1. you want to be too clever. What we know about the chemical constituents of tissues, we have always known according to the subtleties of physical measurement methods (10^-2, 10^-3 etc, currently 10^-15), Therano has promised 10^-20 and that immediately. This does not currently exist and a CEO should know this. All CEOs do not know that.
1. you want to be too clever. What we know about the chemical constituents of tissues, we have always known according to the subtleties of physical measurement methods (10^-2, 10^-3 etc, currently 10^-15), Therano has promised 10^-20 and that immediately. This does not currently exist and a CEO should know this. All CEOs do not know that.
2. 15 years ago I had to give a lecture on serotonin to other doctors in Leverkusen - who believed that serotonin was the center of transmitter chemistry. I explained to them that they were only being deceived by the industry. Serotonin is only easiest to determine in the laboratory, so most papers have been written about it and most drugs have been developed. 50% big shouting and 50% big applause.
To be honest, I don't remember them claiming 10^-20 (which is indeed impossible outside of electron microscopy and some very fancy X-ray spectroscopy). What I do remember is them claiming hundreds of tests on the parts-per-billion level, which is 10^-12. Exceptionally hard, but probably not impossible with enough development time (decades), especially given the money and talent they had.
right, she didn't claim that 'cause she didn't know anything about the technics herself. She sold sci-fi. But when U want to sell a laboratory device for free use with the immediate analysis of 30-50 parameters from 1 ml of blood, then your scientific lead time must be a few dimensions higher. Second: You are constantly confusing the physical measures of size with dilution (she wanted to determine dissolved quantities of substances in blood, which are also determined in tens of dimensions). So from the beginning: dimension of electrolytes, dimension of blood sugar, dimension of transmitters, dimension of drugs, dimension of toxins (not their physical molecular sizes)
One learned to determine K, Na, Fe etc. in the blood when physics was ready to make substances visible in the blood with a dilution of 10^-3. Blood sugar (in my memory) 10┬░-5 etc. Transmitters (in the 1930s 10^-9. They were invisible to us until then. Just like the spectral lines, for example. Physics first had to learn to grind the lenses. Clear now?
I don't think I am confusing these two things. And as far as I remember, concentrations of ppt (10^-12) is something that's possible to detect with state-of-the-art GS, HPLC, and MS devices. For many tests, what you actually need is ppb detection, which opens a few more options.
I completely agree with the time argument - such a machine was probably a decade or more away from being built.
1. you want to be too clever. What we know about the chemical constituents of tissues, we have always known according to the subtleties of physical measurement methods (10^-2, 10^-3 etc, currently 10^-15), Therano has promised 10^-20 and that immediately. This does not currently exist and a CEO should know this. All CEOs do not know that.
2. 15 years ago I had to give a lecture on serotonin to other doctors in Leverkusen - who believed that serotonin was the center of transmitter chemistry. I explained to them that they were only being deceived by the industry. Serotonin is only easiest to determine in the laboratory, so most papers have been written about it and most drugs have been developed. 50% big shouting and 50% big applause.
To be honest, I don't remember them claiming 10^-20 (which is indeed impossible outside of electron microscopy and some very fancy X-ray spectroscopy). What I do remember is them claiming hundreds of tests on the parts-per-billion level, which is 10^-12. Exceptionally hard, but probably not impossible with enough development time (decades), especially given the money and talent they had.
A dog's nose is sometimes measured to be 10^-12, by the way: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8388720/
right, she didn't claim that 'cause she didn't know anything about the technics herself. She sold sci-fi. But when U want to sell a laboratory device for free use with the immediate analysis of 30-50 parameters from 1 ml of blood, then your scientific lead time must be a few dimensions higher. Second: You are constantly confusing the physical measures of size with dilution (she wanted to determine dissolved quantities of substances in blood, which are also determined in tens of dimensions). So from the beginning: dimension of electrolytes, dimension of blood sugar, dimension of transmitters, dimension of drugs, dimension of toxins (not their physical molecular sizes)
There are no sieves with defined sieve sizes in the laboratory... hello?
One learned to determine K, Na, Fe etc. in the blood when physics was ready to make substances visible in the blood with a dilution of 10^-3. Blood sugar (in my memory) 10┬░-5 etc. Transmitters (in the 1930s 10^-9. They were invisible to us until then. Just like the spectral lines, for example. Physics first had to learn to grind the lenses. Clear now?
I don't think I am confusing these two things. And as far as I remember, concentrations of ppt (10^-12) is something that's possible to detect with state-of-the-art GS, HPLC, and MS devices. For many tests, what you actually need is ppb detection, which opens a few more options.
I completely agree with the time argument - such a machine was probably a decade or more away from being built.
But that's not she wanted to sell ЁЯШЪ
She wanted to sell a one-blood-drop-gives-all machine, as far as I remember.