> 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 "forge

> 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.