3 ms·
Not being honest to investors is one thing. Knowingly peddling faulty lab results to consumers making important medical decisions based on the results and unawa
by dustintrex 5y ago
Not being honest to investors is one thing. Knowingly peddling faulty lab results to consumers making important medical decisions based on the results and unaware that they were pawns in this game is quite different.
This is what makes the Theranos case qualitatively different from (say) WeWork, and why she's facing criminal charges. You buy office space from WeWork, you get exactly what you pay for, even if there were insane shenanigans going on in investorland. You buy a lab test from Theranos, you're getting essentially fake results and risking your health on it.
- thehappypm 5y agoWhat I'm struggling with is how this is criminal. Like, there are rapid COVID tests out there. They're marketed as accurate. Yet everyone knows they're not foolproof. If I got a positive rapid test, the first thing I'd do is go get a PCR test. With these Theranos lab tests, it's honestly (to me) a similar thing. If I'm a startup trying to make a cheap HIV test, and I know it's not perfect, it's wrong sometimes, does that make me a criminal for wanting to get real-world users to use my product? Isn't it more of a regulatory oversight if people are making medical decisions based on new and imperfect tech?
- rspeele 5y agoDepends strongly on how your represent the accuracy of your test to those using it. If you are up front about the level of accuracy it should be fine. But my limited understanding of this case is that the Edison machine was so inaccurate as to be near useless. So if customers had been informed about how bad it was, they would not have chosen to use it.