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

Theranos

theranos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 127 posts

Re: Theranos

#71

Post by melling »

heurist wrote: post #16
MichaelGG wrote: post #12

Does this mean that I'll be able to walk in and order my own blood tests in the US, without being extorted by a doctor? I see zero reason for me to be forced to schedule time with a doctor, pay her, just for her to "order" tests and have the results sent only to her, and then pay her again to read them back to me. I get regular liver checks due to medication I take. Being able to walk into a lab and download the resu…

Their website said you still need a doctor's note. It would be nice to avoid that in the future, I'd get cheap tests done all the time just out of curiosity.

Yes, I'm not sure about the types of tests that are done but if there are some that you could run periodically to compare numbers, it might prove useful to monitor how one's body changes over time.

Re: Theranos

#72

Post by nohuck13 »

fizx wrote: post #64
nohuck13 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, although I don't mind so much whether they are making money off it- anyone making money off promoting freedom of speech is welcome to promote free speech as a human right. But there's an issue of basic human right inflation thats slightly distasteful. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own property without it being arbitrarily taken away for you by someone stronger. Those are basic human right…

Who grants basic rights? If they're God-given, perhaps they're immutable. Nature grants no rights, and is perfectly willing to stand by idle while we slaughter each other by the millions. The alternative is that basic rights are agreed upon by the society, and as the society matures and evolves, why shouldn't its understanding of what basic rights are change?

What rights do you think have changed?

Re: Theranos

#73

Post by crassus »

nohuck13 wrote: post #45
smoyer wrote: post #31

"We believe access to accurate, affordable, real-time diagnostic information is a basic human right." There's a bit of a conflict-of-interest if the company that makes money providing "X" declares that "X" is a basic human right. Even as a non-profit (most hospitals are non-profit, but that just means the corporation doesn't keep earnings), you can't justify that statement.

Agreed, although I don't mind so much whether they are making money off it- anyone making money off promoting freedom of speech is welcome to promote free speech as a human right. But there's an issue of basic human right inflation thats slightly distasteful. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own property without it being arbitrarily taken away for you by someone stronger. Those are basic human right…

"Rights" are the repackaging of religion for the secular age[1]. I know this is controversial because it is heretical, but consider the correspondence. Rights have no physical existence, only a social existence. Rights only matter through the exact same mechanisms that the wrath of Allah matters - if enough people believe in it and are motivated by it then it has force. In the past, Christian missionaries spread religion to the world with books, words, charity, and occasionally the sword. Today, the post-Christian West spreads human rights to the world through dollars and bullets (the carrots and sticks of foreign policy).

By imagining new human rights, a corporation marks themselves as a member of the ultra-religious, sort of the pharisees of our day. Not only do they obey God's commands, but they invent new commands to follow and by this show off their righteousness. Yes, this stance is made to atone for the sin of making profit - which is a minor sin in the West - "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to inherit the kingdom of God" after all. Do not be mislead, liberalism (including the "classical liberalism" of Locke and Jefferson) is Christianity without God. Jefferson's Bible makes the point explicit.

Making new human rights is good business. A college education became a human right sometime in the last 50 years and today over $200 billion is spent on tuition each year in the USA alone. Yes, it is disingenuous, but also quite clever, for a corporation to position their product as a new human right.

Even the negative rights (freedom of speech, rights to property, etc.) require the positive right to protective services for those rights to have meaning. If we examine the history of such rights, we find they are rooted in English tradition. Essentially the modern idea of human rights is an idealization of 18th century English law. But "human rights" philosophy gives that law a mystical existence and rightness aside from the specific historical balance of power that led to its creation.

[1] What follows is ripped straight out of Nietzsche and Moldbug. Grazie, signori. I can recommend Moldbug's masterful trilogy on Idealism, which includes the weird new atheist religion-like philosophies:

a) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-do-...

b) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/idealis...

c) http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/our-pla...

Re: Theranos

#74

Post by redschell »

benrapscallion wrote: post #46

it's weird how the founders' background is all about "dropped out from here" and "dropped out from there". Is dropping out an achievement?

It's always been a gamble. If you achieve even a modicum of success or notoriety, your "drop out" status becomes incredibly valuable. You're a trailblazer, a rebel who blew past convention on her way to glory.

If you fail, you're an arrogant idiot who thought she was too cool for school.

