Slashdot Mirror
Allegations of Data Manipulation At Theranos (wsj.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A lengthy report at the Wall Street Journal brings allegations of data manipulation against blood-testing startup Theranos. The company raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors, at a valuation of roughly $9 billion, on the hope that they can revolutionize medical diagnosis. They've also made agreements with Safeway and Walgreen's to offer blood tests within stores. But multiple former employees say Theranos was shaky on the science at best, and intentionally misrepresentative at worst.
Engineer Anthony Nugent says the device intended for Walgreen's was still experimental. He also recalls seeing the machines labeled "for investigational use only," because of poor accuracy. A Theranos lab worker "told federal authorities that the results from the quality-control runs diverged from the known amount by more than two standard deviations, a red flag that suggested possible accuracy problems." When that employee notified superiors within the company, somebody came and deleted the quality control data, which made the device's test runs appear better than they were. There are also reports that inspectors and auditors were purposefully kept away from parts of Theranos's lab. A Theranos spokesperson denied everything.
Engineer Anthony Nugent says the device intended for Walgreen's was still experimental. He also recalls seeing the machines labeled "for investigational use only," because of poor accuracy. A Theranos lab worker "told federal authorities that the results from the quality-control runs diverged from the known amount by more than two standard deviations, a red flag that suggested possible accuracy problems." When that employee notified superiors within the company, somebody came and deleted the quality control data, which made the device's test runs appear better than they were. There are also reports that inspectors and auditors were purposefully kept away from parts of Theranos's lab. A Theranos spokesperson denied everything.
Looks like they finally found a replacement for Carly Fiorina. I see a bright future for Ms Holmes.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What kind of company gives itself a name that is so close to "Thanatos"? Creepy at best.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's a shame Theranos is having so many problems, because to me it was never about blood testing using small volumes of blood, but about low cost DIY blood testing available at places like Walgreens. The ability to walk in and get a Cholesterol test for $3, and a comprehensive metabolic plane for $7 instead of going through a doctor (and paying several hundred dollars for the privilege of having that doctor cluck-cluck at me) is a big deal: it means I could (for example) try different diets and get a blood test monthly to see how those diets affect me.
Something like blood testing should have a outside validation for their machines. Why is the company validating these machines on their own?
You aren't getting the bigger picture. We've all been primed for a new age of "illnesses". As minor issues are turned into full blown syndromes. and lucky us! there is a maintenance medicine we can take for the rest of our life to take care of this dreadful disease.
I forsee that Theranos' blood testing machines will provide the breakthrough on finding new illnesses like Bellybutton Stink syndrome, and perhaps even the holy grail of modern medicine - Overactive ear hair! And whoever they are leasing this technology to will have just the maintenance med for that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Medicine is too important to be a 'for profit' industry.
Hate to break it to you, but SOMEBODY is making money off of a pretty large fraction of modern medicine.
The problem with this company is that they claim to have some secret new technology/methodology that will revolutionize the industry. And they won't tell anybody how it works. While I understand trade secrets, secret stuff that nobody is allowed to reproduce or check is pretty scary when it comes to peoples' health.
This is why you have scientific FDA oversight of medical products.
Medicine for profit drives innovation. Unfortunately history has shown that hucksters abound with their secret formulas and technology. This is why the FDA exists. You can make all the money you want, but you have to prove to the FDA that it works both in principle and in practice.
Most of these claims come from ex-employees. It's like having my ex-wife write my biography; I'm sure she'd find a way to put a negative spin on that time I saved puppies from a house fire (like: "he went back inside to grab things he cared about but left my cherished family photos to burn").
lucm, indeed.
After reading TFA, it seems like the company runs like a cult of personality of Ms. Holmes. Their answer for every objection is to impugn the integrity or intelligence of the person who raised the issue. Their remembrance of the facts diverges wildly from the first hand accounts of their critics. Whenever they mention Ms Holmes odd behavior, they basically make the No True Scotsman defense, that Ms Holmes would never do that. That is classic cult-like behavior.
I can't get my head around how they raised so much money with nothing but the most basic outline of an idea and not even an original one. Score one for political connections.
I smell something funny, but I don't think they have a test for that at Theranos.
Except it doesn't always produce positive results for society. That is why their need to be basic rules.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Data Manipulation by *Thanos*. Much more sinister.
