[ANN] ⚡ HEALTH MONITOR⚡ | Soft cap reached - ICO ending today | 1200 tokens left

[Colorblind]

Really, the composition of the exhaled air depends on food, drink, smoking. And it needs to be considered that indications of Health Monitor were reliable. It will be considered also the instruction on correct passing of the procedure will be available to everyone.

Basically you telling me that if I go and conduct 10 tests within same day all of the results will be different (dependent on when and what I ate, drank, smoke etc). Some of them may indicate that I'm ill, some may say I'm healthy.

Imagine this - I'm in airport between flights, saw your device and decide to use it. I can't just insert 5$, spend a minute to get fast and meaningful result. Instead I need to read your instruction, educate myself, prepare for test, conduct test and after that STILL receive inconclusive result that suggest me to visit a doctor, who won't even accept that test results as medical test, because device is not certified and I will again have to go through similar testing.

Great! Would use it.

Are you comparing Health Monitor with some kind of bauble which can not bring any benefit when used?

Yes! Prove me wrong answer - Do you do illness diagnostics with health monitor?

Really, the composition of the exhaled air depends on food, drink, smoking. And it needs to be considered that indications of Health Monitor were reliable. It will be considered also the instruction on correct passing of the procedure will be available to everyone.

Basically you telling me that if I go and conduct 10 tests within same day all of the results will be different (dependent on when and what I ate, drank, smoke etc). Some of them may indicate that I'm ill, some may say I'm healthy.

Imagine this - I'm in airport between flights, saw your device and decide to use it. I can't just insert 5$, spend a minute to get fast and meaningful result. Instead I need to read your instruction, educate myself, prepare for test, conduct test and after that STILL receive inconclusive result that suggest me to visit a doctor, who won't even accept that test results as medical test, because device is not certified and I will again have to go through similar testing.

Great! Would use it.

just go a little bit deeper in article about it (you can find it in first message of thread).

Please be so kind and link it in here - your announce is made of pictures and it's kinda pain to dig through it. Also you did not provided the name of the article. If you referring to the 2 page article from 2014 written by some Russians, don't bother linking it - it contains no information I ask for. I'm asking about testing of your ACTUAL DEVICE.

[1715139586]

1715139586

[1715139586]

1715139586

[1715139586]

1715139586

[1715139586]

1715139586

[frankieShtain]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

[vitmatiunin]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

It is very good questions, they are helpful for understanding the purpose of the device.

1. Yes it was! These medical trials of Health Monitor was registered by UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR). link

2. Yes it was, and the results are published here in the article

3. Before each measurement, the emission spectrum of laboratory air was recorded and taken as a reference. Further on, we performed blood tests in order to find the glucose level by using a “Yellow Springs Instruments” glucometer. Then the patients breathed into the chamber for sample pretreatment until a desired air flow in the receiving part of the setup was reached. These tests were performed for all patients on an empty stomach.

Three patients participated in the trials, two of whom were diabetic for about 10 years, the third was at the initial stage of the disease with a compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

4. and 5. You can see it in patient or in the article. The main result is that the breath acetone level measured by proposed method and device declined linearly with the amount of the blood glucose concentration of all persons examined.

By means of this result we can set the reference point of acetone level in exhaled air level for healthy person and diagnose diabetes for all person with higher acetone level in exhaled air.


P.S. all this information is mentioned on our website

[frankieShtain]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

The threshold sensitivity of the proposed device at the discharge noise level is about 10 ppbv (0.01 mg/L)


The device is not medical, this invention relates to physics. While there are no official medical tests, we can not say anything unambiguously from the field of medicine.

We will provide you with research and tests from the field of physics. Tell only what exactly!

Okay let's put medical aspect on hold for a second.
Can you please tell me what will your vending machine produce as a result. Imagine that I just inserted 5$ bill and exhaled into a tube. What's going to happen next?

1. The device will show the spectrum of gas on the graph.
2. Give a short summary and advice (there will be physicists, doctors and lawyers to prepare a template for a detailed cover letter to an email client or on the screen will show, but I think the client will not read all this complex literature)
3. If a person has a spectrum of gas above the norm, then he can think about visiting a doctor. If the spectral analysis does not show significant deviations from the norm (there is already enough authoritative medical research about this), and the person normally feels himself, then that's it. But many patients, such as diabetes, for a long time do not know about their problem.

