sjckciodjcr

Any plans to open an office in Bay Area? Would love to work at datadog

Reddit owns the content so you can’t do that.

My partner was trained in primary care and basically said the same. Obviously it’s not so black and white - there are patients with risk levels that warrant regular checkups, but most people do not need them and for them risk of false positives outweighs an undiagnosed positive. The regularity of checkups should be a call made by the medical team and patient, not something pushed by insurance.

Some people in the comments are complaining this article encourages the other extreme, never visiting your doctor, but I think most researchers and doctors would argue that the frequency of checkups should be based on their view of your health and risks. Too frequent or too rare check ups are both a problem.

There are some shows like Veep that actually have great content during the credits. I couldn’t stand watching that show using HBO max because I missed so many jokes.

none of the companies mentioned were cash cows. medium and quora barely made any money. In general it’s really hard to monetize blogging.

Just tried this on my newborn and it seemed to work! I know there are folks saying this isn’t a new finding but i find the timings really helpful. Previously I was walking the baby too long which was wearing me out but having research based timing advise helps a lot.

For a significant time, the vaccine showed strong evidence of reducing hospitalization and fatality rates, esp for at risk populations. Did that change? I thought the main thing that changed was it stopped being effective at reducing transmission.

That’s a tragedy. Maybe there needs to be regulation requiring results are delivered by genetic counselors rather than physicians. Or maybe this is willful patient error.

NIPT is not supposed to be used for termination decisions. A positive is meant to be “your baby might have this, test further with amniocentesis”.

This article seems a bit deceptive. We are going through NIPT soon and our doctor went over false positive and false negative rates for the common screens. Our doctor has pointed out some of the screens (esp for rare conditions) are not that accurate. The only procedure with high accuracy, amniocentesis, has a slight risk of miscarriage (our provider quoted 0.3% ) so its still statistically better to take NIPT and then only consider amniocentesis with a positive result since there is no risk from NIPT.

You are supposed to treat a positive on NIPT as “there’s a chance your baby has this, need a more accurate procedure to confirm”.

It sounds like their ob gyn wasn’t able to explain results to them or they didn’t understand the probabilities. To be fair our provider didn’t even suggest tests for the disorders in the article, probably because of the false positive rates and rarity. Sounds like these extra screens shouldn’t be offered.