It's a good thing that another layperson web-developer is on hand to let them know that their investment, which still hasn't made a profit after 11 years, and h

It's a good thing that another layperson web-developer is on hand to let them know that their investment, which still hasn't made a profit after 11 years, and has no credible evidence that it ever will, was a wise decision. What the company does now has almost nothing to do with her original patent applications, so it looks like her original proprietary research didn't amount to much. They paid a smart person millions of dollars to essentially build a research lab. And after 11 years of research, they now have a way to maybe do some blood tests with a finger prick instead of a blood draw. But there are still questions remaining about the accuracy of these very small sample sizes. Some of the doctors and lab techs opinions I've read, say that even if the technology is flawless small finger drawn samples are much more prone to contamination. The article mentioned on HN even mentions that their tests would be more sensitive to inaccuracies caused by poor operator technique. How many PhDs out there could have done something similar with 11 years and $400 million. There are also plenty of experts who are skeptical of Theranos' claims. http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/new-yorker-theranos-founders-description-chemistry-process-comically-vague/ http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/new-yorker-theranos... Also you can read here about a first hand account of their procedures. It doesn't sound nearly as revolutionary as the hype is making it out to be. http://decibio.com/blog/theranos-small-sample-big-opportunity/ http://decibio.com/blog/theranos-small-sample-big-opportunit...