7 ms·

The 30-year-old health sector billionaire

180 points by schrofer 12y ago

nimish 12y ago
As far as I can tell, the stars aligned here. You have a brilliant founder who has a background in the tech (Chem Engineering) and the upbringing and connections to take research trips out to Singapore. Second, you have the tech: microfluidic assays, and the idea of collecting them all in the same place. Third, an existing industry that's been content to sit around and charge high prices due to low competition: LabCorp & company. Finally, a generous funding environment. Unfortunately, their secrecy is kind of a turn off. How can I know to trust their numbers?
- ibisum 12y ago
  Their secrecy is a turn off - as well as the people who are orbiting around the company. Do we really want the ideologies of the likes of Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld - people who have extraordinary track records of not doing good in the world - to be involved in the next generation of health care technology innovation - particularly its control and application? Kissinger-doctrine style politics and healthcare do not mix.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Rumsfeld was also the Chairman of Gilead. I doubt it's a question of "do we want these people involved?" - the reality is there's nothing that can stop it. They're the ultimate insiders. Rumsfeld can easily clear the deck for whatever approvals you need, and solve any problems you have, just as he did for Gilead. In exchange, you make them richer. That's how the FDA system works. You can't play in the medical / healthcare field without having a devil on your shoulder protecting you from the other monsters that will use the regulatory environment to destroy you. That's also how the business world at large works in general now, ala Al Gore on Apple's board, helping to protect Jobs from the options scandal. It's why Dropbox picked up Condoleezza Rice. It's ugly, but it's what you get when you have extreme government regulation, and when lobbyists can crush you by bribing the right people in DC, all major businesses must have their own power brokers.
    - ryandvm 12y ago
      You are dead on. This is also the scariest part of net neutrality legislation. Corporations always end up in control of the regulatory bodies that were meant to keep them in check...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
    - refurb 12y ago
      Oh please. The FDA loves antagonize Congress about it's independence. Are there shady dealing? Sure, but don't make it out to be some secret cabal who always gets their way through shady backroom dealings. To me it sounds like you'd love to have some sort of "political leanings filter" on people who do business. If their politics agrees with yours, great, if not, we need to make sure those people don't get into positions of power.
      - seehafer 12y ago
        FDA loves to talk a good game about independence, but they are far more driven by political trends then they'd like to admit. Case in point: in 2008, the Democratic house jumped up and down about the under regulation of medical devices and diagnostics. FDA Warning Letters (a big deal that largely prevents a company from releasing new products) to device/diagnostic companies doubled the next year.
      - adventured 12y ago
        Positions of power are of little concern in a free market economy. The influence that comes with wealth is not the same as having political power, which is power at the barrel of a gun. The problem is, America is not a free market economy. Hilariously I'm the exact opposite of what your false conclusion proclaims. I'm neither liberal nor conservative - in fact I'm anti partisan - and I'm a laissez-faire Capitalist. I'd prefer the government be completely outlawed from creating economic regulations, and I believe in the separation of state and economy for the exact same reason state and church is separate: they infect each other. That instantly wipes out all lobbying for special treatment, special laws, and competition-by-government. The government returns to doing what it's only job should be: protection of individual rights. The US is becoming a fascist oligarchy, dominated by a massive consolidation of select few winners that are then protected by the government from competition; this has occurred in nearly every segment of the economy. The FDA rarely does anything that isn't shady. It is fully dominated by the mega-corps that can afford to buy political influence, from Pfizer to Merck to Gilead.
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    Kissinger's interest would be eugenics. I mean, it was Kissinger who said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of the US towards the Third World". Bet he's gleeful at Ebola Edit: I assume we're all big fans of Henry Kissinger over here then? I fail to see what his interest in this could be outside of the potential eugenic applications.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. My dad works in public health in the third world, and one of his specialties is family planning (i.e. how to get villagers to stop having so many kids). When George W. Bush temporarily withdrew the U.S. support for family planning projects in Africa, he got hammered for it by the left.
      - gadders 12y ago
        Well, if The Left say it is a bad idea, then of course it must be. However, George Bush was one of the best presidents ever for Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
      - filoeleven 12y ago
        > Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. Which is utterly misguided if the motivation behind the goal is to conserve energy and resources. The population growth rate of first world countries is lower, however we consume far more resources per child than third world countries do. Calling for those countries to make drastic changes without examining and curtailing our own overuse of resources is problematic and irresponsible. Al Bartlett[1] addresses this in his engaging lecture[2] on population and energy. If the primary motivation is instead humanitarian, e.g. to raise the quality of life, then I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk (The video's title is hyperbole and is not the title of the lecture, though the lesson is certainly important.)