1. Say I'm your customer, simple guy - smith or carpenter or cashier. Why do I need to see spectrum of gas on the graph? This is useless information for me. (Remember - it can't be used for further medical analyses since it's not medical equipment so no doctor will accept it). From the business standpoint this is waste of paper. I mean I want to fund your vending machine, so I want it to be effective and cheap, but for some reason you want to put a printer that prints useless information in there - this is waste of money.

2. What will advice boil down to? Something like "We are not sure, but you probably have cancer?" Could you clarify this, please.

3. So you say your device will only "ring the bell" for those who has extreme deviation from the "norm" ? What about those who has moderate and low deviation (say 13 y.o. kid and 48 y.o. overweight male have same slightly above "normal" spectrogram - what does that mean for them)?

Health Monitor is an excellent low-cost, innovative gas analyzer. We have a ready-to-use device that we will gladly demonstrate to anyone who wants to. We do not believe that our apparatus is a cure for all diseases or a diagnostic device that replaces a doctor.
Ask yourself, would you like to know what gases breathe out your body?

The tasks that you put before the device are realizable. I will try to find out from the team of scientists these parameters, but as you know, there has not been and will not be developed a cure for all ills and diseases.

[Diunusov86]

Hi guys. I saw on your website that you have a mobile application, but I do not quite understand what it's for. Is it just for displaying results or something else?

[Colorblind]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

So for now the answers are following:

1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)? YES
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
YES, BUT ONLY ON PEOPLE WITH DIABETES, CLAIMS THAT DEVICE CAN BE USED TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING ELSE ARE FALSE ADVERTISING. ONLY 3 PEOPLE WERE USED FOR TESTING.
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
Not clear how many (probably just 1). Following procedure was used:

Patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples.

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS?

A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

That I read as: You can't because it's in Russian and we don't believe you are capable of using Google Translate to read into it, so we won't give a link

[frankieShtain]

Hi guys. I saw on your website that you have a mobile application, but I do not quite understand what it's for. Is it just for displaying results or something else?

Yes, this is a very simple application that displays results of analysis

[nick_pedko]

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)

Why right result only at 66,6%? The third examinee also has an initial stage of diabetum, receives insulin.

[frankieShtain]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

So for now the answers are following:

1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)? YES
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
YES, BUT ONLY ON PEOPLE WITH DIABETES, CLAIMS THAT DEVICE CAN BE USED TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING ELSE ARE FALSE ADVERTISING. ONLY 3 PEOPLE WERE USED FOR TESTING.
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
Not clear how many (probably just 1). Following procedure was used:

Patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples.

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS?

A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

That I read as: You can't because it's in Russian and we don't believe you are capable of using Google Translate to read into it, so we won't give a link

Yes, we will surely give you this study in Russian tomorrow.  Since the staff of the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS are already at home.  Our local time 20.04 pm.   

[Colorblind]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

So for now the answers are following:

1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)? YES
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
YES, BUT ONLY ON PEOPLE WITH DIABETES, CLAIMS THAT DEVICE CAN BE USED TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING ELSE ARE FALSE ADVERTISING. ONLY 3 PEOPLE WERE USED FOR TESTING.
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
Not clear how many (probably just 1). Following procedure was used:

Patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples.

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS?

A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

That I read as: You can't because it's in Russian and we don't believe you are capable of using Google Translate to read into it, so we won't give a link

Yes, we will surely give you this study in Russian tomorrow.  Since the staff of the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS are already at home.  Our local time 20.04 pm.    

Yeah this brings yet another concern I thought about but not mentioned so far:
Judging by time zone you are located somewhere in Siberia, and most of your staff are Russians, patent issued for Russian budget company (some research institute). Yet legal entity running ICO crowd sale registered in Europe and have no apparent connections to the owner of the patent. Smells fishy.

[vitmatiunin]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

So for now the answers are following:

1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)? YES
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
YES, BUT ONLY ON PEOPLE WITH DIABETES, CLAIMS THAT DEVICE CAN BE USED TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING ELSE ARE FALSE ADVERTISING. ONLY 3 PEOPLE WERE USED FOR TESTING.
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
Not clear how many (probably just 1). Following procedure was used:

Patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples.

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS?

