Question special

I am very interested to see what experts have to say about this recent opinion that points out the flaws with one example of Silicon Valley's attempts to disrupt medical testing outside the scope of peer-reviewed medicine:

“Stealth research creates total ambiguity about what evidence can be trusted in a mix of possibly brilliant ideas, aggressive corporate announcements, and massive media hype.”

The pros and cons of personal access to medical testing notwithstanding, how do we reconcile these instances where innovators create billion dollar companies without engaging in the peer-review process? Is this an issue about reconciling AMC and start-up cultures, incentives, operational structures or all of the above? Can the rise of physician innovators bridge this gap?