I wouldn't want Samsung's 95% done attitude to mobiles anywhere near any medical equipment. I hope the medical equipment they do make is of a much better standard. Apple medical products would look very nice but would be missing some features.
That is why their need to be basic rules.
Such as the rules of grammar?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
... Gas the rich!!
I forsee that Theranos' blood testing machines will provide the breakthrough on finding new illnesses like Bellybutton Stink syndrome, and perhaps even the holy grail of modern medicine - Overactive ear hair! And whoever they are leasing this technology to will have just the maintenance med for that.
If only it were something so trivial as made-up illnesses. Many medically accepted diagnostic tests for serious illnesses come with caveats based on decades of experience. Simply, we shouldn't test everyone for everything, AKA screening, because it does more harm than good. Tests often show up symptoms of conditions without the conditions themselves existing. In other words, flagging one or more markers for a condition doesn't necessarily mean that you have the condition. Unskilled staff won't be able to recognise cases like these or know what to do since they are not trained diagnosticians. It's even often a problem when doctors perform screening. It's expensive, unnecessary, and in most cases causes harm to patients through unnecessary medical prescriptions and procedures, each of which carry their own risks and side effects.
Commercial clinical analyzers are programmable by the end user. Thus, for example, it is possible for company "X" to purchase commercial clinical analyzers, put it's own programs on them, and say that "samples are being run on company X's proprietary systems". However if company X is also representing that it has proprietary clinical hardware, confusion might result. That is, a statement that "samples were run on company X's proprietary systems" would not enable outside readers determine if either commercial hardware or proprietary hardware was used. I am not sure if the press understands this.
Who the hell invests in a company with non-existing tech and incompetent board???
Something like blood testing should have a outside validation for their machines. Why is the company validating these machines on their own?
They have done tests with outside labs, sending blood samples taken the regular way and processed on regular machines to compare with the results they get on their own machines from samples taken with the finger prick thing. They have a proprietary technology. How do you want other labs to "validate" those machines otherwise? Publish schematics?
The problem in this case is not what Theranos is doing. The problem is that someone who doesn't understand the process took bits and parts of what they heard from ex-employees and used it to paint a picture that is wrong.
Take the example of the "dilution" accusation. The reporter said that Theranos took finger samples and "diluted" them so they could be tested on regular machines that need bigger samples. Do you really need a PhD in bio-whatever to understand that this makes no sense? How the fuck a machine that needs 1L of blood can run a test based on 1 drop of blood that has been "diluted"? What clearly happened is just that someone took a sentence or test step out of context and came up with this bullshit.
This whole thing is a witch hunt led by people who couldn't tell what a witch looks like.
lucm, indeed.
I think that in my 20+ years of technology that I have seen the same person over and over. They usually spend more time on the front covers of magazines than they do in the office. They woo investors that seem impressive because of their money but often these investors aren't usually in the business of investing in that type of business so their imprimatur isn't that impressive, landing them is but their backing it isn't.
Then there is the "revolutionary" aspect. But there is no mention of the scientists who actually did the work. None, nada, zip, no mention. Then there is usually a back story; dropping out of an ivy league school is seemingly impressive as they are hard to get into and dropping out of one makes the "leader" seem bold. Then there is always that type A ethic. Get by on a few hours sleep, into the office at 6am. Blah blah blah.
But the simple reality is that giving that many interviews, going to that many talks, raising all that money is a more than full time job. Thus it circles back around to the science. The only way that would happen would be with some damn impressive scientists. Yet at no point do I hear any real mention of science gods working quietly in the background working hand in hand with their business partner.
What pisses me off about these stories is that after this blows up in massive way it will continue to follow the same storyline. Some dupe will pay the big price while she will mostly skate. She will manage to walk away with some serious bucks and nothing criminal. Maybe she will lose a few lawsuits that might even sound serious but it will either end up as judgements against her company which will be a worthless shell by then, or paid out of some insurance policy.
But then she will write some vague book "Look before you leap" where she will manage to get a bizarre huge advance, and in a few years she will somehow be at it again. First she will end up on a few boards of directors, then she will weasel her way into a leadership position because she is the type who knows how to build a force behind her and shove someone who is actually spending time running the organization, out.