A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

That I read as: You can't because it's in Russian and we don't believe you are capable of using Google Translate to read into it, so we won't give a link

Why haven't you mention my answers for your questions? I understood that you definitely don't want to read patent (even it is in English), and you also don't want to check out official registration of medical trials. So that is why I made short answers for your questions.

It is not a medical trials which we will conduct in order to recive certification for Health Monitor. These are medical trials which is necessary to show that this device and method is capable to detect acetone and check blood sugar level.

You also mention that this device wasn't checked for other illnesses. Yes, because it was checked previous. There are a lot of studies about concentration of different gases in exhaled air and which diseases are they corresponds to. So far as Health Monitor can detect these gases it can be used for detecting these diseases.


Also there are a lot of different type of gas analyzers in the world. All analogies are really expensive, not convenient for daily use, expensive and need to have supply of inert transport gas. But the crucial point is that Health Monitor can detect gases using exhaled air as transporting gas. That wasn't done before and it still remain only one in the world. That provide ability to create useful vending machine in order to give benefits of high-tech devices for all people.

[Colorblind]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

So for now the answers are following:

1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)? YES
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
YES, BUT ONLY ON PEOPLE WITH DIABETES, CLAIMS THAT DEVICE CAN BE USED TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING ELSE ARE FALSE ADVERTISING. ONLY 3 PEOPLE WERE USED FOR TESTING.
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
Not clear how many (probably just 1). Following procedure was used:

Patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples.

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS?

A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

That I read as: You can't because it's in Russian and we don't believe you are capable of using Google Translate to read into it, so we won't give a link

Why haven't you mention my answers for your questions? I understood that you definitely don't want to read patent (even it is in English), and you also don't want to check out official registration of medical trials. So that is why I made short answers for your questions.

It is not a medical trials which we will conduct in order to recive certification for Health Monitor. These are medical trials which is necessary to show that this device and method is capable to detect acetone and check blood sugar level.

You also mention that this device wasn't checked for other illnesses. Yes, because it was checked previous. There are a lot of studies about concentration of different gases in exhaled air and which diseases are they corresponds to. So far as Health Monitor can detect these gases it can be used for detecting these diseases.


Also there are a lot of different type of gas analyzers in the world. All analogies are really expensive, not convenient for daily use, expensive and need to have supply of inert transport gas. But the crucial point is that Health Monitor can detect gases using exhaled air as transporting gas. That wasn't done before and it still remain only one in the world. That provide ability to create useful vending machine in order to give benefits of high-tech devices for all people.

I outlined the information that you provided. You did not provided other trials besides the one was conducted while patent was pending. If there are other trials and results - feel free to share. But please don't link general theoretical studies, just results of actual trials of YOUR device.

[Zufox]

Hi guys, tell me in what form the results of the survey will be on the health monitor. It would be good if the results of the examination were similar to the results of a blood test when they write more norms of deviations. To understand how much deviation from the norm.

[rallyko]

Hi guys, tell me in what form the results of the survey will be on the health monitor. It would be good if the results of the examination were similar to the results of a blood test when they write more norms of deviations. To understand how much deviation from the norm.

If I correctly understood the idea, it would be nice, but maybe developers will offer an even more informative and understandable option for the user.

[tororoshka]

I think it's good explanation. But for some people this is not enough.

Even when someone does magnetic resonance imaging MRI doctors don't write the diagnosis in the results.
They make a description what is on the film. And only attending doctor can make a diagnosis and prescribe treatment.

Yes, sure. And Health Monitor can be similar to tonometer or glucometer, which you can use by yourself at home. This kind of devices can't made diagnosis. But it can show you that it is necessary to attend the doctor.
The same situation with Health Monitor, but it detect not only the one diseases.

And the health monitor can also be used at home, like a tonometer. Only the price is too high)

the price is too high because that's created not for home use) you will not make 30 tests per day every day.

It' true. But every new technology had a high price at the beginning. Lamps, cars, computers etc.

So wait) with time the device will be available for ordinary people, I hope!

[Zufox]

I think it's good explanation. But for some people this is not enough.

Even when someone does magnetic resonance imaging MRI doctors don't write the diagnosis in the results.
They make a description what is on the film. And only attending doctor can make a diagnosis and prescribe treatment.

Yes, sure. And Health Monitor can be similar to tonometer or glucometer, which you can use by yourself at home. This kind of devices can't made diagnosis. But it can show you that it is necessary to attend the doctor.
The same situation with Health Monitor, but it detect not only the one diseases.

