enziobodoni

6 ms·

1.
by enziobodoni 11y ago
But badgers eat primarily stoats and voles...
2.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
Comes from all walks, but some from those folks. Mostly folks with real problems, like those in these threads, but who have unwittingly entered into a predatory industry that relies on providing overly specific data to people with nonspecif
3.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
That's not a double blind experiment, but I'd agree it points to an intolerance. Actual experiments, I will reiterate, are hard to do. Have you tried feeding your wife food devoid of known triggers but told her they were in the fo
4.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
I think I might have missed what I meant to say. Can we be sure that is wasn't a self-limited condition that resolved at he same time as the dietary changes, but not because of them? That kind of thing happens a lot. People get over st
5.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
Micronutrients, even in hair. Trace metals, especially after chelation therapy, when the results are definitely misleading. Labs that associate Candida with everything. "Stealth" virus testing. Quack Lyme disease serology labs tha
6.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
It is devilishly difficult to separate correlation and causation. This difficulty has to be the reason why some forms of "medicine" persist, ie naturopathy will have to work sometime, just as a stopped watch is right twice a day.
7.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
Believing that everything yet undisproven is somehow valid or worth study does not indicate open-mindedness, necessarily. The question you ask also presupposes that there has been no formal experimentation on his sort of thing before, which
8.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
I run a hospital lab, and I see requests for testing for all sorts of bizarre things, largely by naturopaths, deriving from the "philosophy" expressed here. We refer to people who believe this stuff as being on the "Quest for
9.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
As someone who got my PhD in Roger Tsien's lab at that time and attended the Nobel ceremony, I strongly agree with this comment, that it was no one's intent. Many people interpret this story as though Tsien or Chalfie stole someth
10.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
This reminds me a bit of when Sarah Palin derided worm research (C elegans), ignorant of the fact that such research was the backbone of genetics and neurobiology research.
11.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
And then what.... Rock Paper Scissors for which one is correct?
12.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
You misunderstand Bayes. The point is that the test is the test, and the information value is all dependent on the person getting it, not the test.
13.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
You are demonstrably wrong about the vitamin d. What if it was a specimen swap, and the lab screwed up and tested someone else's blood instead of yours? This happens.
14.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
We already monitor all sorts of anticoagulation. Fingerstick samples are particularly bad for this (even though there are current point of care devices that do this).
15.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
The 10b valuation is nuts. That's more than LabCorp or Quest, two companies that already do lab actual lab tests on real instruments for hundreds of millions of people. Yes, it looks like you can get results online from Theranos, but y
16.
by enziobodoni 12y ago
I think what is important is the LACK of critical articles out there. Where was the counterpoint in this article, or the recent Fortune article. I run a hospital laboratory in Seattle, and I am a clinical pathologist. Like Elizabeth Holmes,