Clearance Items

  • The above are the tests in common use world wide in clinical labs. If you know of a company contemplating making a machine which can perform a worthwhile subset of these on a drop of blood, I'd love to see the reference and the link. And I would certainly invest if credible testing had been done and appropriately reported. But then again, so would every venture capitalist be willing. Yet, this is what Theranos was implying they could deliver.

    They are many labs worldwide accredited for the panels that Theranos was proposing in capillary blood. Again, Theranos failed not because they were proposing more than they could analyze in one drop of blood but because of the lack of compliance with current regulations on laboratory testing. See what John Carreyrou said on it: "This fiasco could have been avoided had Theranos sought accreditation from the College of American Pathologist (CAP) by submitting actual tests run on their equipment for appropriate testing. Based on the recent revelations, the results would not have been accurate and they would not have received CAP accreditation. Only labs that have CAP accreditation should be in the business of performing blood laboratory testing. CAP standards are exceedingly stringent and exceed CLIA certification. The FDA acted appropriately and responsibly in this case."

    Again, some labs do propose under their CAP accreditation the same panels that Theranos was proposing. These tests are as precise and accurate as tests done in venous blood. The issue is not that the technology does not exist but that Theranos didn't bother to comply with current regulations.


    Now, with regard to the number of tests that today's technology can allow in one drop of blood, sure if one use immunoassays that require a given amount of blood per biomarker, one cannot extend the panel to more than 20-30 analytes. However multiplexed assays such as LCMS do not have this drawback and some CAP accredited labs do already propose the measurement of thousands of molecules by high resolution LCMS in only ten microliters of blood.

  • Quote

    Straight from the horse's mouth?


    Actually with facile and unsupported claims made here about the supposedly wide scope of micro clinical lab capabilities, I meant to portray as well the opposite end of the horse.


    Quote

    Now, with regard to the number of tests that today's technology can allow in one drop of blood, sure if one use immunoassays that require a given amount of blood per biomarker, one cannot extend the panel to more than 20-30 analytes. However multiplexed assays such as LCMS do not have this drawback and some CAP accredited labs do already propose the measurement of thousands of molecules by high resolution LCMS in only ten microliters of blood.


    Can you provide a link, preferably to a commercially available device, like Theranos claimed to be, which provides even 20 commonly performed tests which are of routine clinical usefulness in a typical medical practice and which can be done on 0.05 ml of blood or less? I've never seen or heard of one but I don't rule out the possibility that it can be done. I am talking about serologies or exotic immunoassays. I am asking about things I listed before: CBC, LFT, RFT, Lipid panels, diabetes panels, and electrolytes. Those are the tests which physicians require multiple times per day to evaluate their patients in an office setting.


    BTW, since you mention it, I've used LCMS (liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy) in a military setting some years back. It's a peachy but complicated method and yes, it uses very small samples. I believe a current clinical application is detection of small amounts of toxic materials in serum (toxicology). It is also useful for protein chemistry. However, I am not aware of common routine applications to clinical laboratory analyses. Help me out here. I'd really like to know. How is LCMS used to do routine medical lab tests? And are these really done in large numbers on a single drop of blood or serum?

  • Hi Ruby,

    2. At ICCF22, I will also be showing off a new comic book that I wrote and artist Matt Howarth illustrated. It is almost finished and we will try to get it published through mainstream channels. It could take a while, but if that fails, we will self-publish. Here is a sample of page 7 attached. They call them "graphic novels" now, but it's a 30-page comic book essentially.

    Actually, it's funny you mention "the fringe" as the artist Matt decided to change Stanley Pons' hair after he saw a few more pictures! So I believe there will be an updated page 7!


    I don't know if the comic book is also intended to strictly comply with technical aspects. However, before updating page 7, artist Matt could also watch these two videos:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBAIIZU6Oj8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kixLjK0HzGY


    The videos show that gas bubbles (and foam) are formed inside the test tubes, not in the water bath where the tubes are immersed.

  • Can you provide a link, preferably to a commercially available device, like Theranos claimed to be, which provides even 20 commonly performed tests which are of routine clinical usefulness in a typical medical practice and which can be done on 0.05 ml of blood or less? I've never seen or heard of one but I don't rule out the possibility that it can be done.

    If you were familiar with laboratory testing, you would have known that the labs don't make their tests public.

    Quote

    I am talking about serologies or exotic immunoassays. I am asking about things I listed before: CBC, LFT, RFT, Lipid panels, diabetes panels, and electrolytes. Those are the tests which physicians require multiple times per day to evaluate their patients in an office setting.

    Is the test catalog below ok for you? It comes from the first US lab that got CAP accreditation for capillary blood testing, a few years before Theranos entered the market of lab testing.


