
Stanford Student Claims to Run Bootleg Covid-19 Testing Lab - randycupertino
https://mailchi.mp/fountainhopper/foho-102student-claims-to-run-bootleg-covid-19-testing-lab-50-stanford-affiliates-allegedly-tested-more-news-you-can-use?e=[UNIQID]
======
LolWolf
It's incredible seeing this on hn. For context, while the FoHo is sometimes
good for very, very breaking and recent stories, it's a little hard to overdo
the niche it fits in Stanford culture: it's pretty much the main and only
tabloid for fast-paced news and (sometimes) absurd 'takes' on things happening
around campus.

While I don't doubt the story, I would always take it with a grain of salt. I
don't personally know the person they claim is running these "under the table"
tests, but the tests are very simple, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was
actually true. (Most first or second year biology/bioengineering students can
easily run RT-PCR without an issue, especially if they already have the
primers available.)

EDIT: I was just contacted by one of my friends who knows of a few students
and their labs doing this. Apparently there is more than one.

~~~
subroutine
If I heard someone in my lab was running PCR on saliva samples potentially
infected with 2019-nCoV, I'd lose my shit.

~~~
lonelappde
At the moment, you shouldn't be going to a lower than a biosafety level 4 lab
at all.

~~~
Reelin
This is incorrect. The CDC recommends BSL-2 for routine diagnostics and BSL-3
for isolating the virus in cell culture.
([https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/lab/lab-
biosafety-...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/lab/lab-biosafety-
guidelines.html))

------
mjfl
The test is trivial. It's just RT-PCR.

\- Spit in a 2 mL tube

\- Purify the RNA from the saliva in that tube using qiagen's Viral RNA mini
kit ([https://www.qiagen.com/us/products/diagnostics-and-
clinical-...](https://www.qiagen.com/us/products/diagnostics-and-clinical-
research/clinical-sample-processing/qiaamp-dsp-viral-rna-mini-kit/))

\- Get PCR primers against NCoV N by ordering IDT's CDC qPCR probe assay
([https://www.idtdna.com/pages/landing/coronavirus-research-
re...](https://www.idtdna.com/pages/landing/coronavirus-research-reagents))

\- Run one step RT-PCR using your choice of one-step reagent (CDC recommends
[https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A15300#/A...](https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/A15300#/A15300))

\- Either do the reaction in a qPCR machine or run the PCR result on an
agarose gel with positive control, if you see a band matching coronavirus
positive control then the sample is positive, if not negative. Also helpful to
have a human sample negative control to be sure as well.

There is no step here that requires critical thinking, it's just following
instructions on the kits.

Also, this is not like a "bootleg" version of doing it, this is actually the
official way the CDC does the test.

Edit: Please see official CDC instructions for how to run the test here:
[https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download](https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download)

Edit 2: In terms of test shortages, it seems to be due to shortages in RNA
extraction kits and swabs, only the former of which is really necessary, since
the official guidance for sample collection has switched from upper respitory
swabs to collecting sputum (phlegm) from the lower respitory tract (by just
spitting it out):
[https://www.ft.com/content/86efe246-692e-11ea-800d-da70cff6e...](https://www.ft.com/content/86efe246-692e-11ea-800d-da70cff6e4d3)

~~~
gravelc
Agree it's trivially easy to do, but as anyone you does a lot of qPCR knows,
they're rife with false positives.

Any environmental contamination will show up as a positive, particularly using
the non-quantatative end-point method mentioned above. There's simple controls
for that, but still....

~~~
mullingitover
> Agree it's trivially easy to do, but as anyone you does a lot of qPCR knows,
> they're rife with false positives.

Honestly we'd be better off having a widely available test that gives 50%
false positives. Worst case, a bunch of people quarantine unnecessarily, but
we at least catch all the infected. The alternative is what we have now:
widespread community transmission with no end in sight.

~~~
awrence
This is a classic statistical fallacy. A test that is 50% accurate serves 0
purpose. You might as well consider coin flipping a valid test. If you tested
America with this test you’d end up thinking half the country is infected. And
within the ones that tested positive only half would actually be and within
the negatives half would be and you would have missed them.

A test needs to be materially more accurate than the odds of having the
disease to be worth anything.

Classic thought experiment: if 0.0001% of the population has a disease and a
test is 99% effective and you test positive, what are the odds you have the
disease? Answer: 1%.

