Dr Neha Chawla || FreeGym

I'm an entrepreneur. I'm a technologist. I'm an innovator. And the reason @deepigoyal didn't get my support in this case is that I can understand the claims and evaluate the evidence presented in the preprints they posted. He's only getting support from people who either can't make sense of the preprints or have some stake in defending him. Trust me, no innovation was harmed in this particular case.

More and more people are becoming health conscious and signing up for blood testing subscriptions. New companies are popping up every day offering dozens or even hundreds of biomarkers in a single package. But before we jump at these services, there's a question we should be asking: how do we know we can trust the lab producing our results? Blood testing is technically demanding. Even a small mistake during collection, transportation, storage, or analysis can affect the result. Even two reputable laboratories can report different values for the same blood sample because of differences in testing methods and calibration. So before choosing a blood-testing provider, here are some questions worth asking. First, do you conduct the tests in your own laboratory, or do you outsource them? If you outsource, which laboratory actually processes my blood? Second, is that laboratory accredited? In India, for example, does it hold NABL accreditation under ISO 15189, and does that accreditation cover the tests I'm purchasing? Third, how do you ensure quality control? Do you regularly test control samples to verify that your equipment and procedures are producing reliable measurements? Fourth, does an independent organization evaluate your laboratory's performance through external quality-assessment programs? Fifth, how do you ensure that blood samples are collected, transported, stored, and processed under appropriate conditions? And finally, if I'm subscribing to repeated testing, will my samples consistently be analyzed by the same laboratory using the same methods? These aren't unreasonable questions. They're fundamental questions about the reliability of the measurements we're paying for. When it comes to blood testing, the most important question isn't how many biomarkers a company can measure; it's how accurately and consistently that company can measure them. Preventive healthcare is rising, and so is the bullshit that comes with it. To protect yourself, join this community and ask any questions you like. No one is going to sell you anything here. freegym.ai/communities/is-it…

No. And the strongest evidence against your tweet is your own preprints. “Strong” for what? Evidence is only strong relative to a claim. For the claim Temple markets, that it tracks blood flow to your brain, it’s weak, and both papers say so. Neither has established that the signal is specific to the brain. In the most everyday test, standing to lying down, the depth study couldn’t show that BrainFlow follows the brain more than the scalp. “Robust” it isn’t. Robust means a result holds up across conditions, people and independent teams. Peer review isn’t the gap. The gap is between what was tested and what’s being claimed. Peer review would check these studies, not supply the ones that haven’t been done.

I've seen some really bad arguments where people questioning a bad product are labelled anti-national. To the dudes and dudettes making this argument: If you care so much about supporting Indian companies, where are you when genuinely good Indian startups need your support? I don't see you backing them, talking about them, or giving them the attention they deserve. Instead, you're busy defending a billionaire and a product that's just dumb. Not even incremental, let alone a breakthrough. It's a dumb argument. National pride shouldn't mean blindly defending bad products.

Weak argument. “Good for all” ignores the cost to the ecosystem. The cost for society is very real. Funds have limited money and limited bets. Institutional investors deploy fixed funds across a limited number of companies. That money and that slot in the portfolio are gone. It also signals what gets funded. The market learns that reputation beats evidence. Investors herd toward similar bets, and unknown founders with stronger science find it even harder. This is the crowding-out effect of access and conviction, not just dollars. Talent is finite too. A famous founder with $54 million pulls skilled engineers and scientists into a project whose core claim is unproven. That’s arguably a bigger cost than the money.

Thanks to Indian VCs, the state of health, fitness, and healthcare startups in India isn't just at zero. It's in the negative. Grateful 🙏

After reading the preprints, @deepigoyal’s posts and @agingroy’s replies, my honest take on @temple: this is the emptiest marketing I’ve ever seen. It started with the “Gravity Ageing Hypothesis.” Then Deepinder announced a breakthrough: they’d “literally discovered” a new biomarker. It was hyped online as frontier science that India should be proud of. But what’s actually there? Pre-orders opened before either study was even posted. Both preprints admit they haven’t established that the signal is specific to the brain. Even in the best case, with both papers peer-reviewed, it’s barely incremental. Elsewhere, AI is designing drugs, gene editing is treating disease, and brain implants are restoring speech. India has people who could push us toward that frontier. They just can’t raise $54M on a hypothesis. Underwhelming. And honestly, embarrassing.