Daniel, you are working in a field that has a low tolerance for doublespeak.
Parent has politely pointed out that the website needs revision. 85% of disease is related to the blood metabome? No. You will be detecting early disease signatures in a clincally actionable manner? No, you will almost certainly not be, and you know this.
The data isn't actually PHI. Stanford isn't actually a partner. AI in this field isn't actually real. Nature Medicine isn't actually Nature. Ect.
For historical reasons the benefit of doubt with regard to the scientific credibility of your startup is low. In my opinion, it would be better if you made an effort not to prove this assumption correct.
I am an MD/PhD academic who studies biomarkers of human disease in a related field.
I think some sections of the Terms bear attention:
"You should not change your health behaviors solely on the basis Metabolomic Information from iollo."
"While we measure many hundreds of thousands of data points from your metabolome, only a small percentage of them are known to be related to human traits, age and/or health conditions."
"...many of the Metabolomic discoveries that we report have not been clinically validated, and the technology we use, which is the same technology used by the research community, to date has not been widely used for clinical testing."
Your point that this is uncharted territory is well-taken, we can't say for sure, but the above poster has it right. I do not know of any circumstance in medicine in which evidence of immune reaction against foreign material would be non-obvious. I'm a pathologist and this is my area of expertise.
We may not know what causes rejection, but are pretty good at seeing the signs of it. Extreme example: if a house collapses, you may not know immediately why it collapsed, but all the debris on the ground is a pretty good sign it's not in one piece anymore.
I am a post-doc in one of the ivory towers. I've been in the system a long time (technician, MD, PhD, residency, fellowship, now post doc). Jeez!
I am a computational immunologist who studies cancer immunotherapy, if it matters. I am not independently wealthy or blah blah. I am a normal everyday person.
I agree academia is nonsensical for the many reasons that are frequently discussed in HN.
Mine is not a perspective I see represented here often: I absolutely love my job as a post doc. Everyone is different - I get a lot of joy from my work. Most of my friends in science at different stages feel more or less the same (albeit everyone complains).
I could get paid 10x more or work half as much, maybe both at the same time. So to answer the question here, why do people do this? Cuz I like it. Don't make everything so complicated (as an academic, that is my job).
Parent has politely pointed out that the website needs revision. 85% of disease is related to the blood metabome? No. You will be detecting early disease signatures in a clincally actionable manner? No, you will almost certainly not be, and you know this.
The data isn't actually PHI. Stanford isn't actually a partner. AI in this field isn't actually real. Nature Medicine isn't actually Nature. Ect.
For historical reasons the benefit of doubt with regard to the scientific credibility of your startup is low. In my opinion, it would be better if you made an effort not to prove this assumption correct.