alt Hacker News> Could you tell me which source of information do you see as "perfect" (or acceptable) that you see as a good example of a threshold for what you think the public should and should not have access to?
I know it when I see it.
> I don't see how this is relevant.
It's relevant because blood testing is an imperfect tool. Laypeople lack the knowledge/experience to identify imperfections and are likely to take results at face value. Like the author of the article did when ChatGPT gave them an F for their cardiac health.
> Medical interpretations/advice from the measurements is what's restricted, in most places.
Do you agree with that restriction?
> I know it when I see it.
This isn't a reasonable answer. No action can be taken and no conclusion/thought can be made from it.
> Do you agree with that restriction?
People should be able to perform and be informed about their own blood measurements, and possibly bring something up with their doctors outside of routine exams (which they may not even be insured for in the US). I think the restriction on medical advice/conclusion, that results in treatment, is very good, otherwise you end up with "Wow, look at these results! you'll have to buy my snake oil or you'll die!".
I don't believe in reducing society to a level that completely protects the most stupid of us.