And the health monitor can also be used at home, like a tonometer. Only the price is too high)

the price is too high because that's created not for home use) you will not make 30 tests per day every day.

hm ... here somehow wrote, that the health monitor can be fully used at home. This is relevant for people with diabetes mellitus. The only problem is the price.

By the way, can a health monitor replace a glucometer? For daily use?

Yes, after he receives a medical certificate.

Understand! thanks for the answer

[vitmatiunin]

Hey, anyway I think ,that's useful appliance.The developers are not trying to prove that it is going to save the world, just make it a little better.

I agree and do not understand the aggression directed at developers. It's great that there are ways to make people's lives better! I think that over time developers will make this device more perfect.

I'm not aggressive at all. I'm asking uncomfortable questions - yes, but I'm nowhere near aggressive. All I did asked was error margin of the device, how accurate it's results can be interpreted by the user. I'm trying to see value in this device for end user, but for now I fail.
I see lots of comparison with glucometer here but it's different. Healthy people rarely buys glucometer since it's needed to monitor preexisted condition, rather then diagnose. This one is opposite - it's going to be marketed to crowds in public places, where most of users expected to be healthy, therefore results of those tests should become initial basis for decision making. What reasoning will drive customer's intention to spend 5$ for a test? Perfectly healthy individual won't go near this device because they feel fine.

Those who concerned will actually try it, but will be greeted with sign saying "This is not medically certified device, we don't take any responsibility for what conclusions you draw from that." So this device won't give you much more than illusion of being informed, and you will practically give it 5$ just to receive paper that says what you already know - "go visit professional, you got some shit in your lungs - it could be anything or nothing".

So what is the market value of this device and service? What is customer value?

Btw, I'm not even saying this is bad idea - but imagine how different it would sound if there was at least some certainty after use. For example if it was like that:

"Acetone in breath is an anomaly that only appears in organism of people who have one of the following diseases A,B,C,D. We promote a device that can within 0,002% error margin detect acetone in your breath. If you have some we will strongly advice you to seek medical attention, because even though we can't diagnose your condition we can say beyond reasonable doubt - something is not right".

However Acetone in breath can occur in healthy people as well as in breath of sick people. It's concentration heavily dependent on person's mass, ration et.c. meaning that same concentration in breath of different people can (and should) draw different conclusions for them. Yes it is marker but it's just one marker and having this marker is nowhere near enough to take vast responsibility to visit a doctor. I would see this on shelves like glucometer, or installed in pharmacies or clinics, where targeted people need to check special marker without paying too much, but aiming at crowded places is really bad idea.

This is of course my opinion.

Already answered for you - there is absolutely no error, it's like yes or no. The person is sick or healthy. No such "you are half sick."

What evidence exist to support this statement? (Yes I'm again asking how exactly this was tested if it ever was tested at all)

Also, how is this even possible? I mean there are no 100% accurate tests in existence. Everything that involves any sort of measurements has an error margin. You can't measure your height without error margin. Telling that something has 100% accuracy is just plain insane...

You can say that the sun does not rise tomorrow. Yes it is possible. But what is the probability of this? Proceeding from this, it can be argued that the error of the device exists. There is an error both in the X-ray machine and in the atomic clock. In the end, in the device itself, something can break down. And the probability of breakage is much higher than the probability of an incorrect test result on device in good condition. It may be necessary to ban all X-ray machines and watches, because they can cheat?

I can safely assume that sun will rise tomorrow because I'm conducting tests for the decades day after day. Testing and testing of theory times and times again makes me sure, nothing else. I conduct experimets times and times again to be sure. Yes, any measurement device, be it atomic clock or simple ruler have an error margin - it's normal. You just need to determine it and apply to what you measuring. If your error margin is reasonable - it's viable, if it's not - then it's not. Ruler has +-0,5mm error margin and it is great tool to measure table, but to measure thicknes of hair - it sucks since error is bigger then the thing you measure. Any more or less devices are tested trhough and through and again to make sure they are consistently reliable. So I'm not worried that the results measured inaccurate, I'm worried how often errors will happen when thousands of people will start using that device.

so I ask once again:
1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)?
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF TESTS?

