After decades of practicing medicine and seeing results of countless lab tests, I tend to agree with many of the comments here. The article isn't wrong at its core, but it is sensationalizing some very important issues.
The idea that lab studies yield false positives (and negatives too) is hardly novel. Of course test results can be misleading or easily misconstrued. We know a single test, or even a set of tests is rarely definitive. We know interpreting tests is an exercise in probabilistic thinking and careful practitioners rely on test results only to the extent warranted.
I often get a question like "so what does this test mean?" A single anomalous reading, probably not much. I answer "it's only a test", confirming a diagnosis is a laborious process to make sure the facts align as best as can be determined. That is, the gamut of history, direct observation, and a variety of lab/imaging measurements looking at a clinical situation from several angles need to converge.
In many practice domains lab/measurement technologies provide tremendous benefit. Think about the contributions of imaging (CT, MRI), endoscopy (colonoscopy, etc.), and yes, advances in medical laboratory science also save untold lives every day. Everyone here on HN knows all technologies can and will be misused but that doesn't mean they are not valuable and worthy.
I take my own advice to never forget: "it's only a test", and any test is no more useful than the limits of its credibility.
The idea that lab studies yield false positives (and negatives too) is hardly novel. Of course test results can be misleading or easily misconstrued. We know a single test, or even a set of tests is rarely definitive. We know interpreting tests is an exercise in probabilistic thinking and careful practitioners rely on test results only to the extent warranted.
I often get a question like "so what does this test mean?" A single anomalous reading, probably not much. I answer "it's only a test", confirming a diagnosis is a laborious process to make sure the facts align as best as can be determined. That is, the gamut of history, direct observation, and a variety of lab/imaging measurements looking at a clinical situation from several angles need to converge.
In many practice domains lab/measurement technologies provide tremendous benefit. Think about the contributions of imaging (CT, MRI), endoscopy (colonoscopy, etc.), and yes, advances in medical laboratory science also save untold lives every day. Everyone here on HN knows all technologies can and will be misused but that doesn't mean they are not valuable and worthy.
I take my own advice to never forget: "it's only a test", and any test is no more useful than the limits of its credibility.