Complimentary thought experiment: if an expensive preventive drug was
available in limited supply (for 0.1% of the population only) and the earlier
you took it the more preventive it was should you give it blindly to as many
positives as you can? Probably not because 99% of that would be going to
waste. And you would run out of drugs to cover the actual sick. Only 10% of
the sick would end up actually getting the drugs.

~~~
sliken
50% accurate I'd agree is useless.

But the parent said 50% false positive, presumably with close to a 0% false
negative would be _VERY_ useful and save potentially millions of lives. We
need enough tests yesterday or so to avoid a repeat of Italy and a 50% false
positive rate (with a very low false negative rate) could help do that.

~~~
makomk
Even the properly-conducted version of this test has a fairly substantial
false negative rate, somewhere around the 30% mark, and if it's done by
students using samples that might not be taken correctly on a rigged-together
testing setup that's going to get worse. Seriously, you might as well flip a
coin.

------
nrp
If anyone else wants to start a bootleg test lab, there's a disposition
auction next week for a defunct biotech startup with most of what you'll need:
[https://svdisposition.com/auction-
detail?id=281](https://svdisposition.com/auction-detail?id=281)

~~~
gravelc
I'd advise against this unless you really know what you're doing. Equipment is
just one thing. You need a very well controlled environment that absolutely
prevents cross-contamination and environmental contamination. My lab is a very
clean molecular biology lab and it isn't good enough for that.

You need processes in place that ensure that these types of contamination are
prevented, and constantly checked for. You need a very robust pipeline from
sample collection to result dissemination that ensure no mix ups.

All these things are possible, but PCR is ultrasensitive and processes are
hard; you could have a huge amount of false results if not very very careful.

~~~
danieltillett
It really isn’t that difficult to avoid cross-contamination. As someone who
has done literally 10s of thousand of PCR reactions (probably 100s of
thousands) you just need to do your extraction and set-up seperate from where
you run the reactions.

The real problem seems to be the kit-cowboys who have no idea how to do
anything unless it comes out of a kit.

------
opk
Given the number of rich celebrities that apparently manage to get a test just
because they're rich, I wonder if there is more illicit testing going on.
Meanwhile a colleague of a doctor I know remains untested due to lack of tests
despite symptoms entirely consistent with covid. Lack of tests are likely
behind the comparatively high UK death rate.

Seems like there's a good opportunity for a nefarious get rich quick scheme
here: setup a website, have hypochondriac rich people send in a swab, charge
them lots, wait a couple of days and inform them of a random outcome with a
warning about false positives. If this is going on, they should at least give
people a positive so they quarantine them self.

~~~
daedalus_f
I doubt the lack of test availability is directly increasing mortality.

The UK like many other countries the UK is advising self isolation for those
with symptoms, and I imagine those who ignore this would not isolate even if
they did test positive. There’s no specific treatment. Those admitted
requiring ventilatory support have that decision made on other grounds, and a
CT can show a consistent viral pneumonia and help rule out other causes, which
is good enough diagnostically when the pre-test probability is likely to be so
high. I believe when PCR testing was not readily available in China they were
using ct based diagnostic criteria.

Unless there’s something I’m missing, the main benefits of a readily available
test would be getting potentially symptomatic but actually negative key
workers back from self isolation and perhaps catching the asymptotic if it
could be rolled out widely enough.

~~~
opk
That's not what I meant. It is affecting the published rates, i.e. the
statistics.

Sorry, poor wording on my part.

~~~
daedalus_f
Ahh, didn’t think about it from that angle, apologies.

------
filleokus
Almost completely OT but:

I’m almost certain I’ve had Corona, but it’s almost impossible to get the
medical system to test for that where I live (for good reasons).

Will it be possible to get a test kit like this
[https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-
disease/covi...](https://www.biomedomics.com/products/infectious-
disease/covid-19-rt/) as private individual (in the EU)? Will that test show
if I have been infected previously? The graph on this PDF suggest it
[https://www.biomedomics.com/?fldl=3001](https://www.biomedomics.com/?fldl=3001)

~~~
lostlogin
Out of curiosity, what changes if you have had it, recovered and been symptom
free for 2 weeks? Is there something different in what you’re supposed to do.

~~~
filleokus
No, not really any enormous changes. But here in Sweden we don’t have proper
lockdowns (yet), and my office isn’t completely shut dow, we are just strongly
recommended to work from home.

If I can confirm that I’ve had it I would start going back to the office
(better ergonomics) and start going out on lunches/dates, go to the gym, shop
for clothes, meet older relatives etc with (almost) no fear of spreading it to
other people.

