Recently watched this interview with John Ioannidis on http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-05-27/is-it-science-or-hype-behind-theranos-claims.
John, who happens to be a friend, was one of the first people to ask the obvious question: where’s the peer reviewed research that proves Theranos’ claims?
And yet, John makes a more important point.
Even if Theranos’ technology worked, is it a good thing?
Taking continuous blood tests will result in more procedures and more diagnostics and more medical procedures than are necessary increasing misery and putting patient health at risk without substantially improving the health of the patients.
We view authority these days with suspicion. There is a strong temptation to get rid of the middle man gatekeeper of medical health known as the doctor. And yet specialized knowledge adds value and it’s unclear whether complete disintermediation is a good thing.
In other words, it’s unclear that being able to take continuous blood tests is a good thing, period.
Before some other startup tries and resolves the technical limitations of Theranos’ technology, perhaps we should ask as a matter of public policy if such a technology is useful?
Yeah, I have wondered the same about some other devices and wearable technology for continuous monitoring, like the iTBra that had some media hype a while ago.