Thanks for posting this! So on that first paragraph, are they implying that the journal should have provided Theranos with a copy of the manuscript for review

Thanks for posting this! So on that first paragraph, are they implying that the journal should have provided Theranos with a copy of the manuscript for review and comment? Maybe I'm not reading that charitably, but that's not how the system works, and I don't think scolding the journal (page 3) over manuscript decisions is an appropriate response. The second paragraph is strikes me as a bit rich considering the reputation Theranos has for secrecy. As best I can tell, they still haven't published the more detailed information on their technology that they promised when the WSJ first broke the story? Were I the editor, I think my response might be along the lines of "you raise some excellent points, and so we invite you to submit a research manuscript for accelerated review".