"Clinical Assessment Incorporating A Personal Genome"
The clinical assessment was incomplete.
It was missing the following items
1. A Physical Exam
2. A Complete Pedigree with ethnicity
3. Appropriate Clinical Laboratory testing
4. A Full Social History
Grade?
D minus.
Adjusted for curve a good solid B minus
But ultimately, this novel approach is clinically unfeasible.
Why?
The manpower alone required to perform this "clinical" analysis is unsustainable for 300 Million people.
5 comments:
I didn't edit it. "Write in one sentence what you just told me when I asked you what your problem with the paper was."
Also, did you give a "D-" for the "complete clinical assessment," or a "D-" for the paper itself?
If for the clinical assessment: you want to see a real D-? How about some of previous "clinical assessments" inflicted on some of our patients that you had to fix? Just because you can identify a flaw in something doesn't make it an embarrassing failure.
Anyways, why did you give it a "D-"? This is not school. Why even bother to include that comment? Just the list of what was missing in the clinical assessment was useful, but now the people who wrote and published that paper will not read what you wrote because you insulted them in a stupid, sloppy way.
If your objective is just to insult people for fun --a worthy objective, I do it myself all the time--- then OK. But if you actually want to contribute to these people's understanding of the clinical application of genetics, you yourself are going to need to bring out your "A+" game because these people are some of the smartest and most powerful people in the world in this field. They are not patients. You can't "frown" at things you dont' like and they'll "just trust you." They'll either ignore you, or they'll grind you into dust behind your back at a level you don't understand.
So: D- yourself on communicating to the paper's authors how to beter make people healthy given your demonstrative experience and expertise otherwise.
You have an opportunity here to meaningfully contribute your unique experience to improve the collective domain understanding of the clinical application of genetics.
Leave the poser partisan garbage for the 23andMe groupie losers.
Why don't you go get Dr. Matthew Lubin to comment about 23andMe's Tay-Sachs screening "isn't medicine?
I'd be interested to know what a Mount Sinai adult geneticist medical doctor with decades of experience would think about a Tay-Sachs test sold to the public "for fun" with an aggressive license forbidding its medical application.
I don't have any complaint with this paper. I don't it's relevant in this case that the clinical work was especially exhaustive because the purpose of this paper was to demonstrate existing clinical technology.
I'll write a Think Gene post.
Post a Comment