Here is a quote from a patent about where and when investigations were conducted on people. A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

Clinical trials of the proposed technical solutions conducted at the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS. The tests involved three patients, two of whom had diabetes for 10 years, was the third in the initial stage of the disease compensated insulin deficiency in the body.

Before each measurement shot emission spectrum of the ambient air, which was taken as a reference. Further, blood test was performed to determine the level of glucose in the blood of each patient. Analysis of blood sugar in the blood was carried out on the device Yellow Springs Instruments. Then the patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples. These tests were performed for all study patients on an empty stomach before breakfast. Only two patients of the patient and one patient were tested with no diabetes.

 Here is a link to the patent.  https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2597943C1/en

So for now the answers are following:

1. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON HUMANS (besides those who developed it)? YES
2. HAVE THIS DEVICE BEEN TESTED ON SICK PEOPLE?
YES, BUT ONLY ON PEOPLE WITH DIABETES, CLAIMS THAT DEVICE CAN BE USED TO DIAGNOSE ANYTHING ELSE ARE FALSE ADVERTISING. ONLY 3 PEOPLE WERE USED FOR TESTING.
3. HOW MANY TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AND WHAT TESTING METHODOLOGY WAS USED?
Not clear how many (probably just 1). Following procedure was used:

Patients were asked to simply breathe in the volume of pre-treatment of the sample to achieve a desired flow of air in the test line of the selection device samples.

4. WHAT WAS THE RESULTS OF TESTING?
DEVICE MANAGED TO SHOW THAT 2 OF 3 TEST SUBJECT ARE ILL (That's translates to 33,3% error rate)
5. WHERE I CAN SEE THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS?

A more detailed report from the Research Institute of Physiology and Medicine fundamental RAMS requires a translation from the Russian language.

That I read as: You can't because it's in Russian and we don't believe you are capable of using Google Translate to read into it, so we won't give a link

Why haven't you mention my answers for your questions? I understood that you definitely don't want to read patent (even it is in English), and you also don't want to check out official registration of medical trials. So that is why I made short answers for your questions.

It is not a medical trials which we will conduct in order to recive certification for Health Monitor. These are medical trials which is necessary to show that this device and method is capable to detect acetone and check blood sugar level.

You also mention that this device wasn't checked for other illnesses. Yes, because it was checked previous. There are a lot of studies about concentration of different gases in exhaled air and which diseases are they corresponds to. So far as Health Monitor can detect these gases it can be used for detecting these diseases.


Also there are a lot of different type of gas analyzers in the world. All analogies are really expensive, not convenient for daily use, expensive and need to have supply of inert transport gas. But the crucial point is that Health Monitor can detect gases using exhaled air as transporting gas. That wasn't done before and it still remain only one in the world. That provide ability to create useful vending machine in order to give benefits of high-tech devices for all people.

I outlined the information that you provided. You did not provided other trials besides the one was conducted while patent was pending. If there are other trials and results - feel free to share. But please don't link general theoretical studies, just results of actual trials of YOUR device.

You are so interesting person You said that you aren't satisfied by officially registered medical trial for patent. (For those of you who wondering what I'm talking about - visit this site please: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000014803)

And that means, that in order to be "approved" by you we need to conduct another medical trials. But what purpose for such a wasting of money and time? If anyone, even a little educated, can read and understood the results of already conducted successful medical trials.

I guess it's easier to leave you with your own inadequate requirements for now. And conduct all special medical trials in near future when it will be necessary for certification or FDA approval. Because they are professionals and they really know, which trials are satisfactory and which are not.

[Zufox]

Any device, it is even necessary to use the thermometer correctly. Really, the composition of the exhaled air depends on food, drink, smoking. And it needs to be considered that indications of Health Monitor were reliable. It will be considered also the instruction on correct passing of the procedure will be available to everyone.

And how brief is the instruction? I would not like to spend half an hour studying the instructions.

[vitmatiunin]

Hi guys, tell me in what form the results of the survey will be on the health monitor. It would be good if the results of the examination were similar to the results of a blood test when they write more norms of deviations. To understand how much deviation from the norm.

Health Monitor will show you the deviation of your results from the normal results.

And only in case if you'll have other diseases, Health Monitor will mention these diseases, that you need to attend a doctor and test it carefully.

[thienskld]

If you had a look at the whitepaper, it is way more than what a commercial version of identity management is doing. I like the project and see it a lot of potential in it. Thanks.