~~~
ctchocula
Keep in mind that even if you have had it, people are infectious on average
for 20 days from before symptoms appear [1], so it might be good to self-
quarantine for a while.

[1]
[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3076022/coro...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3076022/coronavirus-
infects-faster-and-lasts-longer-sars-raising-new)

~~~
lostlogin
There is also the possibility it is biphasic, although this could also be more
of a problem with testing.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-
reinfe...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-
reinfection.html)

[https://theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/japanese-woman-
tes...](https://theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/27/japanese-woman-tests-
positive-for-coronavirus-for-second-time)

------
knzhou
I'm a Stanford newbie. This is completely believable, but of the stories The
Fountain Hopper breaks, what's the accuracy rate?

------
colordrops
If it's so easy, then is it so hard to ramp up testing?

~~~
bobowzki
If it's so easy to build a website. Why doesn't everyone scale to the size of
Google?

~~~
mcovalt
I’d be curious to the answer to that too. I can think of quite a few reasons,
but I’m sure there are nuances that are completely unknown to me.

I’m more interested in the parent question at the moment. I know almost
nothing about the subject matter. What are the blockers for deploying a simple
virus test at the scale we need?

~~~
nkrumm
It boils down to people, logistics, and efficiency:

Yes, we can produce the primers, develop the tests, ramp up the supply of RNA
extraction kits, swabs, tips, etc. Individually easy, but together more
challenging, especially when the entire world is also trying to acquire the
same products.

Yes, large, fast and high-scale instruments exist. But, they need to be set up
and calibrated. They need adequate power, cooling, water, space, etc. The
technicians need training. They need network interfaces, etc.

Yes, it's a simple test. But there are still SO MANY steps needed to generate
a result from a sample, and those take people. Just looking at the laboratory
workflow: 1) Sample received in shipment -- unbox, scan manifest (if provided)
2) Unbag sample + requisition 3) Check sample label (usually handwritten) and
verify accuracy to requisition (possibly handwritten). In an ideal case,
orders are coming in as "interfaced orders" (meaning electronically) but many
smaller clinics/hospitals will not have this. 4) Enter all demographics of the
patient into laboratory system 5) Have second person verify the information 6)
Re-bag and send sample to location in lab with test instrumentation 7)
Technicians unbag, verify label + order accuracy 8) Decant sample from non-
standardized tube sent to lab to standard tube used in lab 9) Scan into liquid
handling robot... ...et cetera, et cetera

As I will probably find out in the replies there are "solutions" to all of
these problems, and many labs utilize them. However, to scale such a complex
system so quickly means that there is no room for a "test environment", and
all changes have to be made "in production". Even simple changes to the
workflow require days of prep to communicate to all of the staff across three
daily shifts-- you get the idea.

source: i'm a laboratory medicine resident at the UW lab. We scaled from 0 to
3000 tests in 2 weeks and it's been an incredible all-hands effort.

~~~
Reelin
I appreciate what's going on at UW regarding this and realize that it must
have been a huge amount of work to say the least. However, I'd like to point
out that most of what you've described is related to the bureaucracy and
paperwork of certified medical procedures. Under ordinary circumstances that's
all well and good, but given the severity of the situation it seems like it
would have been better to eliminate much of that at least a month ago. Put
another way, combat medics don't let someone die just because they're short
some official FDA approved widget.

Why keep such detailed records? Barcode it on the way in, run the test, and
report the result - forget demographic data and any other paperwork, whoever
ordered the test can deal with that.

The supplies for RNA extraction are common and readily available (I think all
the raw components are mass produced?), but only specific kits are FDA
approved.

Only specific swabs are FDA approved. ([https://khn.org/news/as-coronavirus-
testing-gears-up-special...](https://khn.org/news/as-coronavirus-testing-
gears-up-specialized-swabs-running-out/))

> the government is considering expanding its recommended testing material
> options to allow for more general nasal swabs to keep up with the increased
> testing demand

Standard qPCR machines are incredibly common in both academia and industry and
have 96 wells at minimum. The protocol published by the CDC has an 80 minute
runtime. That's 1000 tests per day for a _single_ low-end machine.

The US response has been an absolute shitshow of bureaucratic dysfunction as
far as I'm concerned, and people will likely end up dead as a direct result.