      - 12y ago
- walshemj 12y ago
  Probably because for some strange reason the us government isn't allowed to negotiate better rates. The NHS is much better every 6 weeks I go in and get about 6 or so tests done plus my quarterly's god only knows what that would cost me in the USA
  - wavefunction 12y ago
    It's not a strange reason. The ideologues in the GOP and some Democrats restrain the Federal Government from negotiating lower rates because these politicians fund-raise from companies that would have to lower their rates as a result of that negotiation. And some of them are just crazy nuts who actually prefer that companies soak the government (tax-payer) for every cent they can.
roma1n 12y ago
Well that would be awesome to monitor anticoagulation.
- schrofer 12y ago
  yes indeed, this opens up new possibilities for monitoring what's going on in our bodies. But we would need more knowledge / education so we don't jump to conclusions when a value out of bounds.
  - roma1n 12y ago
    Sure, but that particular ship sailed a long time ago. Most patients track their INR from the lab and simply ask when it swings too much.
- enziobodoni 12y ago
  We already monitor all sorts of anticoagulation. Fingerstick samples are particularly bad for this (even though there are current point of care devices that do this).
jgrahamc 12y ago
The important thing about this article is not her age, her gender or her net worth: it's the enormous change her company is saying is possible in blood testing. Ignore the comparisons with Steve Jobs and other crap and think about what her company is doing and what it means.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  It means... INVALID. You are not eligible for this product/job/life.
  - dnissley 12y ago
    Hah, makes me think of Gattaca.
GolfyMcG 12y ago
I remember reading something quite awhile ago about her and her company, which was very dismissive of the entire subject. Is anyone familiar with what this was in reference to, because this articles does seem rather convincing to me!
- mrfusion 12y ago
  Well I think it's a disruptive technology to traditional labs. So expect to see a lot of dismissive articles.
thedrbrian 12y ago
On paper being the important bit of this piece.
w1ntermute 12y ago
Prior (~1.5 months ago) HN discussion on Theranos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019
applecore 12y ago
The most important thing: Holmes still owns half the company. It's extremely rare for such a young founder to still be in control of the company, and to own 50% after more than a decade. That's not only a huge accomplishment, it's a testament to the strength of Holmes' conviction in the company's mission. Getting rich all comes down to ownership—every single percentage point counts.
- adventured 12y ago
  If you just want to get rich, a few points of a serious company would do. She could have cashed out a long time ago and been very rich. The reason her ownership is important isn't the substantially inflated valuation and digits on her net-worth, it's the control it enables to steer such a young company long-term. Getting rich doesn't come down to counting every single percentage, it comes down to creating a lot of value. If you do that, whether you own 14% or 40%, you're going to be rich.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
adventured 12y ago
It's interesting they've pegged the company at a $9 billion valuation. Labcorp at this moment has a $9 billion valuation (with $6 billion in sales, and $573 million in profit...).
- rwissmann 12y ago
  Nice catch. However, Labcorp has almost no revenue and profit growth in an increasingly competitive industry. A valuation at 15.5x LTM profit does not seem unreasonable. Comparing the valuation of a growing startup with a stagnant incumbent is always going to look strange if you only consider a snapshot of financial numbers.
  - adventured 12y ago
    I think Labcorp's valuation is perfectly reasonable. I think Theranos is overvalued by a factor of ten fold. The market eventually forces a sane valuation on companies based on revenue and earnings. It's extraordinarily unlikely a company charging vastly less for its products will produce a dramatically greater economic outcome than Labcorp which dominates the industry (Labcorp has the best of both worlds, high prices, and high market share, the only thing they could improve is volume). Theranos investors have had all their future returns pulled forward. Even in a wildly successful outcome, Theranos is unlikely to be worth much more than 2x what they already are, 20 years from now. That assumes they can one day grow to have ten billion in sales and a billion in profit, based on much lower prices and higher volume. That day is so far off, there's zero chance of Theranos sustaining their crazy valuation between here and there as capital markets turn negative after this hyper bull market run.
wintermute306 12y ago
She is dressed like CEO if a dystopian ruling corporation.
ansgri 12y ago
The shape of lab testing in the U.S. seems to be bad: from the article I get that significant advantages include _upfront prices_, wide network of sampling stations, and results being emailed within 24 hours. In Moscow (recently in other cities as well) we've had InVitro Labs for several years, which do everything mentioned. No doubts there are some billionaires.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
robbiep 12y ago
As a practicing doctor (albeit a junior one) I simply cannot foresee any more than 1 or two conditions where direct to consumer lab testing would actually be of practical use. If on the other hand her technology is radically cheaper than the hospitals own lab then it would rapidly achieve huge market share and help cut healthcare costs. Just yesterday I had 2 sets of coags on the same patient sent back necessitating retaking (not an easy job on an elderly severely demented woman), one because it had clotted (apparently) and another because there was not enough blood. Smaller volumes required would be great for a whole bunch of situations.
- mrfusion 12y ago
  I see dozens of conditions this would be good for. I think you get biased once you spend 8-10 years becoming a gatekeeper to healthcare. People want to take their health into their own hands and not have to have every test blessed by a $150 doctor visit plus a separate lab visit. Conditions to test for: Hemachromatosis Many other genetic conditions Vitamin deficiencies (D, B, potassium) Blood sugar for people prone to diabetes Lyme disease (test after every tick bite after waiting the required time period) And that's just off the top of my head. Many of those are tests I'd like to a few times a year, but don't want to schedule a doctor appointment, take off work, make a copay, schedule a lab test, take more time off, another copay, etc.
  - computerbob 12y ago
    I can't agree with you more. I go hiking a lot and have gotten tick bites. There is nothing worse than having to schedule an appointment and going to the doctor just to have something simple done. Biggest waste of time, vacation/sick days and all to do something that is so easy.
  - tel 12y ago
    As an extreme but interesting case, I know someone who has had a majority of his endocrine system surgically removed and now relies on self-treatment of hormones. He has had in the past extensive excel sheets tracking his dosages alongside behavior, appetite, energy, etc. It's utterly amazing the amount of correlation he could derive between various hormone levels once he was made directly aware of them. Similar kinds of information about day-to-day blood chemistry might be available through retail-available blood testing. This is QS all over again, but with a significantly more powerful bite—blood chemistry is a quantitatively powerful look into your body's current state. It's a human debugger.
RyanMcGreal 12y ago
Ironic that a company focused on blood tests would have a board of directors with so much blood on their hands.
dkural 12y ago
The recent FDA ruling on lab-developed test means this company is now massively disadvantaged, as their entire secrecy is based on not needing to get FDA approval. Now they need it.
enziobodoni 12y ago
I think what is important is the LACK of critical articles out there. Where was the counterpoint in this article, or the recent Fortune article. I run a hospital laboratory in Seattle, and I am a clinical pathologist. Like Elizabeth Holmes, I studied Chemistry at Stanford, although I did graduate. Everyone in the lab world is a-twitter about Theranos right now, up to the CEOs of the big companies, largely because no one knows what they are doing. Everyone who goes and talks to them, including interviews for a job, signs a CDA, so this isn't surprising. However, there are several things we can know: 1- the big name folks on the board are Hoover Institution connections. No surprise there, I knew all those guys were there when I was at Stanford, and she was connected with them early. The person who commented about the importance for these links when it comes to FDA problems is right on. 2- what these people are doing for lab testing, in terms of technology, sounds totally revolutionary IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CLINICAL LABS. If you did know, you would understand that most of our routine instruments ALREADY use a couple microliters for an assay, and that results are available in seconds to minutes. There has never been an article about Holmes that mentions this. What she has done with microfluidics is to reduce dead volume quite a bit to allow overall lower sample volumes, but this is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, change to instrumentation. It is also of dubious clinical value (more on this later). 3- the fact that they list their prices IS revolutionary, and it's the best thing about the company. I wish I could do at for my lab. Secrecy of pricing is one of the major problems with Us healthcare. 4- no one writing any of these articles about her understands that fingerstick blood is not the same as venous blood. It is blood mixed with interstitial fluid from the tip of the finger. The results of tests are different for analytes in venous bold and fingerstick blood. Thus,they need to do a clinical validation that their results are meaningful, in addition to an analytical validation to prove that they're accurate. This is where the FDA, as they did to 23andme, is going to get involved, unless Don Rumsfeld can head them off. If LAb Developed Tests get regulated in the coming years, though, they are totally screwed, just like I am. 5- many people don't know that you can already get lab tests done on finger stick blood, ie prick your finger at home and mail in the blood or take it to participating Walmarts. The reason for this, I suspect, is that the companies that do this are not headed by an attractive blond woman and enveloped in the shroud of mystery of a Silicon Valley. I will be interested to see how long it takes before a serious "the emperor has no clothes" article will come out in a mass media outlet, and someone who actually runs a lab or knows any of the rules of running labs is asked even one question. It is much less sexy of a story when told that way, so maybe never.
dr3wid 12y ago
Maybe this is why its possible - $10k for blood test http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08/15/a-10000-blood-test-yes-really/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08...
free2rhyme214 12y ago
Why does she wear a turtle neck? lol

