Disclaimer: medicine isn't my background, so the following comment could be partially or entirely groundless.<p>---<p>So I just took a crack at the concept PDF and the rest of the literature on the site, and there's nothing that I can find which mitigates the risk of flagging a slow-growing or self-regressing tumor as something worthy of attention.<p>I say this because mammogram recommendations were only recently changed due to the potential adverse health risks stemming from treating tumors which might never progress to a severity warranting treatment [1] as well as tumors which might spontaneously regress [2]. If some of the newer oncology theories suggesting high tumor occurrence and anti-cancer immune responses are correct (my google-fu didn't help me here, so someone else might want to help me with the source), then as a result of Grail, you might start having a bunch of people freak out and undergo unnecessarily heavy treatments for tumors which might otherwise never become cancerous.<p>That said, I could be entirely wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if they're specifically working on mitigating this risk as one component of making this screen viable.<p>[1]<a href="http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/features/new-mammogram-screening-guidelines-faq?page=2" rel="nofollow">http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/features/new-mammogram-sc...</a><p>[2]<a href="http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=773446" rel="nofollow">http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=77344...</a>
Whatever happened to this which as supposed to also detect all cancers for $0.01 per test at > 99% accuracy?<p><a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/jack_andraka_a_promising_test_for_pancreatic_cancer_from_a_teenager?language=en" rel="nofollow">https://www.ted.com/talks/jack_andraka_a_promising_test_for_...</a>
i am surprised that neither in their job opening, or exec board or advisory board there's someone with specialization in gov regulation or legal matters (except an opening for dir. of IP).