[mdrew]

I get it.

I think it's right there in the post itself. If you have certain occupations, live in certain zip codes, or have medical problems, a test like this can prove invaluable.

If you're just curious, your mileage may very.

I do push back on the idea that not knowing is somehow better. Or people cannot handle learning new information about themselves. It's an old idea from medicine I hope we can move past as it just entrenches the power dynamic between caregivers and patients.

[vkou]

> I think it's right there in the post itself. If you have certain occupations, live in certain zip codes, or have medical problems, a test like this can prove invaluable.

Invaluable, as in, worthless?

Invaluable for what? What are you going to do if you test positive?

[mdrew]

I encourage you to read the rest of the discussion.

[xracy]

Uhh, you haven't answered this person's question in the rest of the discussion. What is the value of this test over assuming that I have this? What treatment exists that I can get if I know my blood contains PFAs?

[mdrew]

Depending on your Total PFAS blood level, you are at increased risk for certain medical conditions which require ongoing monitoring by a physician. Knowing this may prevent the development of future diseases or allow you to catch it early in its progression. NIH graphic: https://res.cloudinary.com/mpsh87/image/upload/v1687923551/N...

If your level is significantly elevated (>20 ng/mL), you can audit your environment by testing your tap water and installing a reverse osmosis whole house filter (expensive). If your level is low, you don't need to do any of this. By eliminating point source exposure, your PFAS levels would naturally decline in time.

Lastly, I bring up therapeutic phlebotomy as interesting emerging research because it points in a concrete direction to something that is very actionable (pending more study).

Edit: grammer

[xracy]

Somewhere else in this comment section there's a discussion about screenings causing more trouble than benefit because people don't know how or what to do about them.

Emerging research is not something actually concretely actionable for most people. Worse, because most people are "arm-chair experts" without clear guidance, your average person is more likely to harm themselves with doing their own research into things like this than otherwise.

For the additional thing about "reverse osmosis whole house filter" most people likely can't do afford to do this. Even if they can, there would need to be much better guidance here to have any certainty that someone wasn't selling you snake oil. The only things I can find on these systems in searches is that the companies that sell them recommend them, and won't even say they can filter out PFAs on their own, that's a major red flag to me that this is poorly regulated and likely dangerously marketed for things they can't do anything about.

A thought experiment, if I offer you two glasses of water, and tell you one has PFAs and the other doesn't how could you actually test that assumption? How could you have certainty in that test? I'm not saying it can't be done, but knowing what companies you can trust in a brand new space is not something obvious, and especially in a low-regulation space can be a major opportunity for companies to use meaningless words to try and convince you they're doing more than they are.

I had an insect exterminator come to my door and tell me the "eco" in their company name meant that they were eco-friendly with 0 data to back that up. They also said that all of their chemicals for killing animals were "plant-based" and didn't expand on that any further. Companies can make a lot of money making up BS terms to try and sell you the same thing you've been buying for years. That's a lot easier than finding a new thing to sell you.