180 points by schrofer 12y ago

As far as I can tell, the stars aligned here. You have a brilliant founder who has a background in the tech (Chem Engineering) and the upbringing and connections to take research trips out to Singapore. Second, you have the tech: microfluidic assays, and the idea of collecting them all in the same place. Third, an existing industry that's been content to sit around and charge high prices due to low competition: LabCorp & company. Finally, a generous funding environment. Unfortunately, their secrecy is kind of a turn off. How can I know to trust their numbers?

ibisum 12y ago
Their secrecy is a turn off - as well as the people who are orbiting around the company. Do we really want the ideologies of the likes of Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld - people who have extraordinary track records of not doing good in the world - to be involved in the next generation of health care technology innovation - particularly its control and application? Kissinger-doctrine style politics and healthcare do not mix.
- adventured 12y ago
  Rumsfeld was also the Chairman of Gilead. I doubt it's a question of "do we want these people involved?" - the reality is there's nothing that can stop it. They're the ultimate insiders. Rumsfeld can easily clear the deck for whatever approvals you need, and solve any problems you have, just as he did for Gilead. In exchange, you make them richer. That's how the FDA system works. You can't play in the medical / healthcare field without having a devil on your shoulder protecting you from the other monsters that will use the regulatory environment to destroy you. That's also how the business world at large works in general now, ala Al Gore on Apple's board, helping to protect Jobs from the options scandal. It's why Dropbox picked up Condoleezza Rice. It's ugly, but it's what you get when you have extreme government regulation, and when lobbyists can crush you by bribing the right people in DC, all major businesses must have their own power brokers.
  - ryandvm 12y ago
    You are dead on. This is also the scariest part of net neutrality legislation. Corporations always end up in control of the regulatory bodies that were meant to keep them in check...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - refurb 12y ago
    Oh please. The FDA loves antagonize Congress about it's independence. Are there shady dealing? Sure, but don't make it out to be some secret cabal who always gets their way through shady backroom dealings. To me it sounds like you'd love to have some sort of "political leanings filter" on people who do business. If their politics agrees with yours, great, if not, we need to make sure those people don't get into positions of power.
    - seehafer 12y ago
      FDA loves to talk a good game about independence, but they are far more driven by political trends then they'd like to admit. Case in point: in 2008, the Democratic house jumped up and down about the under regulation of medical devices and diagnostics. FDA Warning Letters (a big deal that largely prevents a company from releasing new products) to device/diagnostic companies doubled the next year.
    - adventured 12y ago
      Positions of power are of little concern in a free market economy. The influence that comes with wealth is not the same as having political power, which is power at the barrel of a gun. The problem is, America is not a free market economy. Hilariously I'm the exact opposite of what your false conclusion proclaims. I'm neither liberal nor conservative - in fact I'm anti partisan - and I'm a laissez-faire Capitalist. I'd prefer the government be completely outlawed from creating economic regulations, and I believe in the separation of state and economy for the exact same reason state and church is separate: they infect each other. That instantly wipes out all lobbying for special treatment, special laws, and competition-by-government. The government returns to doing what it's only job should be: protection of individual rights. The US is becoming a fascist oligarchy, dominated by a massive consolidation of select few winners that are then protected by the government from competition; this has occurred in nearly every segment of the economy. The FDA rarely does anything that isn't shady. It is fully dominated by the mega-corps that can afford to buy political influence, from Pfizer to Merck to Gilead.