Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I, for one, would mourn the death of Theranos. I live in Phoenix and used their lab service before all the negative press came out. They did the micro-vial testing on me so the blood draw was totally painless, quick, and just a few bucks per test.

The big issue of course, is maybe the results I got can't be trusted, and sadly I think for my next blood draw I'll use a traditional lab so I don't worry about accuracy (even though traditional labs apparently make mistakes all the time[1]).

Theranos does get an F for public relations. I'd love to read an interview with Elizabeth Holmes on her take on all the negative press. Did they really screw up this badly? Are there fundamental limitations in their technology, or did they just bungle execution? Do they feel they are misrepresented in any way by these articles?

The real point is that they were at least trying to do something revolutionary and we only hear the WSJ side of the story and can't know what legal restrictions (or internal bungling) prevent them from sharing another perspective. If somehow they can navigate their way out of the swamp, it'd be a great win to have cheaper/faster/less painful labs available for the masses.

[1] http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/weak-oversi...




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: