>>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, y

>>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.