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Kissinger's interest would be eugenics. I mean, it was Kissinger who said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of the US towards the Third World". Bet he's gleeful at Ebola Edit: I assume we're all big fans of Henry Kissinger over here then? I fail to see what his interest in this could be outside of the potential eugenic applications.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. My dad works in public health in the third world, and one of his specialties is family planning (i.e. how to get villagers to stop having so many kids). When George W. Bush temporarily withdrew the U.S. support for family planning projects in Africa, he got hammered for it by the left.
    - gadders 12y ago
      Well, if The Left say it is a bad idea, then of course it must be. However, George Bush was one of the best presidents ever for Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7831460.stm
    - filoeleven 12y ago
      > Depopulation is everyone's highest priority towards the third world. Which is utterly misguided if the motivation behind the goal is to conserve energy and resources. The population growth rate of first world countries is lower, however we consume far more resources per child than third world countries do. Calling for those countries to make drastic changes without examining and curtailing our own overuse of resources is problematic and irresponsible. Al Bartlett[1] addresses this in his engaging lecture[2] on population and energy. If the primary motivation is instead humanitarian, e.g. to raise the quality of life, then I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Allen_Bartlett [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk (The video's title is hyperbole and is not the title of the lecture, though the lesson is certainly important.)
    - 12y ago
walshemj 12y ago
Probably because for some strange reason the us government isn't allowed to negotiate better rates. The NHS is much better every 6 weeks I go in and get about 6 or so tests done plus my quarterly's god only knows what that would cost me in the USA
- wavefunction 12y ago
  It's not a strange reason. The ideologues in the GOP and some Democrats restrain the Federal Government from negotiating lower rates because these politicians fund-raise from companies that would have to lower their rates as a result of that negotiation. And some of them are just crazy nuts who actually prefer that companies soak the government (tax-payer) for every cent they can.

roma1n 12y ago

Well that would be awesome to monitor anticoagulation.

schrofer 12y ago
yes indeed, this opens up new possibilities for monitoring what's going on in our bodies. But we would need more knowledge / education so we don't jump to conclusions when a value out of bounds.
- roma1n 12y ago
  Sure, but that particular ship sailed a long time ago. Most patients track their INR from the lab and simply ask when it swings too much.
enziobodoni 12y ago
We already monitor all sorts of anticoagulation. Fingerstick samples are particularly bad for this (even though there are current point of care devices that do this).

jgrahamc 12y ago

The important thing about this article is not her age, her gender or her net worth: it's the enormous change her company is saying is possible in blood testing. Ignore the comparisons with Steve Jobs and other crap and think about what her company is doing and what it means.

madaxe_again 12y ago
It means... INVALID. You are not eligible for this product/job/life.
- dnissley 12y ago
  Hah, makes me think of Gattaca.

