Murph
:)
- Messages
- 1,803
The guy in charge of it, Rahim Efsandyarpour, got offered a lab of his own at the university of california and left stanford.I really feel like we were sold a bill of goods with the "nanoneedle". We were told it would identify what is the problem in the blood, and, years later, have never gotten a convincing explanation for why it just disappeared.
https://faculty.sites.uci.edu/esfandyarpourlab/
Ultimately I think the mistake is Ron's. He bet on a unique bespoke system instead of a cheap mass-market system. It turned out to be unreliable, have key-person-risk and not be replicable by other labs. Was it a waste of money or a decent thing to try, ex-ante? i don't know but in retrospect it may have been better to use a boring old system anyone can buy from a big pharma company.
Ron is fallible; Ron is optimistic. These should be obvious but we prbably didn't have space to admit it before. The good news is since long covid the field overall has much less key person risk - there's lots of researchers now, not just Ron and a few others.