~~~
omar_a1
> Why keep such detailed records? Barcode it on the way in, run the test, and
> report the result - forget demographic data and any other paperwork, whoever
> ordered the test can deal with that.

Detailed records and redundancies ensure you don't mix up any of the tens of
thousands of samples coming in. These systems are crucial for being able to
scale up as they have without complete chaos breaking out in the lab.

You are right that barcodes are far more efficient, after implementation. But
implementation takes months, and requires diverting resources that would
otherwise be used to run more samples. The lab would face significant downtime
putting a barcode setup in place and retraining. (See nkrumm's comment about
labs not having a "test" environment.)

> Standard qPCR machines are incredibly common in both academia and industry
> and have 96 wells at minimum. The protocol published by the CDC has an 80
> minute runtime. That's 1000 tests per day for a _single_ low-end machine.

That's only if we ignore the sample preparation time (orders of magnitude
longer than analysis time), and the many control wells necessary to ensure the
technique was successful. While I suspect these will also be dismissed as
bureaucratic inefficiency, they're needed to make sure your newly-installed
instrument running 24/7 hasn't broken down, and that the high throughput
sample prep wasn't botched for a given prep batch.

The stakes for these tests are high enough that cutting corners on QA/QC isn't
acceptable, because it means more lives lost. Doing a mediocre job for testing
at this scale will have a very real impact on our population.

~~~
Reelin
My calculation (1000 tests per day) left space for 12 controls per batch - is
that not sufficient under the circumstances? Alternatively, at 500 tests per
day (again, this is _per_ low-end machine!) you could run each sample twice in
addition to the 12 controls. (And I would _never_ dismiss controls as an
inefficiency, even the most trivial exploratory experiment is highly suspect
without one.)

The point I was trying to make with those numbers was just how readily
accessible the necessary instrumentation is.

Regarding sample preparation, I'm well aware that it's a time sink (I've done
DNA and RNA extractions before). But it's fairly trivial and can be done fully
in parallel by multiple people; the primary bottleneck is likely to be
available bench space. (Unless the sample prep has been fully mechanized, in
which case I'm really not seeing the issue.)

My point being that multiple, parallel sample prep pipelines can feed a single
qPCR machine to keep it running just about 24/7.

Regarding barcodes, I didn't mean it had to be fully automated. Just drop the
excess data entry and switch to a serial number scheme with built-in
redundancy (or at least error detection). Many academic labs employ such
schemes by hand.

Given just how dire the circumstances are, I'm afraid I'd have to strenuously
disagree that cutting corners on QA/QC (as compared to standard medical
diagnostic testing) would be unacceptable. None of what I described is at all
out of place for handling research samples, and in my experience those are
quite reliable.

I used the combat medic analogy in my previous post for a reason - a
significant number of people are likely to end up dead due to our having
blindly stuck to the rules. A bit of pragmatism could have saved them, and I
view that as a tragic systemic failure on the part of the US government.

~~~
omar_a1
You're saying a lot of things here that don't make any sense.

> I'm afraid I'd have to strenuously disagree that cutting corners on QA/QC
> [...] would be unacceptable.

> I would _never_ dismiss controls as an inefficiency

So, the QC in QA/QC stands for Quality _Controls_. So, you're strenuously
insisting they're unnecessary, yet vehement that you would never dismiss the
thing you just said wasn't necessary? Which one is it?

> But [RNA extraction is] fairly trivial and can be done fully in parallel by
> multiple people

It takes longer than the instrument analysis was my point. That's the typical
bottleneck in running samples, not your instrument sample throughput like you
claim. So even if you can run 1000 samples on the instrument, if it takes
longer to prepare them (which it always does), then that's your rate limiting
step.

Unless, of course, you're working in this magic lab of yours where new, fully-
trained techs suddenly materialize any time there's a spike in sample volume
(whereas new benchspace doesn't? Might wanna take that up with your deity lab
manager).

> Regarding barcodes, I didn't mean it had to be fully automated. Just drop
> the excess data entry and switch to a serial number scheme with built-in
> redundancy (or at least error detection)

With all hands on deck who do you think will have time to do this? Barcode
migrations are a lot of work. Adding the word "just" to what I've described
doesn't make something trivially easy.

