i smell the coffee all the time, i'm in seattle.
he got 10,000 anonymous calls, no way to verify the honesty of the caller, iseems like a publicity stunt. he still has to do some real studies with real patients over time to see how well his algorithms can measure pd.. other researchers are taking a more comprehensive approach.

i understand the value of early diagnosis or better diagnosis or easily accessible diagnosis. but until he actually publishes something for peer review that has gives an error rate rather than just blow his own horn i'm not going to take him seriously.

if he thinks he can detect a higher risk of developing pd before there are visual symptoms, unless he can correlate that with a person's genome or other biomarkers, he has to wait until pd can be proven. either way, he has to do careful research over time. and if there are too many false positives/negatives it's worse than useless.
where does tt say andy grove is supporting him? i think the article stated intel was developing it's own pd detection methods using voice/etc and shared some recordings with little.

ji wouldn't attempt to give an opinion on the "top5" but i'm not sure even 23ANDME would be included. imho, the jury is out on forced exercise until the results from larger clinical trials come out.