no
Clearance Items
-
-
errr... 'yes'. Why not try Googling each item in your copypasta list of blood tests, along with the term "immunoassay"? It will involve reading something, so, good luck, but if you do, you might learn something.
-
Among the Russ George publications ... what is the nature of the ones that do not have links? They also do not show have citation information.
Those are papers I have not uploaded. Some I do not have. Others I have, but the author or publisher did not give me permission to upload.
There is no citation information because I did not bother to enter it into the database. When I don't have permission to upload, I don't add the abstract or other information. There are 2,586 papers in the database that I have not uploaded, so it would be a lot of work to enter all that information. I don't see the point. The paper is probably not available anywhere else, except perhaps behind a paywall where no one will read it anyway.
It is a little complicated. The database is maintained in EndNote format. It was compiled by Ed Storms and me. There are 4,530 items in it. There are at present ~1,944 documents uploaded, which are in 1,099 computer files. Some computer files have multiple documents, such as proceedings and issues of the JCMNS. As I said, that leaves 2,586 documents in the database that I do not have, or I don't have permission to upload. I am not going to go to the trouble to add all those abstracts and whatnot. A few abstracts were added by Ed Storms, and a few more are now added automatically when I download info. from DOI links. But when I wrote the program that converts EndNote to the MySQL files, I decided to simply life by not transferring those few.
I also did not bother to add all of the old papers in proceedings to the EndNote file. They are out there, but not indexed. So that's why I say there are tilde (approx) 1,944 documents. I do not have an exact count. There are 1,944 that I went to the trouble to index.
-
-
Straight from the horse's mouth?
-
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.
QuoteNow, 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteBTW, 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.
-
-
There is nothing serious about this poll. It does not even contain the best answer, as Paradigmnoia pointed out!
-
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!
QuoteDo 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.
QuoteOn 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):
-
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.
-
OK
-
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).
-
Depends on
And what is it that it is?
Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