As I said, I have seen this story over and over. Often it is just a dumb local story where the scam artists make it into the local business magazine "Top 40 under 40." When I read those articles I basically now know of 40 local businesses that are going to flame out when the grants or investors dry up.
But when a profitless business is covering Forbes and becoming the darling of the national papers then the term Vapourware instantly springs to mind.
Eh... Wouldn't 95% be better than 10% or 0%? Expecting perfection is, well, bound to lead to one not having their expectations met. High expectations don't generally seem to be met in the real world, regardless of for or not-for profit origination. Very few things are 100%.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The same question could be asked of you. You don't actually know any Libertarians, do you?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You don't have to write a long-winded paragraph like that to rehash bad info that was already detailed. They DID NOT do that. Read their explanations or watch the fucking video. THIS. DID. NOT. HAPPEN.
They debunked the WSJ bullshit "evidence", they provided affidavits from many of the sources used in the WSJ article explaining that the reporter has misrepresented what they said. But nobody listens! People like you are too busy "explaining" how they diluted blood samples and other bullshit that DID NOT HAPPEN.
They do 2 kinds of tests as part of their regular business (not as "proof" of anything).
1) regular tests, like other labs, with the regular kind of blood sample, not thru Walgreens or other retailers (which is why they have regular machines)
2) proprietary tests using their finger prick sample (for a limited series of tests)
Some idiot misunderstood that and misunderstood that the "dilution" is just one of the standard steps in ONE specific test and ran with it.
This is unbelievable. This story shows that you can print any kind of bullshit in a newspaper and it just gets repeated and repeated and repeated and nobody looks further than that, people just mindlessly join the angry mob.
lucm, indeed.
Why would the medical industry want to attack Theranos? 1) the standard array of blood tests I get 2 times every year for the last 20 years (quantified geek) have gone from 200$ to $3000 over that time. That's right. With technology improvements basic tests have climbed 15 times in cost. Why? I think it is how hospitals and clinics recover money they lose on other services like the famous $1000 toilet seat they just allocate essentially an arbitrary cost it has nothing to do with actual cost. Whatever. I don't really know. All I know is you can get this same set of tests from Theranos for 200 dollars or less and even in other countries for 1/10th cost. So this reflects the same problem we see everywhere in healthcare. Unbelievable costs that are literally a persons lifetime earnings for a disease. My company pays $3500 / month for healthcare for a family of four which is 4 times what it was just 10 years ago. In one year rates went up nearly 50%. Other years 20-25%. I thought obamacare was going to have MORE people buying insurance which would reduce the subsidy burden of everyone else. Instead prices have soared unbelievably. I don't understand. I think Theranos trying to enable a cheaper testing system is something to be highly supported. Why are people defending labs which charge $500 for a test they did for $20 10 years ago ? Maybe you think I get too many tests but bigdata is the answer to reducing the costs of medicine. Understanding what helps who under what conditions and genetic factors or unknown variables today is a holy grail to Improving results and cost effectiveness as well as prevention. We need cheaper tests. Thank you Theranos.
Okay. I'll grant this comment has the sense of authentic and interesting points. We still need to address the fact that costs of all tests and drugs have soared 10 to 20 times in the last 10 years without any real increases in underlying costs in many cases. The way medical care is allocated costwise is not transparent.
The point would be that you checked some flaky sources. See the Wikipedia article if you'd like. I, for one, don't mind taxes one bit. I do, on the other hand, mind how they're spent. To be honest, I could be taxed more and probably should be - I make up for that by donating to worthy causes. See the first opening half-dozen paragraphs on Wikipedia. If I had to be pegged into a specific area, I'd be what you'd probably call a Socialist Libertarian - though I prefer the nomenclature to be Classic Libertarian or just plain Libertarian.
You're thinking of a Randian or Anarcho-Capitalist. They're stupid and confused. They often self-identify as Libertarians but don't actually understand the "liberty" aspect very well. They also can't figure out the whole part of society, social need, the commons, and other non-binary things. We're not really able to shut them up, that'd be a bit antithetical. However, they're a rather noisy minority. Most of us are quite sane, well reasoned, and not even remotely like you've attempted to describe.
If you get past Wikipedia and would like to know more, I can probably help with that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I would say that there are two cynical approaches to this: One, the drug companies shut her down for cutting into their pie. Or two, she wanted a taste of the big pie and like the bank robbers once said, "That is where the money is."