> I mean the much narrower point of not being able to tell -- from the press -- whether a company actually has a technology that works. There has always been a

> I mean the much narrower point of not being able to tell -- from the press -- whether a company actually has a technology that works. There has always been a simple solution to this: it is the company's own job to clearly demonstrate that it has a working technology. If you view it that way, then the press's inability to prove it one way or the other doesn't matter because the responsibility lies with the company. In fact, Theranos was quite unusual among lab companies from the beginning in that it didn't follow the path other companies followed in showing they had a working technology. Anything less than a clear proof by the company, and the subsequent confusion is the company's own fault.