It came up because the previous commenter was on a train of thought where the general topic lead him to think about Theranos, which lead him to think about blood testing in general and thus questions about that arose.

That is how discussions occur. If that slide into a new topic doesn't interest you, you don't need to reply.

You are right that if you find yourself staring to make off-topic statements, like some of the earlier comments with their authors wanting to arbitrarily assert that they don't know how to read, it is time to go outside instead.

This is the problem the experts pointed out:

If your sample is so small that a substance you're looking for isn't present at all, you will fail to detect that substance, even if it was present in the pool you drew your sample from.

Theranos claimed the reverse, that they could detect a substance whether it was present or not.

How much thought do you want to devote to the question of whether a different approach might realize that dream?

I, for one, learned something from your response, so clearly it was a great question and very much worthwhile. How did you manage to end up so horribly wrong?

It is funny how the seemingly well educated on HN hate education so much. A classic case of "I got mine"?

1. More about Theranos. I've never given them attention in the past.

2. That you hate education (except maybe when it is your own).

> How would education have helped?

Once you get past the education level of somewhere around a five year old, meaning the education necessary to sustain basic life, does more ever really help in some kind of grand fashion? More education will sometimes allow you to stumble into desirable places, but exactly what education is beneficial to get there is random chance. It remains to be seen if this education will be a lucky break or just more to add to the useless pile, but either way does it really matter?