Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: PFAS.report – Measure the forever chemicals in your blood via Quest

pfas.report

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: Show HN: PFAS.report – Measure the forever chemicals in your blood via Quest

#151

Post by autoexec »

akiselev wrote: post #133
autoexec wrote: post #116

Quest Diagnostics is pretty sketchy. They've been busted for fraud, illegal kickbacks, inaccurate tests, privacy violations, etc. They sell every scrap of data they can get away with to third parties including marketers and it's a lot of data ( https://www.questdiagnostics.com/our-company/privacy/privacy... ) which includes: Professional/employment-related information, products or services purchased/obtained/consider…

They've also contacted my emergency contacts in an attempt to collect payment for blood tests when they made a mistake writing down my insurance information... that was already sent to them by the doctor ordering the test. The link to the receipt in the text message listed enough details about the blood tests to deduce some very private information. I have never in my life seen a more flagrant and willful violation o…

They clearly have a very different view of what constitutes an emergency than most of us. Did your AG get back you?

Re: Show HN: PFAS.report – Measure the forever chemicals in your blood via Quest

#152

Post by autoexec »

exmadscientist wrote: post #140
autoexec wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the bulk of your data is collected when you show up for the blood draw. You have a really nice site, but should defiantly try to find and work with a more ethical and trustworthy lab. On the plus side, when they sold your data they probably had a lot of nice things to say about your intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes!

Quest is one of the two major testing companies in the US. (And LabCorp is not much better.) I understand the sentiment here, but it's like saying "you should definitely try and find and work with a more ethical political party than the [reader's choice: Democrats|Republicans]". Good luck! It's not likely to happen, even if we all wish otherwise.

It looks like those two companies have been buying up competitors left and right for a long time, so no wonder there aren't many other options left out there. Seems like this is an industry that doesn't get a lot of attention, but which is badly in need of oversight and regulation.

Re: Show HN: PFAS.report – Measure the forever chemicals in your blood via Quest

#153

Post by philipkglass »

logifail wrote: post #59

> forever chemicals Sorry, but that phrase really annoys me.[0] What does it actually mean? [0] full disclosure: PhD in organic chemistry

It generally refers to polyfluoroalkyl substances, often abbreviated PFAS. The "bad" ones are hydrophobic compounds that can accumulate in fat tissue. There are some PFAS that do not appear harmful because they're nonreactive solids (e.g. pure PTFE) or because they're not hydrophobic enough to biomagnify (e.g. trifluoroacetic acid). Discussion of PFAS among non-chemists tends to elide the differences between all fluorinated organic molecules and the ones of environmental concern.

These compounds are not literally "forever" but they have long half-lives once released into the environment, due to the strength of C-F bonds and due to pollutants partitioning into low-degradation-activity environments. For example, a certain compound may be degraded by ultraviolet light from sun exposure, but tend to adsorb to soil where it's shielded from light.

PFAS share a lot of characteristics with the earlier-known "persistent organic pollutants" like polychlorinated biphenyls:

- Polyhalogenated organic compounds

- Low acute toxicity

- Endocrine disruptor activity

- Low rate of natural breakdown in the environment

In fact PFAS of concern share so many characteristics with the historically known PoPs that I am not sure why they got their own phrase "forever chemicals." They don't actually seem to have longer half-lives than those PoPs known by the 1970s.

For further reading, here is a page on PFAS from the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants:

https://chm.pops.int/Implementation/IndustrialPOPs/PFAS/Over...

And one from the Environmental Protection Agency:

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained

Re: Show HN: PFAS.report – Measure the forever chemicals in your blood via Quest

#154

Post by prepend »

mdrew wrote: post #84
prepend wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think for certain high risk populations, specifically pregnant women or women planning on becoming pregnant, it makes sense. Does it though? What will a pregnant woman do based on her results? Will having PFAS affect someone’s decision about becoming pregnant? Pregnant women are going to monitor BP anyway. And the intervention is $100 for a BP cuff so that’s cheaper than the test. So we’re better off just recomme…

Since this is an out of pocket test not covered by medicaid/medicare, I don't know if the value based care argument is that relevant. I know what you're saying though. The value we provide: If people want to know, they can now know. I also think not making the test accessible also has downsides.

It’s good the test is available.

What I mean is what would justify someone spending $400. The example of pregnancy is not a good one, as someone is better off just monitoring blood pressure (which is already common advice for all expectant mothers) for $100 instead of paying for this test.

I think value based healthcare is more important when people pay themselves.

Since there’s no intervention based on the results, it’s not a good idea for people until the results are actionable.

Post reply on HN