GolfyMcG 12y ago

I remember reading something quite awhile ago about her and her company, which was very dismissive of the entire subject. Is anyone familiar with what this was in reference to, because this articles does seem rather convincing to me!

mrfusion 12y ago
Well I think it's a disruptive technology to traditional labs. So expect to see a lot of dismissive articles.

thedrbrian 12y ago

On paper being the important bit of this piece.

w1ntermute 12y ago

Prior (~1.5 months ago) HN discussion on Theranos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951019

applecore 12y ago

The most important thing: Holmes still owns half the company. It's extremely rare for such a young founder to still be in control of the company, and to own 50% after more than a decade. That's not only a huge accomplishment, it's a testament to the strength of Holmes' conviction in the company's mission. Getting rich all comes down to ownership—every single percentage point counts.

adventured 12y ago
If you just want to get rich, a few points of a serious company would do. She could have cashed out a long time ago and been very rich. The reason her ownership is important isn't the substantially inflated valuation and digits on her net-worth, it's the control it enables to steer such a young company long-term. Getting rich doesn't come down to counting every single percentage, it comes down to creating a lot of value. If you do that, whether you own 14% or 40%, you're going to be rich.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

adventured 12y ago

It's interesting they've pegged the company at a $9 billion valuation. Labcorp at this moment has a $9 billion valuation (with $6 billion in sales, and $573 million in profit...).

rwissmann 12y ago
Nice catch. However, Labcorp has almost no revenue and profit growth in an increasingly competitive industry. A valuation at 15.5x LTM profit does not seem unreasonable. Comparing the valuation of a growing startup with a stagnant incumbent is always going to look strange if you only consider a snapshot of financial numbers.
- adventured 12y ago
  I think Labcorp's valuation is perfectly reasonable. I think Theranos is overvalued by a factor of ten fold. The market eventually forces a sane valuation on companies based on revenue and earnings. It's extraordinarily unlikely a company charging vastly less for its products will produce a dramatically greater economic outcome than Labcorp which dominates the industry (Labcorp has the best of both worlds, high prices, and high market share, the only thing they could improve is volume). Theranos investors have had all their future returns pulled forward. Even in a wildly successful outcome, Theranos is unlikely to be worth much more than 2x what they already are, 20 years from now. That assumes they can one day grow to have ten billion in sales and a billion in profit, based on much lower prices and higher volume. That day is so far off, there's zero chance of Theranos sustaining their crazy valuation between here and there as capital markets turn negative after this hyper bull market run.

wintermute306 12y ago

She is dressed like CEO if a dystopian ruling corporation.

ansgri 12y ago

The shape of lab testing in the U.S. seems to be bad: from the article I get that significant advantages include _upfront prices_, wide network of sampling stations, and results being emailed within 24 hours. In Moscow (recently in other cities as well) we've had InVitro Labs for several years, which do everything mentioned. No doubts there are some billionaires.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

robbiep 12y ago

As a practicing doctor (albeit a junior one) I simply cannot foresee any more than 1 or two conditions where direct to consumer lab testing would actually be of practical use. If on the other hand her technology is radically cheaper than the hospitals own lab then it would rapidly achieve huge market share and help cut healthcare costs. Just yesterday I had 2 sets of coags on the same patient sent back necessitating retaking (not an easy job on an elderly severely demented woman), one because it had clotted (apparently) and another because there was not enough blood. Smaller volumes required would be great for a whole bunch of situations.

