RVAEMS399

Very interesting. Coinfections are tricky. So many questions.

Is a goal of your test to supplement and be used in conjunction with the typical emergency department broad assays of respiratory viral panels, CBC with differential, cultures, CRP, RPR, etc., or will your product be potentially a stand alone test? It sounds like you aim to replace clinician error and wide-net testing.

For the bacterial and viral identification portion of your test, you mention it reveals upper/lower respiratory and blood infections, but will it also look for enteric, urologic, and CNS sources?

Which specific human host responses to pathogens are you measuring? It sounds like your diagnostic tool will be testing for pyrogens in the blood. You mention your signatures are based off WBC activation: is this test looking at granulocyte/agranulocyte counts and inferring source of from there (eg. bandemia/eosinophilia, etc.)? How would parasite infection murky the results?

I applaud the aim to reduce the overuse of antibiotics. In the post-Theranos age, however, I am skeptical of things. On your site and the studies linked I see many platitudes and buzzwords, but I would love some specifics (my apologies if I overlooked them). I see you also mention using finger-prick blood tests to do your diagnostics where as the current standard battery of tests takes many mL. Also, the first of a kind achievements such as positively identifying Kawasaki's is absolutely groundbreaking, if true. My point is, your test almost sounds too good to be true; please assuage these concerns. Edit - I see u/caosmom mentioned Theranos and you replied.

Which specific viral illnesses does your test identify that we are currently unable to test for?