Comment on This Woman Will Decide Which Babies Are Born
flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 2 months agoYeah, she didn’t really addressed fraud comparisons. Went straight to sexism. Both can be true, and if you are a CEO of a medical company you should be ready to prove your shit works.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If I (man) was being interviewed and the interviewer randomly said “hey, I read in the news a little while ago that a man committed fraud, and well, you’re a man too. Are you a fraud?”, I also wouldn’t dignify it with a response.
If the interviewer had asked how the efficacy of this treatment has been confirmed, he’d have got an answer.
Saying “hey, these other people with no link to you other than your genitals are frauds, and it makes me feel like going could be, so are you?” doesn’t deserve to be treated like a question asked in good faith.
snooggums@midwest.social 2 months ago
If they were committing nearly identical fraud it would be a good comparison.
Did you read what she was claiming it could do with a minuscule sample and a fancy algorithm? That is exactly the same claim as Theranos.
GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Comparing Theranos’ claims with the state of the art at the time should’ve revealed that they were implausible: some blood tests genuinely require a substantial amount of blood in order to properly process and separate and look for a statistically valid measurement of something about that blood, because blood isn’t homogenous and the act of drawing blood actually changes it.
Comparing this embryo screening claim with the state of the art is comparatively less of a leap. It’s just genetic sequencing, which has already advanced to the point where an entire genome can be sequenced with a tiny number of cells (including some single-cell sequencing techniques that are more complex and less reliable), plus actual correlative analysis of specific genes, plugging into existing research (the way 23 and me can do it for like $20).
I have some skepticism, but this business’s model really seems to be assembling steps that others have already established, and not inventing anything new.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s not exactly the same claim as Theranos. They’re entirely different things.
One is an embryo screening service, and the other was the promise of a blood testing technology that used a ridiculously small amount of blood, carried out tests without any human interaction in a ridiculously short amount of time, and used an impossibly compact device to do so.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Can I ask if you’ve raped any children? It’s just that I’ve heard of a few paedophiles of the same gender as you.
snooggums@midwest.social 2 months ago
I know that you aren’t smart enough to understand since it has already been answered, so I’m just putting this here for future readers before blocking you.
Just because Noor claims that the reasons people are comparing her and Orchid to Theranos is sexist doesn’t mean that is the only reason. There is a grain of truth that women get more of a spotlight than men in the same situations, but this comparison is primarily about the business and science with a small sprinkling of sexism that gets it to the printed page. But people aren’t comparison apples and oranges, there are a ton of similarities about the business claims and how implausible both sounded from existing businesses that have credible reasons for their skepticism.
It isn’t only sexism or even primarily sexism.