    Metabolic Panel

    Blood Glucose

    Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN)

    Blood Creatinine

    BUN / Creatinine Ratio (Calc)

    AST (SGOT)

    ALT (SGPT)

    Alkaline Phosphatase

    GGT

    Bilirubin, Total

    Protein, Total

    Albumin

    Albumin / Globulin Ratio (Calc)

    Globulin (Calc)

    Bicarbonate

    Calcium, Total

    Uric Acid

    Sodium

    Potassium

    Chloride

    Kidney Function

    Glomerular Filtration Rate (Calc)

    Lipid Profile

    Cholesterol, Total

    HDL-C

    LDL-C

    LDL-C (Calc)

    VLDL (Calc)

    Triglycerides

    Cholesterol / HDL Ratio (Calc)

    LDL / HDL Ratio (Calc)

    Apolipoprotein A-1

    Apolipoprotein B

    Cardiac BioMarkers

    Cystatin C

    Inorganic Phosphorus

    Homocysteine

    hsCRP

    Lactate Dehydrogenase

    NT-proBNP

    Anemia

    Total Iron

    Ferritin

    Vitamin B12

    Diabetes Insulin

    C-Peptide

    Hemoglobin A1c with EAG

    Glycated Albumin (Fructosamine)

    Hormones

    Testosterone, Total

    Cortisol

    Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate (DHEA-S)

    Estradiol

    Progesterone

    Thyroid Function TSH

    T3, Total

    T4, Total

    T3, Free

    T4, Free

    Tumor Markers

    PSA, Total

    Immunoglobulin E

    Infectious Disease

    Anti-HCV

    Toxicology

    Blood Cotinine (Nicotine Metabolite)

    Bone Biomarker

    25-Hydroxyvitamin D

    Hematology

    Complete Blood Cell Count w/ 5-part Diff


    The size of the panel can be up to 30 tests when a collection device able to separate the serum from the cells is used.

    Quote

    BTW, since you mention it, I've used LCMS (liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy) in a military setting some years back. It's a peachy but complicated method and yes, it uses very small samples. I believe a current clinical application is detection of small amounts of toxic materials in serum (toxicology). It is also useful for protein chemistry. However, I am not aware of common routine applications to clinical laboratory analyses. Help me out here. I'd really like to know. How is LCMS used to do routine medical lab tests? And are these really done in large numbers on a single drop of blood or serum?

    Last week, during ASMS 2019 the largest conference on mass spectrometry, Labcorp said that in 2018 only they acquired up to 500 MS instruments for routine lab testing.


    In my lab, we run LCMS every day. We have the capacity to measure >50k molecules in one drop of blood. But I guess you will not trust me on that one. Because you see scams everywhere. You dont have the aptitude to separate the wheat from the chaff.

  • Listen, Julian, at one time I developed a small subset of clinical lab tests (I can discuss that with you by email if you like) but it was a while back so I readily admit I may have missed something recent. What is the name of the machine which does 30 of the tests you listed on a capillary full of blood? A link would be nice but I'll be happy to Google it. And it can do any mixture of any 30 on one sample? That would be pretty amazing. Most lab tests can be done on capillary size blood samples and there is nothing new about that but not many can be done on the same sample by the methods I used to be familiar with.


    Also, for my amazement, if you know, what is the routine modern application for LCMS other than tox screening? Are you a clinical lab tech? Biochemist? ETA: I did read somewhere that you are a physicist. So if you can say, what is your connection with a clinical lab?


    BTW, no centrifuge was involved with the Theranos devices, that I know of so they did not separate serum from cells and what Ms. Holmes would hold up to show people, their proprietary sampling "nano" container, was only shown with whole blood that I have seen. And yes, it was a scam. A bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. I am not claiming that the chemists and lab techs knew that but the principals did. Maybe not from the very start but pretty soon after they started cheating on results and lying to their investors. Which is why they face criminal prosecution.

  • A bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. I am not claiming that the chemists and lab techs knew that but the principals did.


    Do you claim the chemists, lab techs, and the people who developed the device did not know what the devices did? Are you saying they devoted years of effort to machines that did not work at all, and could not be used to analyze blood? That would be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. On the other hand, if the device worked somewhat, and if the scientists and engineers working on it felt that it might be an important contribution to the technology, that would not be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. It would a mistake, or a failed product. It would be that no matter what the principles said or did.


    Perhaps you think the scientists and engineers were in on the scam, and they knew the machine did not work at all. Or, perhaps you think the scientists were deluded somehow, and they thought the machine worked, but it didn't.


    It seems to me you have a black or white view of events. You seem incapable of understanding that what happened at Theranos was a mix of events, and that different people played different roles, and saw it in different ways. Some were engaged in a scam. Others were trying to do good science and good R&D. It is complicated, but to you, all things are simple.

  • It is a lasting mystery to me why some individuals who are smart enough to know better, think there is residual merit in crooks and sociopaths like Elizabeth Holmes and Andrea Rossi. We sure see these folks represented here!


    Quote

    Do you claim the chemists, lab techs, and the people who developed the device did not know what the devices did? Are you saying they devoted years of effort to machines that did not work at all, and could not be used to analyze blood? That would be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. On the other hand, if the device worked somewhat, and if the scientists and engineers working on it felt that it might be an important contribution to the technology, that would not be a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam. It would a mistake, or a failed product. It would be that no matter what the principles said or did.


