1) Refusal to use the ground-breaking technology:
>Then I asked about what Theranos calls “nanotainers” or tiny vials that can give you test results with a single drop of blood.
>“Oh you have to order that separately,” she informed me. “We take those intravenously if you bundle a bunch of tests together.”
>[...]I then informed them I was a journalist and would like to take the test separately to test the technology. They told me I would still need to order it separately.
2) Sudden delays and bizarre excuses when you insist on using their ground-breaking technology and identify as a journalist:
> So I went to order it separately.
>That’s when things got weird. It took much longer to process this separate order at the counter. I was told it was because they had to manually type in my order on the other end.
>[...]I spoke with Chris, the Theranos manager, on the phone who informed me it was about supplies. Okay, but the people with the supplies to administer [the] test thought I could take it until management said they could not that day.
3) Extreme concern with following a central PR script when people ask questions:
>Then I walked myself back to the testing center and could overhear one of the women on the phone with management in a panicked voice telling them I was a journalist doing an investigative piece (I wasn’t, just curious as to how it worked).
4) Scouts that are instructed to alert central command whenever people start asking questions (edit: especially when that was during a patient consultation):
>I reached out to Theranos head of communications Brooke Buchanan for an explanation as well. She’d already been informed I was in the store today.
5) Insistence that you check only specific cases of their product:
> I was asked why I chose not to go to the Theranos main office in Palo Alto for a test instead [of the Walgreen's location the author went to].
Also -- just a personal observation -- the use of the phrase "at this time" strongly correlates with how badly someone wants you to stop asking questions (police officers citing you, HR employees with bad news, PR spokespeople in a bind, etc).
That's a HIPPA violation.[1]
The article author asks others to write to her about their experiences with Theranos "nanotainer" tests.
[1] https://www.hipaa.com/the-reality-of-hipaa-violations-and-en...
None of this interaction really screams shady to me, just defensive actions by a company facing shitty PR. Some crap went down, and they're pulling back all their feelers and trying to maintain some degree of control.
The REAL shady parts of Theranos is all their other shit with their dealings with the FDA, the questionable effectiveness of their testing, their insane board of directors, and the what not.
All this piece shows is the Theranos is panicking (and panicking has nothing to do with how above board you are).
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in a negative PR storm, isn't it a godsend when people (especially journalists) are actually trying out your product for themselves rather than joining the bandwagon based on innuendo? Why would they be turning away people from trying the one technology they (still) hype the heck out of on their website?
And why would the communications director be getting names of patients (point 4)? Passing private medical information over to a PR agent is really shady and an abuse of trust.
There are other companies that offer something somewhat similar (e.g. AnyLabTestNow), but the experience still sucks - locations/times are nowhere near as convenient as your local drug store, and the tests are expensive. I don't know how much Theranos' price reduction is dependent on its nanotainer tech, but if someone came in and offered an affordable service like CVS's minute clinics, but for tests, I'd use it, even if they had to do normal draws.
Unless, it is radically new technology... I'm curious on the value proposition here.
That said, Theranos is still on the hook because a business model innovation would probably not justify their valuation and PR compared to a tech innovation.
The fact that they keep acting all shady doesn't bode well for their efforts to claim that the current criticism against their product and leadership is inaccurate or unfair.
Most of the time, the only lab work I trust Walgreens with is a cholesterol test and a flu shot... If they can actually deliver the former without some complicated extra option or cost, then it's a no-brainer that it should be the default, not some hidden option that almost no one knows about.
Definitely an advertising / customer education epic fail.
Especially if you've seen their public press appearances.
I showed up and they already had the order. I was advised that my insurance probably would not be accepted, but the total cost for a CBC, Lipid Panel, and 2 other blood tests was $42 cash so no insurance coverage was STILL cheaper than my covered labs.
To draw the blood, a near-painless prick of my finger was used to fill I believe 2 nanotainers. A few days later, the results were sent to my PCP (though for some reason never to me).
The entire process was (nearly) painless, extremely affordable, and convenient.
I can't speak beyond my personal experience to the broader allegations, but I have to say that the vibe I got from the whole experience is that the innovation is real. Cheap tests I can order directly that are quicker to take and nearly pain-free? Yes, please!
