No knowledge of the biotech, but this is really shady. Above-board companies simply do not look like this.

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).

To me, one of the sad things about the Theranos debacle is that even if they DON'T have super whiz-bang nanotainer technology, the general model of having affordable, transparently priced tests where you can just walk into a Walgreen's and order them is pretty awesome in my opinion.

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.

In general if a company is unfairly receiving bad press claiming its product is a sham, the usual response is to counteract that by being open and transparent and allowing independent assessment to disprove such claims. Want to pop in unannounced to test our product? Sure, no problem, let us show you how wonderful things are.

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.

I live in Phoenix, AZ and voluntarily sought out a Theranos test as part of an annual check-up last January. My PCP (primary care physician) ordered a bunch of blood tests, and I made the call to use a Theranos center at Walgreens.

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

There has been a lot of critical attention towards theranos. I have no opinion whether it is granted or not, in general I feel critical is always good, but the volume is so high, does anyone have any insight into the intense scrutiny theranos is receiving?

Some commenters are making me wonder if Theranos' new narrative is that their value proposition is opening blood collection facilities in drug stores / supermarkets.

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!

The origin story of Theranos is carved from pure Silicon Valley mythril: 19-year-old drops out of Stanford to build a massively disruptive startup and in short-order, receives hundreds of millions in funding and near-decaunicorn valuation. On top of that, the founder is a photogenic woman who dresses and speaks and acts as if she were Steve Jobs incarnate. And unlike Facebook and most other tech startups, Theranos was outright in its mission about achieving a meaningful and life-saving benefit for all of humanity.

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.

It's a company with a high valuation, that's raised a lot of money and has been in the industry for 11 years (if I recall correctly) by now. Investigative journalism raised concerns that the company is a sham, which the company exacerbated by reacting in a secretive and defensive way - unorthodox approach for a company working in a field where scientific testing and results are the norm, and where breakthroughs are patented and (eventually) shared somewhat openly.

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.

So your question isn't "what's going on here?" but "why do so many people want to know what's going on here?"

Is Theranos holding open tryouts for their PR department or something?

I suspect it's because medical stuff deserves more scrutiny than the average tech startup.

It's because Theranos with it's pretty blonde Stanford dropout founder was an absolute media darling for 7 months to a year, could do no wrong, had heaps of fawning puff piece press. Now that their questionable tech has come to light, the press feels burned and is vengeful of being caught giving them a blowjob without due diligence. So now the media swings the opposite way and lashes out at Theranos to overcompensate.

1. Multi billion dollar valuation.

2. In the health space, being trustworthy is kinda important.