Though apparently this whole process is trivial, from the sample check-in to
the RNA extraction to the instrument analysis. Why not just fire the UW
resident and all the staff, so that you can swoop in save the world, since
it's all so terribly easy for you? I look forward to touring this fully-
automated magic lab of yours.

~~~
Reelin
I'm fairly certain that everything I said makes sense, so I'll try to clarify
a bit.

First though, it seems a misunderstanding has developed. I was not calling the
competence of the UW lab into question! They are bound by various state and
federal regulations and I'm certain are doing the absolute best that they can
under the circumstances. The examples I provided were to illustrate just how
absurd the current state of affairs is, and to make it clear that bureaucratic
ineptitude is to blame.

We obviously both agree that QA/QC is necessary; note that my back-of-the-
envelope calculations included controls. I don't pretend to know precisely
what requirements FDA regulations place on various diagnostic tests. What I do
know, and attempted to illustrate in concrete terms, is that it is physically
possible to scale testing in a sufficiently reliable manner using common
instrumentation and bulk reagents. Any genuine attempt to explain US testing
shortages _must_ account for this fact.

Yes, parallelizing sample prep requires a sufficient number of properly
trained technicians. Presumably the US government is capable of locating and
making use of qualified personnel in an emergency situation such as this? (To
start with, literally any graduate student whose research includes running
molecular biology protocols is likely over qualified for sample prep.)

Regarding serial numbers and labeling, it is indeed trivial. You can literally
keep a list on paper and label tubes by hand (I did this for years in an
academic lab). This step is fast compared to overall sample prep time.

I have no idea where you got the idea of a barcode migration from. Remember,
I'm not describing a clinical lab operating according to FDA regulations; I'm
describing a sufficiently reliable setup that closely resembles an academic
research lab and would maximize throughput in an emergency situation. The only
goal is to receive a package, label a corresponding tube, run a test, and
report the result.

(BTW, I claimed that bench space for sample prep, not instrument throughput,
was likely to be the bottleneck. In fact, instrument throughput _not_ being
the bottleneck was one of my primary points.)

~~~
omar_a1
If you're basing your sample throughput calculations on instrument throughput
(1000/day), you're implicitly assuming that instrument run time is the
limiting factor, and the rest of the operations can match it.

I'm also confused by your apparent assumption that bench space is a universal
constant that cannot be changed, even under a global pandemic, while lab
personnel can be scaled up effortlessly.

> Regarding serial numbers and labeling, it is indeed trivial. You can
> literally keep a list on paper and label tubes by hand (I did this for years
> in an academic lab). This step is fast compared to overall sample prep time.

Scientists don't keep records on scraps paper for a reason, and I'm shocked
your PI didn't read you the Riot Act for shoddy record-keeping.

With thousands of samples coming in, this is how you end up completely losing
track of your samples. Once again: it's not trivial, particularly at this
scale.

> I have no idea where you got the idea of a barcode migration from.

> Why keep such detailed records? Barcode it on the way in, run the test, and
> report the result - forget demographic data and any other paperwork

~~~
Reelin
I was attempting to illustrate the absurdity of the past month and a half by
performing a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not provide a detailed business
plan for launching a biotech startup. FFS

I never claimed that bench space was a universal constant, nor that hiring
personnel is effortless. Rather, I attempted to make it clear that from both
scientific and logistical perspectives the barrier to effective testing is
quite low.

The point of the instrument throughput calculation was to make it clear that
instrument availability can't possibly be the limiting factor because a single
low-end one that many academic labs already have on hand can facilitate an
incredible number of tests each day. That's important because you can't depend
on being able to procure new instrumentation in a timely manner during a
crisis so any estimates ought to assume that you're stuck with whatever you
already have.

We see reagent shortages reported in the news, but that can't possibly be the
limiting factor either because (as far as I know) only common chemicals (plus
primers and probes) are required. (Actually you could probably dispense with
the probes if you were willing to run an awful lot of gels, but that would
further complicate the pipeline and require more labor so better not.)

So then we might suppose that personnel and training is the bottleneck, but
that can't be it either because the government has deep pockets and just about
any practicing molecular biologist is over qualified to perform such a trivial
procedure.

Looked at this way, it should be abundantly clear that US policy is entirely
to blame.

I also never said to use scraps of paper in lieu of proper record keeping. The
obvious interpretation of what I wrote is to go line by line in a lab
notebook, which is something I have in fact done before (obviously not on the
scale described though). It works quite well in the long term provided that
your serial numbers incorporate either a day or a page number and are strictly
sequential. It's hardly the only way to go about it; I only mentioned it
because the original post that I responded to explicitly called out record
keeping as a necessarily time consuming and complicated part of the process. I
was illustrating that once again, that is only true when complying with
existing US regulations.

