3 ms·

>On Thursday, Theranos sent a letter to the journal, hoping to stop it from publishing the paper. Yeah, so these are the kind of people I want to trust with my

by searine 11y ago

>On Thursday, Theranos sent a letter to the journal, hoping to stop it from publishing the paper. Yeah, so these are the kind of people I want to trust with my personal health? The problem isn't the tech. The tech is close enough to accurate to be massively profitable. The problem is their reaction to criticism. It erodes any and all trust in the product. When you are dealing with a company built upon measurement of the invisible, trust is the most valuable commodity. I need to trust that the numbers from your machine are reported as true. I need to trust that you aren't lying and covering up data to make a buck...

kmonad 11y ago
>The problem isn't the tech How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together >you aren't lying and covering up data What? From reading, admittedly only, this article here, it sounds at least reasonable to complain given the hugely negative press when it is also true that "the study authors made no attempt to find out which measurements were right". So if I understand this correctly, the new method showed different results from the old method, but nothing was done to show which was right, and it was clearly insinuated the new one was wrong. I would complain, too. But perhaps you know more about this incident.
- searine 11y ago
  >How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together From the reported independent results. +-5% compared to Quest and LabCorp at a fraction of the cost is good enough to make a profit. >It sounds at least reasonable to complain It makes sense to complain in Silicon Valley... But it makes you look like a slimeball trying to cover your ass in the medical/scientific industry. Industrial science is different than tech. In tech, if it works, it works, and nobody really cares how. In fact, it is in your best interest to hide how you did it, because that is your IP. In industrial science, if it works, but you fight people trying to open the black box, it makes you look like you're faking data.
- avs733 11y ago
  >>The problem isn't the tech >How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together kmonda, your statement requires some very important clarifications 1) your phrasing implies that there was a flaw in the methodology of the journal article rather than specifically noting that Theranos asserted there to be flawed methodology (A claim which other, independent, experts interviewed by the NYT did not agree with) 2) The blood clumping comment is, similarly, not an accurate representation of the article. The Dr. who noted the potential blood clustering issue was not noting it as a problem with the study methodology, he was noting it as a problem with Theranos' technology. This would contribute to error in Theranos' measurements, and the shift seen in the study. It would not contribute to error in the study itself. Theranos' assertion of error was about the vein blood draw causing error in the Theranos readings. Further, the same Dr. whos words you are implying damages the credibility of the study is, instead, quite blunt about his opinion of Theranos >“This represents just another effort for a failing company to cover up bad press for a technology that is not ready for prime time,” Dr. Frederick L. Kiechle, medical director for clinical pathology at Memorial Healthcare System in Hollywood, Fla., said about Theranos’s letter to the journal. >Dr. Kiechle said it was known that cells in blood “tend to clump together and travel in groups,” so the tiny amount collected from a finger prick might not be representative. EDIT: in the interest of transparency, I edited one sentence of this for clarity.
mtgx 11y ago
As they say: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up".
pbreit 11y ago
Except that the WSJ forgot to mention that the research determined the incumbent results were just as irregular.
- tclmeelmo 11y ago
  > Except that the WSJ forgot to mention that the research determined the incumbent results were just as irregular. That's too reductive. The WSJ cannot "forget to mention" a manuscript that wasn't published when their original articles came out. The manuscript in question, an observational study, shows that Theranos has higher variation than standard labs for some tests, and that those tests are those that someone familiar with the field might suspect that a finger prick might have higher variation (e.g., lymphocytes). The power of this manuscript is limited (in part because of Theranos not actively participating in peer-reviewed science like it's peers), but at a high level, it would hint that a physician sending a patient out for some particular labs would be wise to apply extra scrutiny to those lab values if the testing was by Theranos.

by searine 11y ago

kmonad 11y ago

>The problem isn't the tech How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together >you aren't lying and covering up data What? From reading, admittedly only, this article here, it sounds at least reasonable to complain given the hugely negative press when it is also true that "the study authors made no attempt to find out which measurements were right". So if I understand this correctly, the new method showed different results from the old method, but nothing was done to show which was right, and it was clearly insinuated the new one was wrong. I would complain, too. But perhaps you know more about this incident.

searine 11y ago
>How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together From the reported independent results. +-5% compared to Quest and LabCorp at a fraction of the cost is good enough to make a profit. >It sounds at least reasonable to complain It makes sense to complain in Silicon Valley... But it makes you look like a slimeball trying to cover your ass in the medical/scientific industry. Industrial science is different than tech. In tech, if it works, it works, and nobody really cares how. In fact, it is in your best interest to hide how you did it, because that is your IP. In industrial science, if it works, but you fight people trying to open the black box, it makes you look like you're faking data.
avs733 11y ago
>>The problem isn't the tech >How do you know? It says that apparently the methodology could be flawed due to things in the blood clustering together kmonda, your statement requires some very important clarifications 1) your phrasing implies that there was a flaw in the methodology of the journal article rather than specifically noting that Theranos asserted there to be flawed methodology (A claim which other, independent, experts interviewed by the NYT did not agree with) 2) The blood clumping comment is, similarly, not an accurate representation of the article. The Dr. who noted the potential blood clustering issue was not noting it as a problem with the study methodology, he was noting it as a problem with Theranos' technology. This would contribute to error in Theranos' measurements, and the shift seen in the study. It would not contribute to error in the study itself. Theranos' assertion of error was about the vein blood draw causing error in the Theranos readings. Further, the same Dr. whos words you are implying damages the credibility of the study is, instead, quite blunt about his opinion of Theranos >“This represents just another effort for a failing company to cover up bad press for a technology that is not ready for prime time,” Dr. Frederick L. Kiechle, medical director for clinical pathology at Memorial Healthcare System in Hollywood, Fla., said about Theranos’s letter to the journal. >Dr. Kiechle said it was known that cells in blood “tend to clump together and travel in groups,” so the tiny amount collected from a finger prick might not be representative. EDIT: in the interest of transparency, I edited one sentence of this for clarity.

mtgx 11y ago

As they say: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up".

pbreit 11y ago

Except that the WSJ forgot to mention that the research determined the incumbent results were just as irregular.

tclmeelmo 11y ago
> Except that the WSJ forgot to mention that the research determined the incumbent results were just as irregular. That's too reductive. The WSJ cannot "forget to mention" a manuscript that wasn't published when their original articles came out. The manuscript in question, an observational study, shows that Theranos has higher variation than standard labs for some tests, and that those tests are those that someone familiar with the field might suspect that a finger prick might have higher variation (e.g., lymphocytes). The power of this manuscript is limited (in part because of Theranos not actively participating in peer-reviewed science like it's peers), but at a high level, it would hint that a physician sending a patient out for some particular labs would be wise to apply extra scrutiny to those lab values if the testing was by Theranos.