dzhu

6 ms·

1.
by dzhu 10y ago
"It's remarkable that non [sic] of the investor or regulators paid half as much of attention." Actually, the regulators paid just as much, if not more attention to Theranos - the article itself asserts this: > On August 25
2.
by dzhu 11y ago
Benchling's awesome - definitely a well-designed (and much needed!) tool for biologists. They've done a great job with adding new features, from CRISPR design to gel analysis, and their latest electronic lab notebook update is a c
3.
by dzhu 12y ago
Actually, they DID collect clinical response data even though it was a Phase Ib trial. Specifically, as the NYT piece mentions, they measured both cognitive function (via the mini-mental state exam aka MMSE and the clinical dementia rating
4.
by dzhu 12y ago
They chose to encode one bit per base (rather than two) to give them flexibility in encoding the binary values to avoid particularly tricky sequences for DNA synthesis or sequencing (such as ones that have many repeating bases, e.g. AAAAA,
5.
by dzhu 13y ago
"Then you repeat the test." What if the test is inherently flawed? "look at what this drug did to my grandma" Uh, that is purely anecdotal, n of 1 data, which is not scientifically valid evidence. This is what scientifi
6.
by dzhu 13y ago
Warfarin sensitivity is _precisely_ why 23andMe needs to be regulated; 23andMe has NOT clinically (or analytically) validated any of the claims around the specific SNPs they've identified. All 23andMe does is link to research papers t
7.
by dzhu 16y ago
Ah, this is the original article (everything else uses this source as their reference). I forgot that my university has a Science subscription; I'll change it to the abstract, which should be viewable, instead.