~~~
omar_a1
What was described above wasn't "US Administrative Bureaucracy" so much as
"this is how busy labs are run." It can be challenging to understand that if
you're coming from a small research lab where QA/QC boils down to
recalibrating when you feel like it, and sample records are maintained by
transcribing loose paper into Excel.

The bureaucratic aspects are to ensure you don't mix up the large volume of
samples, and the quantitative QA/QC metrics are needed to objectively esablish
what level of error is considered acceptable. Good record-keeping and QA/QC
are all necessary when you're dealing with healthcare, particularly largescale
healthcare.

That doesn't mean US policy or the administration's handling of this crisis
was anything close to acceptable, but the issues there are pretty far removed
from routine laboratory sample check-in and record-keeping.

------
609venezia
Edit: it seems the idea is to possibly catch asymptomatic people so they can
self isolate (if they otherwise wouldn't) or tell their contacts to keep an
eye out

I'm skeptical of the value add when weighed against the risk of introducing
unregulated / unverified medical tests with unknown false positive/negative
rates during a crisis situation, but obviously folks disagree, and I'm sure I
could be missing something.

~~~
suyash
Either this is a genius hack (saving lives) or a genius scam!

~~~
609venezia
How does it save lives? If someone took this test and popped positive, would
it increase the likelihood of receiving effective treatment or of reducing
transmission? I'm trying to figure out the value.

~~~
djannzjkzxn
The best case scenario for controlling this epidemic is containment through
contract tracing. That means we find people who have it, figure out who they
got and from and gave it to, and get those people to quarantine. This strategy
is failing in the US due to insufficient testing.

~~~
opk
We're past that stage. It's purely about flattening the curve so the health
system can cope while protecting the the vulnerable.

The official statistics have a lag in them due to only showing confirmed
cases.

------
Johnny555
What's the point of getting a "bootleg" unofficial test -- why would you trust
the results (positive or negative)?

~~~
omarchowdhury
You trust the Stanford whiz kid with access to the lab.

------
buboard
Perhaps we need an open source effort for this? The main obstacle is sample
collection and safety handling. given however the demand for testing, maybe a
group of scientists could come up with specifications for ad hoc sample
testing centers and perhaps recommend best practices and off the shelf
products to minimize the risk. There are tons of graduate students who could
volunteer and lots of unused pcr machines. It would be far better to organize
these bootleggers as an open community sharing their standards rather than
each person doing their own setup.

------
swamp40
People seem to be caught up in a frenzy of the importance of PCR testing.

In reality, even if _no one_ got tested, Doctors would still be doing pretty
much the same things they are doing now. The same numbers of people would live
or die. Hypoxemia and pneumonia are easy to diagnose. The treatment is
standard. Any medicines are likely to work the same without regard to the
exact RNA makeup of the virus.

Quarantine is still a good idea. Remember, if it mutates all these tests are
going to be useless anyway. So a negative result has to be treated as
dangerous anyway.

------
atemerev
I am buying a used RT-PCR machine for that, will get it home in the next few
days. I have an account at Sigma-Aldrich as a hobbyist researcher, so I can
order primers and other reagents.

------
peter303
Kudos! Several dozen US labs in the US claimed similar capability in January.
But ponderous accuracy certification from the FDA kept them unofficial until
March.

Also this probably doesnt scale well to the thousands per day states need now.

------
habosa
Hmmm I swear I heard a story about a Stanford student doing bogus blood tests
before ... can't remember where though.

------
tmsh
_Please tell us about the time you most successfully hacked some (non-
computer) system to your advantage?_

------
fortran77
Can we trust "Stanford Students" with medical tests? The school has a history
of encouraging bad behavior in this area, as well as a history of letting
people bribe athletic coaches to gain entrance.

I would not trust this organization. They're tainted.

------
bwilliams18
Elizabeth Holmes 2.0?

------
rolltiide
> according to GroupMe messages obtained by FoHo

I remember coming to the bay area and it wasn't long before someone that felt
they had a cultural affinity with me invited me to a GroupMe group. Man that
was years ago. Surprised to see people still use GroupMe, still seems to be
for cliques exclusively.

~~~
JCharante
GroupMe is still extensively used at universities. I only know a few
undergrads who prefer to use it, but most seem to use it as a compromise. I
personally hate its UI.

