Scientists divided over device that 'remotely detects hepatitis C'

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/25/scientists-divided-device-hepatitis-c


Hepatitis C is conventionally detected through needle-based blood tests, a laborious and expensive procedure. Photograph: Alamy

The device the doctor held in his hand was not a contraption you expect to find in a rural hospital near the banks of the Nile.

For a start, it was adapted from a bomb detector used by the Egyptian army. Second, it looked like the antenna for a car radio. Third, and most bizarrely, it could – the doctor claimed – remotely detect the presence of liver disease in patients sitting several feet away, within seconds.

The antenna was a prototype for a device called C-Fast. If its Egyptian developers are to be believed, C-Fast is a revolutionary means of using bomb detection technology to scan for hepatitis C – a strongly contested discovery that, if proven, would contradict received scientific understanding, and potentially change the way many diseases are diagnosed.

"It will change chemistry, biochemistry, physics and biophysics," claimed Dr Gamal Shiha – one of Egypt's most respected liver specialists, and one of the device's developers. Shiha demonstrated its apparent capabilities at the Egyptian Liver Research Institute and Hospital (ELRIAH) in rural Dakahlia, a province in northern Egypt.

[Ian David]

1. Absolute bullshit.

<snip>

But the scanner's scientific basis has been strongly questioned by other scientists, including a Nobel prize winner. Articles about the invention have been rejected by the editors of two well-known scientific journals.

Previously explored as a theory but never proven in practice, the technique used by the scanner is known as distant electromagnetic cell communication. But it is viewed sceptically by most mainstream scientists, who hold that cells can only communicate through physical contact.

In a comparable case in 2009, the Nobel winner Luc Montagnier – the man who discovered HIV – also claimed that DNA molecules emitted electromagnetic waves (pdf). But his research was ridiculed by fellow scientists as "pathological science", and seen as an apology for homeopathy.

A cancer scanner based on a similar concept was developed in 2003 by the Italian physicist Clarbruno Vedruccio. But the scanner was taken off the market in 2007 without its scientific basis ever being properly proved.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/25/scientists-divided-device-hepatitis-c


See also:

ADE-651 Magic Wand Bomb Detector Is a Fraud, Probably Killed Hundreds
http://gizmodo.com/5455692/ade+651-magic-wand-bomb-detector-is-a-fraud-probably-killed-hundreds

[intaglio]

2. Dowsing . . .

If I wanted my doctor to dowse for ilness I would have arranged to be born in the 16th Century

[DetlefK]

3. No false positives. Hmm. Did it give false negatives?

And does it work on petri-dishes?

[Celebration]

5. from the article.........

though in 2% of cases it perceived hepatitis where there was in fact none.

This means that the scanner would not entirely eliminate the need for blood tests. But it could allow doctors to use blood tests only in instances where the scanner found a positive result. Amien said he had already discussed with Egypt's ministry of health the possibility of using the device throughout the country within three years.

[DetlefK]

6. Just checked. I misread a paragraph.

But I still would like to see the details, how those 1600 people were tested.

[Celebration]

4. this should be fairly easy to prove or disprove

Put it to the test. Rather straightforward.

Dogs are being trained to detect cancer so I don't really see the big deal.

[intaglio]

7. The F'n thing is a dowsing rod

"Scientists" are not divided, though there may be some money grubbing medics who want to sell this piece of scrap metal.

2% false positive rate? This is the most obvious lie because even blood test would show an initial false positive greater than that!

How are they selecting the patients they test? What is the false negative rate? How many people will die either from the initial infection or from the cancer that Hep C can cause because these ethically challenged shysters want to make money?

[Celebration]

8. it really *is* very straightforward

1.First use this test on a block of patients.

2.Then, use the regular blood test on the same block of patients on the same day.

3.Compare the results, and have this test "blinded" of course.

Because this seems to be controversial, probably the methodology should be okayed by both sides, althought that shouldn't be necessary, because it is so simple.

[intaglio]

9. This "device" has been tested in its other incarnations

and every single time this dowsing rod shows no better success rate than chance. Why should Hep C be different?

[Celebration]

10. you especially should want this test

because obviously it will fail, and it will shut them up.

[intaglio]

11. This device operates by magic

If you believe magic works feel free to use it. Just do not infect other people and try to replace your smug and unfounded fantasies with evidenced based reasoning.

You have achieved one thing however, you are the first person I have put on ignore.

[Celebration]

12. this is undoubtedly

the strangest reply I have ever received from a set of posts which very clearly and succinctly call for scientific validation of claims, something I thought we all agree on............

Glad you can't see this if it stresses you out!

[bemildred]

14. Yeah, I agree. First find out if it works, rigorously.

Then, if you find it does, worry about the mechanism, how it works.

[SidDithers]

15. Oh FFS...

That people actually believe that shit like this works, makes me incredibly sad.

But then I'm an evil scientific materialist.

Sid

[Dubious Dick]

16. C-Fast raises ugly antenna again

Sadly!

Please see here:

[link:http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2014/02/dubious-egyptian-hepatitis-c-detector-pops-up-again/|
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2014/02/dubious-egyptian-hepatitis-c-detector-pops-up-again/]