|
|
|
|
|
|
by austinjp
1901 days ago
|
|
|
I have no experience of epilepsy, but I'd suggest (1) health conditions are not problems to be "solved", and (2) reducing complex systems to individual "soluble" components emphasises those components at the expense of the whole. In other words, someone living with epilepsy might have a whole ton of stuff going on in relation to the epilepsy. Monitoring, alerting, etc etc are all (potentially) great, but they're at best necessary without being sufficient. Not to rag on Epilert. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. The language in the submitted title just seems inappropriate. (In case it changes, it was: "This Startup is solving epilepsy with biosensors and AI"). |
|
|
What does this mean? Of course they are.
Leprosy was a “health condition” — something millions of people lived with and managed — until the invention of effective antibiotics. Then it was suddenly just another treatable disease.
Cataracts were another “health condition” to be managed — and then Intraocular Lens (IOL) implants were developed.
Lactose intolerance is being solved right now with gene therapy. (Pretty easily, apparently.)
I agree with you about the article’s title — that a management therapy is not the same thing as a solution, and that it’s editorial malfeasance for the article here to claim that its management-therapy tooling is part of a solution.
But that doesn’t translate to this broader claim you’re making here, of certain conditions having some inherent property of insolubility, such that even considering finding permanent treatments or prophylactics for them would be wrong-headed somehow.
“Health conditions” are just problems that don’t have any known approaches or promising avenues of research for “solving” them yet.