3 ms·

Reporter Roger Parloff certainly isn't winning any investigative reporting awards here. He seems genuinely confused why Theranos, despite having the ability to

by tacos 11y ago

Reporter Roger Parloff certainly isn't winning any investigative reporting awards here. He seems genuinely confused why Theranos, despite having the ability to use its own technology, might also be using existing technology. One explanation might be that Theranos is collecting blood by industry-standard means so that they could also verify accuracy of their newfangled tests using a subset of that sample. All parties here, from press to company to investors, seem to be maximally full of shit and in massive cover-your-ass mode.

ghshephard 11y ago
I read the original article, and what I understood after reading it, was that Theranos had developed a new technology for testing small samples of blood that could be obtained from a finger prick, and could do so inexpensively (sometimes for 1/10th the prior price). Theranos never made it clear that (A) many (most?) of the tests were not done using Theranos equipment, but by third party diagnostic equipment, and that (B) some (many?) of the tests still required a traditional blood draw. I understand why Theranos might not want to make that clear (dilutes the value of their story) - it just seems to be the sort of thing that they should have realized would come out eventually, and better to get ahead of it. Still hoping that Theranos manages to accomplish even 1/2 of what I thought they were doing.
- tacos 11y ago
  Some of the later back-and-forth stuff states that even for the tests they can do, they were using third party equipment for "scaling" reasons. They're not good at PR and this reporter isn't good at getting answers. What a mess.
  - erdojo 11y ago
    I believe Theranos was almost on to something, and it didn't pan out. You know, science. So they used smoke-and-mirrors instead. Countless startups have used the same strategy - using hubris to hide failure long enough to either fix problems or get sold. Most startups don't mess with people's lives. Theranos deserves every bit of the scrutiny they're under now.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
damienkatz 11y ago
A simple explanation for products using existing tech is be s full service vendor instead of just a few profitable niches. But that would imply them being a real business too, which doesn't seem to be the case.

by tacos 11y ago

ghshephard 11y ago

I read the original article, and what I understood after reading it, was that Theranos had developed a new technology for testing small samples of blood that could be obtained from a finger prick, and could do so inexpensively (sometimes for 1/10th the prior price). Theranos never made it clear that (A) many (most?) of the tests were not done using Theranos equipment, but by third party diagnostic equipment, and that (B) some (many?) of the tests still required a traditional blood draw. I understand why Theranos might not want to make that clear (dilutes the value of their story) - it just seems to be the sort of thing that they should have realized would come out eventually, and better to get ahead of it. Still hoping that Theranos manages to accomplish even 1/2 of what I thought they were doing.

tacos 11y ago
Some of the later back-and-forth stuff states that even for the tests they can do, they were using third party equipment for "scaling" reasons. They're not good at PR and this reporter isn't good at getting answers. What a mess.
- erdojo 11y ago
  I believe Theranos was almost on to something, and it didn't pan out. You know, science. So they used smoke-and-mirrors instead. Countless startups have used the same strategy - using hubris to hide failure long enough to either fix problems or get sold. Most startups don't mess with people's lives. Theranos deserves every bit of the scrutiny they're under now.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

damienkatz 11y ago

A simple explanation for products using existing tech is be s full service vendor instead of just a few profitable niches. But that would imply them being a real business too, which doesn't seem to be the case.