The Tampon of the Future
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
So since many western women are choosing when to have their periods and we do so often purely for reproductive reasons, such a tampon-analyser would sell very very well. We're already used to being grossed out by our blood by the time we want to reproduce so what's the harm in dropping a used tampon in a cylinder once a month, on top of everything else we do.
Imagine a "lab in the toilet". Every time it is flushed, it runs analysis on the current contents and produces reports if requested, or alerts if needed.
"You're currently suffering potassium deficiencies, which can cause frequent headaches. Eat a banana to alleviate concerns."
And that was version 2. http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/06/28/spark.toilet/index.ht... Shows you could buy one in 2005. From that description, it seems there was some room for making the thing easier to use then, though.
As long as the stupid thing still flushes without internet access; I have never been more concerned about an IoT version of an existing appliance not doing its job. That is, I could stand an oven or blender not functioning; a toilet simply must work or the bathroom itself becomes nigh useless. "Honey, our toilet won't flush; are we still being DDoSed?"
Menstrual cups are safe when used as directed and no health risks related to their use have been found. However, no medical research was conducted to ensure that menstrual cups were safe prior to introduction on the market.
Ah, the old assumption of safety.
Makes me wonder how humanity ever discovered wine. "If you take grapes, squeeze the juice out of them, let it sit until its been colonized by a fungi, it'll develop a nerve poison that you should drink because it'll make you sick less often than water from that stream." To say nothing of beans, nutmeg, elderberry, or other foods that are poisonous when eaten raw.
those things happen by itself. leave grain in rain. next day: shitty beer. then just interact from there.
"Bloom has a lot of competition in the tampon subscription space. In September, Juniper launched for the high-end market with a discreet box of tampons, pads, pantyliners, and "indulgences" such as chocolate and tea for $28 a month. Then in November, My Cotton Bunny launched with a box of tampons or pads and a surprise gift for $13.75 a month. Le Parcel launched in January, offering a box of tampons, pads, chocolate, and a gift for $15 a month. There’s also Sent Her Way in California, Perfect Timing in New Jersey, and Trinkets in the UK."
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/4/4035188/tampon-subscription...
Is it the "discreet" boxes? Maybe some people need it? I treat it with the same secrecy that I treat my toilet paper.
You'd risk massive over-diagnosis and over-treatment, both of which provide a significant risk of serious harm.
Moreover, you'd also gain a very wide, data-rich baseline to compare subsequent results against, which would probably counter most of the over-diagnosis and allow for long-term trending of very important data.
It would, IMO, be wholly worth the risks you raise.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/11/robert_aronowit.htm...
Right now, we have so few data points that we have little idea about the natural rhythms and variations of our body chemistry - just like how we have static imaging techniques but almost never any imaging of our bodies in motion. We have this really static view of all aspects of our bodies, coupled with 'normal' ranges that may not be our own normal. If we choose to do a bunch of tests on a perfectly healthy person, there's something bound to be outside normal. Applying todays thinking, that's a patient over-diagnosis problem as you say.
However, if we're gathering frequent data from lots of people, we'll be able to approach diagnosis differently. We'll have a new, deeper understanding of the variance in our bodies, and its unlikely one area of bloodwork getting outside normal range is going to cause alarm - we'll be used to this (and normal ranges themselves will change). These data might result in health care providers recommending some minor preventative medicine course-correction, but if the data gathering is frequent enough, we'll have much better ability to understand when something is truly problematic that requires expensive & risky treatment. In that respect, frequent testing can lead to less expensive/risky over-treatment than today's world of infrequent sampling, and more cheap/minor nutritional/activity/etc interventions backed by data.
I think the concern behind your statement is that the current system isn't going to be able to easily adapt to this new approach, and in the meantime there's going to be some over-diagnosis until the medical system can wrap its head around a new data-rich approach to things. The desire by patients to understand and optimize their health is going to be the driver here.