Not defending theranos, but I'm surprised that something so ineffective could even make it into production. Do you happen to know if their tests were absolutely

Not defending theranos, but I'm surprised that something so ineffective could even make it into production. Do you happen to know if their tests were absolutely bogus, or were they just not accurate enough to be clinically valid ? I mean, round up ~25 HSV+ test patients, and ~1000 HSV- samples, and hand them over randomly to a statistician and you should know, right ? It seems like if they were just not accurate enough, they could have tried to save face and call it a "screening", while acknowledging that it's not as conclusive as a test. If it's easy and convenient, you could weed out type 1 errors (false positives) in subsequent standard testing, while acknowledging that the test isn't 100% accurate (has type 2 errors).