[maxerickson]

The (short) article makes it clear enough that they aren't targeting the plasmodium directly:

Its red beam can detect changes in the colour, shape and concentration of red blood cells - all of which are affected by malaria.

So that particular line of cynicism is more illiterate than it is cynical.

[jiminy_john]

What's wrong with him expressing his skepticism?! And what makes you entitled to express harsh opinions?!

Theranos was also looking at only tiny amounts of blood drawn from a finger prick. And everyone was on that bandwagon, as you are now. And telling the others to shut-up and not dare to "wrong-think".

[Zofren]

I think the difference here is that the person they're responding to doesn't seem to have read the article they were being cynical towards, otherwise they would have immediately realized their source of skepticism was directly addressed. I think you can forgive them for being harsh.

[jiminy_john]

It is a valid point. But his skepticism is still warranted. Theranos was also masquerading as very scientific and was full of laurels. No difference! The undercurrent is this: "do not dare to express doubts on this African-based invention, because otherwise you are a racist."

That's why I objected to the "harsh" tone. It is an application of PC thinking.

[pdpi]

The OP said "I'll side with the cynics" and then justified this by describing how they thought the device would operate — by detecting the plasmodium itself — and how they thought it was impossible.

The article, however, explains how the actual proposed means of operation is based on measuring actual symptoms of the illness — observable changes to the red blood cells — which is at least somewhat compatible with the mechanics of a pulse oximeter, and, therefore, not entirely unreasonable.

The tone was harsh not because of the cynicism, but because said cynicism was based on a concern that wouldn't even have been there if the OP had RTFA.

[cornholio]

You keep saying Theranos. Are you of the opinion that we should treat all technical startup founders as probable criminals? I think where Theranos investors failed was when they confused media hype with due diligence. I'm perfectly ok to live in a society where imprudent investors get occasionally burned, if the hype can also put the spotlight on real, non-criminal founders that would have no chance otherwise.

This is far from getting funded, it's a technical concept and we have absolutely no ability or relevant information upon which to call it a fraud.

[snakeboy]

The above poster explicitly responded to one specific line of skepticism and is not telling them to give up all skepticism.

You are the only one trying to make this about "PC thinking".

[maxerickson]

This is in the really early stages and needs lots more proof. Plenty of reason to be skeptical of it.

But I would say that the bandwagon jumping is where everyone that makes any claim about a medical device is being compared to the billion dollar fraudsters, even if they have not brought the claim to market or committed any fraud.