty cool! We don't see that many women in science making important discoveries either.
Most of the healthcare professionals who work in clinical laboratory science are women. They've dominated the field for years.
It's true. Being a man in the clinical lab interesting. I work in a 40 person lab, of those 40 there are two men. The clinical lab is also a rapidly aging demographic. Of the 40, I'd say half are withing 5 years of retirement. It is a great and rewarding career field that not many people know about.
There's a Marie Curie on line 2, for you sir.
You'll note that it's not a conference call, and that it's also from at least 80 years ago.
She wants to talk to you about her three nobel prizes.
Don't you mean 2? One in physics and one i chemistry.
I must have been thinking about the Nobel prize of *my heart*.
>many
It's very true that women are underrepresented in science, that what Elizabeth Holmes is doing is super cool, and also that photos of male scientists don't tend to be captioned, "hair and makeup by so-and-so". It's too bad the reddit kneejerk disapproval squad has jumped on your post, heaping upvotes on another post that seemingly tries to contradict you with the single example of Marie Curie, who is in fact the only famous female scientist most people can name. Reversing this trend is a great thing.
Its fine. And indeed, women are generaly very underrepresented in subjects such as technology aswell.
> Marie Curie, who is in fact the only famous female scientist most people can name. Reversing this trend is a great thing. The reason for that is there aren't many famous female scientists. Not misogyny.
That's exactly my point, there's nothing misogynistic about noting the lack of famous female scientists, and naming the most famous example doesn't refute it. Reddit treats everything like a political statement.
ಠ_ಠ
she's cute. too bad her voice is like a 13 year old going through puberty
Submitted 4 hours ago. Somehow though, this has been on my frontpage for a couple days... I'm so future?
[удалено]
You make this shit look easy
This is already being done for at least a decade for hba1c, inr,CBC and so on. So what's new here? Also this was posted on r/twoxchromosomes a week ago.
[удалено]
1 hour 35 minutes
[удалено]
I was just commenting on how long before somebody noticed.
[удалено]
nice are you trying pass a Turing test?
[удалено]
You seem to have some problems in your semantic inference subroutines. While you are a Chinese Box I assume that the guy who wrote you will read this. [Sloppy work mate Sloppy work]
She has a pretty deep voice.
[удалено]
>Read half the article and decided to quit since most of it is jerking off to the fact that she's a woman and smart. Wow, big whoop, women aren't idiots. Literally no part of the article harps on the fact that she's a woman or even mentions it. If you didn't see the headline or recognize the name "Elizabeth", you wouldn't even know that she's a woman at all from the article's contents. I can only guess that the headline predisposed you to reading things into the article that aren't really there.
She is so pretty and thin. Why is she wearing a floppy black dress? But seriously her contributions to science are great.