Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#31

Post by ghshephard »

Cass wrote: post #25
ghshephard wrote: post #15

The key takeway I have from all this is if you are relying on Blood Tests for data that is critical to your health (as opposed to informative, educational, or personal interests) - it's probably a good idea, if you can afford it, to get results from three completely separate diagnostic systems - kind of like time with ntpd.

If you're taking Warfarin, you have to get your INR checked every two to three weeks. It's really not practical to do that at three different labs every time. Also, this isn't some exotic edge case that only applies to a few people, but an extremely common medication. We're talking about huge numbers of patients here. If all their tests had to be triple-checked, the costs would be enormous.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11243904 above as to why the cost issue is a risk assessment / return analysis. In certain scenarios in which potential harm is high from an incorrect diagnosis, it's worth the cost to perform the test completely independently.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#33

Post by function_seven »

ageofwant wrote: post #10
Animats wrote: post #2

At what point here do people go to jail? The FDA can and has done that for faking lab tests.[1][2] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/22/us/3-ex-officials-of-major... [2] http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/tcaw/10/i11/html/11reg...

When they have been found guilty in a court of law ?

Ha. Your answer was technically correct but completely useless. Implicit in Animats' question was when that whole process happens.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#34

Post by justinjlynn »

chc wrote: post #23
striking wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever wondered what the "web" link was for? It Googles the link title. Accessing via Google gets around the paywall. I agree that this post is ethically dubious, but at the same time we actively bypass the paywall anyway.

The actual purpose of the web link is to check if an article is original.

nudge nudge wink wink say no more.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#35

Post by lawnchair_larry »

progers7 wrote: post #18
orionblastar wrote: post #5

Alternate text on Pastebin here: http://pastebin.com/CqwL0iHR No images but it has the full text of the story. WSJ has a paywall for subscribers.

I don't think we want to be a community that shares content like this.

Eh, speak for yourself. I found it helpful.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#36

Post by jorgecurio »

This is speculation but...the company was founded in 2003....13 years ago and no product out yet...I have an awful feeling Holmes felt desperate, took on more than she could chew in order to compensate for the decade she lost, and now all the shortcut taking is catching up to her....

It's starting to look very ugly for what started out as something overreaching, and I think she will fight even harder to keep the house of cards from falling but pretty much this unicorn will be the first to go in 2016.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#37

Post by vixen99 »

orionblastar wrote: post #29
minimaxir wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google workaround no longer works for the WSJ.

It still works if you use some plugins to set the user agent to Googlebot and other things to trick the WSJ into thinking you are from Google. Sometimes searching the title in Google works, sometimes it does not. I'm really against paywalls because it is discrimination against the poor. It is like having a pay bathroom.

It's a product and they sell it. That way they get to run their business. No one questions a software developer's remuneration model.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#38

Post by shepard »

orionblastar wrote: post #29
minimaxir wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google workaround no longer works for the WSJ.

It still works if you use some plugins to set the user agent to Googlebot and other things to trick the WSJ into thinking you are from Google. Sometimes searching the title in Google works, sometimes it does not. I'm really against paywalls because it is discrimination against the poor. It is like having a pay bathroom.

In this case, money you should pay for bread at a supermarket can be considered a "paywall and discrimination against the poor".

There could be couple of reasons why instinctively we think about paying for bread as a mutually beneficial exchange of goods for money, and about paying for internet articles as a "paywall that discriminates the poor":

(a) Articles used to be free, and many (in other publications) are still free.

(b) There is a very little incremental cost to WSJ if a single article will be read for free by someone, as opposed to the supermarket example above where an incremental loaf of bread has a very real economic cost.

But that doesn't change the fact the WSJ article is a real good that cost a lot of money to produce and therefore should be paid for.

edit: grammar

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#39

Post by Gatsky »

ghshephard wrote: post #15

The key takeway I have from all this is if you are relying on Blood Tests for data that is critical to your health (as opposed to informative, educational, or personal interests) - it's probably a good idea, if you can afford it, to get results from three completely separate diagnostic systems - kind of like time with ntpd.

Not really. Normal labs that aren't aiming to be revolutionary ultra-profitable mega corporations will be fine.

Having a slightly more accurate result is useless, because there is far more biological variation in a person (from disease, the vagaries of physiology, compliance, pharmacokinetics, diet, the time of day, mental state, the season etc etc) than technical variation in a lab test. You would be optimising the wrong thing.

The only example I can think of where someone would probably be harmed by this is if they were undergoing some kind of a procedure with a bleeding risk, and the Theranos test said their clotting was fine when it wasn't, and they had a significant haemorrhage during the procedure. Someone will probably launch a class action lawsuit anyway.

I think that the Theranos board will realise that they need to get rid of Holmes in the next 6 - 12 months. Even if the tech actually works, having her there has become a liability.

Re: Theranos Ran Tests Despite Quality Problems

#40

Post by madaxe_again »

Animats wrote: post #2

At what point here do people go to jail? The FDA can and has done that for faking lab tests.[1][2] [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/22/us/3-ex-officials-of-major... [2] http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/archive/tcaw/10/i11/html/11reg...

At no point. They go into politics, charges if any are ever bought will just sort of fade away.

These are rich powerful people, they don't go to jail.

Post reply on HN