But based on mixed signals in the media, there is now an open question on whether the test results are in fact accurate.
Also, although the company responded publicly to the allegations[1], for some reason the pitchforks haven't gone away. It also does seem like the transparency has left a little to be desired. Maybe this would spill key trade secrets?
Sadly, given all the media confusion, I don't feel I can trust the results of a Theranos test anymore, but that's mostly because of all the media noise, and nothing to do with my experience itself. Hopefully, they can find a way to restore confidence in the service. If it delivers on the promise, it would be transformative.
[1] https://www.theranos.com/news/posts/custom/theranos-facts
[1] http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2015.53.issue-7/cclm-20...
Were yours?
In the current debacle, you again have all the classic ingredients in force: pride goeth before a fall, the extreme secrecy, the aristocracy > meritocracy, venture capitalists all wearing the VC equivalent of beer-goggles, the ignorance and laziness of tech media exposed. You even have a co-inventor who committed suicide and, for no obvious reason, Henry Kissinger is just hanging out.
The fact that Theranos aimed so high in its disruptive mission has come to bite it a bit...it's one thing to butt heads against government regulations when just making it easier for people to catch a ride or sleep on a couch. A lot different when you're allegedly subverting regulations explicitly constructed around human health.
Basically, there's popcorn for everyone.
I had to look this up -- I guess you're referring to Ian Gibbons?
>>In 2005, Ms. Holmes hired Ian Gibbons, a British biochemist who had researched systems to handle and process tiny quantities of fluids. His collaboration with other Theranos scientists produced 23 patents, according to records filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ms. Holmes is listed as a co-inventor on 19 of the patents.
>>The patents show how Ms. Holmes’s original idea morphed into the company’s business model. But progress was slow. Dr. Gibbons “told me nothing was working,” says his widow, Rochelle.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-bloo...
Imagine if a search company like Google had been founded 11 years ago, and claims to have revolutionized web search, but then a reporter exposed that they don't actually use any of their own search technology at all (!), and instead they pay to license Microsoft's search technology Bing instead (!). And a major industry regulator has claimed they're operating outside regulation (FDA in this case for Theranos). When challenged about whether their technology works, they respond with what amounts to hot air and empty claims. That's where Theranos is right now.
I was inclined to side with Theranos initially, since I've seen my own share of reporting hit-pieces where my insider knowledge made it clear the reporting was highly biased and essentially nothing but an all-out attack on the company. However, my opinion of them has been turning toward skepticism since I've seen them respond to criticism in a secretive way and by failing to substantiate their claims about their product. The cynical part of me is beginning to believe that Theranos is refusing to share real details because the data doesn't look good for them.
If Theranos has not developed any commercially viable breakthrough technology for fingertip blood draws, and will continue to operate indefinitely by conducting regular venous draws using other firms' equipment, then their investment value cannot be sustained, because that's a substantially weaker business model, and different than what was claimed. Selling fingertip testing on breakthrough technology would make them highly differentiated (unique, only ones to do it), whereas reselling other firms' venous draw technology is minimally differentiated (they'd just be a lab, same as any other).
Hacker News is a forum of entrepreneurial and hacker-minded folks, and I think we're all worried about what it means for that sector of the industry, or the tech industry as a whole, if the company turns out to have been a sham. It would not be good for Silicon Valley if Theranos turns out to be anything close to a Ponzi scheme. If in the end it's discovered that Theranos' technology does not work, that's how they may be viewed. It's an interesting story that concerns people.
Theranos has nothing to do with the tech industry. Recent concerns in the tech industry regarding valuations have to do with the viability of business models, not the viability of technology. No one's questioning whether Uber's technology is feasible - they're interested in things like the unit economics and other factors that impact long-term profitability.
> It would not be good for Silicon Valley if Theranos turns out to be anything close to a Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes are a specific type of fraud involving unsustainable recursive financing. If there's any impropriety at Theranos, that would probably be (another type of) fraud.
Is Theranos holding open tryouts for their PR department or something?
If it is, and Theranos feels this "new" value proposition is enough to justify their valuation, I'm not sure what they're smoking, but I would sure like some!