mrfusion 12y ago
I see dozens of conditions this would be good for. I think you get biased once you spend 8-10 years becoming a gatekeeper to healthcare. People want to take their health into their own hands and not have to have every test blessed by a $150 doctor visit plus a separate lab visit. Conditions to test for: Hemachromatosis Many other genetic conditions Vitamin deficiencies (D, B, potassium) Blood sugar for people prone to diabetes Lyme disease (test after every tick bite after waiting the required time period) And that's just off the top of my head. Many of those are tests I'd like to a few times a year, but don't want to schedule a doctor appointment, take off work, make a copay, schedule a lab test, take more time off, another copay, etc.
- computerbob 12y ago
  I can't agree with you more. I go hiking a lot and have gotten tick bites. There is nothing worse than having to schedule an appointment and going to the doctor just to have something simple done. Biggest waste of time, vacation/sick days and all to do something that is so easy.
- tel 12y ago
  As an extreme but interesting case, I know someone who has had a majority of his endocrine system surgically removed and now relies on self-treatment of hormones. He has had in the past extensive excel sheets tracking his dosages alongside behavior, appetite, energy, etc. It's utterly amazing the amount of correlation he could derive between various hormone levels once he was made directly aware of them. Similar kinds of information about day-to-day blood chemistry might be available through retail-available blood testing. This is QS all over again, but with a significantly more powerful bite—blood chemistry is a quantitatively powerful look into your body's current state. It's a human debugger.

RyanMcGreal 12y ago

Ironic that a company focused on blood tests would have a board of directors with so much blood on their hands.

dkural 12y ago

The recent FDA ruling on lab-developed test means this company is now massively disadvantaged, as their entire secrecy is based on not needing to get FDA approval. Now they need it.

enziobodoni 12y ago

I think what is important is the LACK of critical articles out there. Where was the counterpoint in this article, or the recent Fortune article. I run a hospital laboratory in Seattle, and I am a clinical pathologist. Like Elizabeth Holmes, I studied Chemistry at Stanford, although I did graduate. Everyone in the lab world is a-twitter about Theranos right now, up to the CEOs of the big companies, largely because no one knows what they are doing. Everyone who goes and talks to them, including interviews for a job, signs a CDA, so this isn't surprising. However, there are several things we can know: 1- the big name folks on the board are Hoover Institution connections. No surprise there, I knew all those guys were there when I was at Stanford, and she was connected with them early. The person who commented about the importance for these links when it comes to FDA problems is right on. 2- what these people are doing for lab testing, in terms of technology, sounds totally revolutionary IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CLINICAL LABS. If you did know, you would understand that most of our routine instruments ALREADY use a couple microliters for an assay, and that results are available in seconds to minutes. There has never been an article about Holmes that mentions this. What she has done with microfluidics is to reduce dead volume quite a bit to allow overall lower sample volumes, but this is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, change to instrumentation. It is also of dubious clinical value (more on this later). 3- the fact that they list their prices IS revolutionary, and it's the best thing about the company. I wish I could do at for my lab. Secrecy of pricing is one of the major problems with Us healthcare. 4- no one writing any of these articles about her understands that fingerstick blood is not the same as venous blood. It is blood mixed with interstitial fluid from the tip of the finger. The results of tests are different for analytes in venous bold and fingerstick blood. Thus,they need to do a clinical validation that their results are meaningful, in addition to an analytical validation to prove that they're accurate. This is where the FDA, as they did to 23andme, is going to get involved, unless Don Rumsfeld can head them off. If LAb Developed Tests get regulated in the coming years, though, they are totally screwed, just like I am. 5- many people don't know that you can already get lab tests done on finger stick blood, ie prick your finger at home and mail in the blood or take it to participating Walmarts. The reason for this, I suspect, is that the companies that do this are not headed by an attractive blond woman and enveloped in the shroud of mystery of a Silicon Valley. I will be interested to see how long it takes before a serious "the emperor has no clothes" article will come out in a mass media outlet, and someone who actually runs a lab or knows any of the rules of running labs is asked even one question. It is much less sexy of a story when told that way, so maybe never.

dr3wid 12y ago

Maybe this is why its possible - $10k for blood test http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08/15/a-10000-blood-test-yes-really/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/08...

free2rhyme214 12y ago

Why does she wear a turtle neck? lol