What's fascinating about Holmes is that she's a drop out in the biotech/health care realm. This has long been considered a protected area, one where heavy education is a must, as lives are on the line. Founders are expected to be PhDs or MDs with decades of research and/or clinical experience.

Holmes has a decade of experience, and no degree. This is going to be a lot of fun to watch.

Re: Theranos

#75

Post by hershel »

aharrison wrote: post #70
ihnorton wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The diybio mailing list has many interesting discussions: http://diybio.org/

I have looked at the DIYBio groups on a number of occasions, and while they are fascinating it their own right, they aren't quite what I am interested in. DIYBio (as far as I can tell) is considerably more interested in DNA sequencing and genetics, whereas I am more interested in diagnostic tools for improving my quality and quantity of life. An example of something I am interested in is: http://jenslabs.com/category…

There's diagnostics for all which is working on paper based diagnostics. They are so cheap , that they target them for the third world. And they only need a blood drop.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/health/27paper.html?pagewa...

And this site also looks interesting:

http://www.mf20.org/

Re: Theranos

#76

Post by nohuck13 »

1123581321 wrote: post #69
nohuck13 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue the right to literacy is already a human right. The price of books is orthogonal.

Before books were inexpensive and widely distributed, other means of communication fulfilled many of the functions of books. That is why I chose that example. If you believe that literacy is an eternal human right, substitute one of the other more economically dependent ones such as the right to a lawyer. I don't want my analogy to get in the way of my point for you.

That makes sense. I'm not sure positive rights such as the right to a lawyer, or the right to police protection, are fundamental human rights. If you draw a distiction between positive and negative liberty a la Kant [1], you can argue that only negative liberties can be basic human rights. Sure we have a right to legal counsel, but that also implies a duty. What if no one in the city wants to be a lawyer.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Re: Theranos

#77

Post by crassus »

nohuck13 wrote: post #62
1123581321 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they mean is that they want to provide testing in such an easy, affordable, useful way that it can become a basic human right/the standard. It is similar to how literacy could become a basic human right once books became cheap, accessibly written and easy to distribute. Should the company that brings about this change be able to expect people to demand its (and its competitors') services? That is what you are as…

I would argue the right to literacy is already a human right. The price of books is orthogonal.

Was literacy a human right before humans invented the first written languages? What about the first few thousand years afterwards, where it was a technique used only by specialists and the materials to write were very expensive?

Re: Theranos

#78

Post by fizx »

nohuck13 wrote: post #72
fizx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who grants basic rights? If they're God-given, perhaps they're immutable. Nature grants no rights, and is perfectly willing to stand by idle while we slaughter each other by the millions. The alternative is that basic rights are agreed upon by the society, and as the society matures and evolves, why shouldn't its understanding of what basic rights are change?

What rights do you think have changed?

Do rights change, or does the expression of a right change? I believe everyone has a right to an education. Obviously that education will have changed from 4000BCE to 2013. What about the right to create and choose family? How does that intertwine with society's thoughts about homosexuality?

I guess a good answer to that question would be a PhD dissertation, not a HN comment. I wish I knew the answer, or that it was easy for me to express.

Re: Theranos

#79

Post by ihnorton »

aharrison wrote: post #70
ihnorton wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The diybio mailing list has many interesting discussions: http://diybio.org/

I have looked at the DIYBio groups on a number of occasions, and while they are fascinating it their own right, they aren't quite what I am interested in. DIYBio (as far as I can tell) is considerably more interested in DNA sequencing and genetics, whereas I am more interested in diagnostic tools for improving my quality and quantity of life. An example of something I am interested in is: http://jenslabs.com/category…

> "Hey guys, I know a little HTML and I was wondering if I could build a MMORPG..."

Yes... But here's one place to start (somewhat analagous to "read Accelerated C++ and the OpenGL red book"): http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Flow-Cytometry-Howard-Shapir...

Re: Theranos

#80

Post by binarymax »

smoyer wrote: post #31

"We believe access to accurate, affordable, real-time diagnostic information is a basic human right." There's a bit of a conflict-of-interest if the company that makes money providing "X" declares that "X" is a basic human right. Even as a non-profit (most hospitals are non-profit, but that just means the corporation doesn't keep earnings), you can't justify that statement.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if a real estate agent claimed 'Shelter is a basic human right' in their marketing - would that constitute a conflict of interest? What about Evian adding 'water is a basic human right' to their labels?
Post reply on HN