    Did you see the video documentary? Did you bother to read what I wrote? The so-called Edison device never performed a useful subset of tests and never gave accurate results. It was apparently not a novel invention but a lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technologies. Most test results reported by Theranos in a poor try at meeting their contract requirements with various retail pharmacies were obtained with conventional machines at the Theranos headquarters and these were hidden in restricted areas of the building. This was not a mistake. It was not a "failed" contribution to technology. It was a misrepresentation and a huge bag of lies fed to investors as well as to the illustrious board of directors and advisers which at times included Schulz and Kissenger. The scam was uncovered and revealed by none other than Schulz's grandson. Schulz himself took years to be persuaded that the claims were not real and were never real.


    Only Holmes knows what her true motives were and whether she was really trying to make a device that worked. She probably was but it was still a scam because she lied to and hid essential information from directors and shareholders alike in order to secure investments. The degree of fraud and it's punishment will be revealed after the civil and criminal actions run their course.


    The potential criminal penalties are 20 years in prison for Balwani and Holmes. The government rarely seeks such penalties for best honest efforts that failed (/sarcasm). Read up on this, find and view the TV documentary. You are quick to criticize when you think others have not done their homework yet you seem to know absolutely nothing useful about this case.


    Quote

    On June 15, 2018, Holmes and Balwani were indicted on multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. According to the indictment, investors and doctors and patients were defrauded. It is alleged the defendants were aware of the unreliability and inaccuracy of their products, but concealed that information. If convicted, they each face a maximum fine of $250,000 and 20 years in prison. The case has been assigned to Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[93][94]


    -Wikipedia


    ETA: nobody claims or charges the majority of employees at Theranos with a scam. Most worked honestly but were frustrated by the secrecy which hid the bulk of operations and true goals from them along with the performance data. Each person was only allowed to see a small part of the entire workings. And many, to their credit, squawked as much as their tight NDA's and other restrictions would allow.


    See also (behind paywall for some but some free articles allowed each month):


    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0…nos-elizabeth-holmes.html

  • Listen, Julian, at one time I developed a small subset of clinical lab tests (I can discuss that with you by email if you like) but it was a while back so I readily admit I may have missed something recent. What is the name of the machine which does 30 of the tests you listed on a capillary full of blood? A link would be nice but I'll be happy to Google it. And it can do any mixture of any 30 on one sample? That would be pretty amazing. Most lab tests can be done on capillary size blood samples and there is nothing new about that but not many can be done on the same sample by the methods I used to be familiar with.

    I will send you a private message so that I will not bother others with a subject that is not related to LENR.

  • Polls like this are silly. It does not matter what people think about if he does or does not have what he claims.

    It is what it is.


    How about a poll on the boiling point of water? Is it 100C or 50C or 150C ..... it is what it is a poll will not change reality.

  • Did you see the video documentary? Did you bother to read what I wrote?


    No. I read the book.


    The so-called Edison device never performed a useful subset of tests and never gave accurate results. It was apparently not a novel invention but a lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technologies.


    "A lame and mostly malfunctioning adaptation of existing technology" is a bad product. It is an R&D failure. It is not a scam. Many companies have such R&D failures. IBM used to come up with one every few years in the 1980s, such as the PCjr. You called this a "bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam." I think most people would take that to mean a fake product that does not work at all, and was never intended to work, by anyone in the project. Like when MiniScribe started shipping bricks in place of hard disks. It wasn't like they thought someone might be able to use a brick to record data. It seems to me that by calling this a total scam, you are saying that everyone involved -- including the scientists -- knew it could never work and would never sell, and they were all in it for the money. Since one of the scientists committed suicide in despair, I do not think he was in it for the money.


    I begin to see how you manage to disregard the replications of Pons and Fleischmann by 180 laboratories. In your mind, every experiment and every R&D project is either a success or it is "a bald faced, thoroughgoing, total scam." There are no gray areas. No projects that go well in some ways, but not so well in others. No partial progress. In your mind, either the cold fusion researchers can make a fully saleable multi-kilowatt reactor, or they are liars, lunatics and criminals (as Robert Park would put it).

  • Polls like this are silly. It does not matter what people think about if he does or does not have what he claims.

    It is what it is.


    How about a poll on the boiling point of water? Is it 100C or 50C or 150C ..... it is what it is a poll will not change reality.

    Totally Wrong.

    Your example lacks reference to the Rossi scam. Because water boils in different pressure levels at different degrees, and Rossi is a complete scumbag, NO MATTER ON WHICH pressure level.

    And this poll can eventually ( if one was maye ever made before ) track the sane people who definitiely said NO or (if there were more than one poll ) now said NO. At least Mats Sockpuppet Lewan can track the amount.


    And present that to Rossi.

  • Yeah of course, they do. As well as Terminator, Event horizon, Chuck Norris and Axil.