There’s one thing that I find interesting about this. I can’t judge whether this is a good product, whether it’ll work, and what it’ll add to the medical establishment, or whether more data is always more useful.

In general, I think we should applaud this though.

Any genuine attempt to create novel medical technologies is probably a good thing (assuming they’re non-invasive and non-painful).

Unless it’s a Theranos situation, I think it’s a great thing to attempt, even if it fails. So many things we rely on today are the result of a successful attempt, but the failures were just as necessary for the eventual success.

That ambition is very positive to me.

It's a Theranos situation.

>>That ambition is very positive to me.

...and this is why people fall for it. Every. Single. Time.

Literally everything they're saying is marketingslop gobbledegook. No studies, no papers, no doctors; just "500k transducers," and "30fps!" Anyone can wire that up. With a little cash, you might even be able to stream, record, and proccess it. Still means absolute diddly squat if you haven't compared it to other imaging or figured out how to train a radiologist to use it effectively or done trials for specific diagnostics or diseases.

They'll figure out if it does anything other than show you an animated cartoon xray of yourself later. After they have your money.

I read somewhere that this isn't exactly new/novel tech, that this has been around for forever its just that the medical industry never adopted it becuae of whatever bureaucratic reasoning usually inhibits medical solutions