
Arizona man says bum Theranos blood tests led to heart attack, files lawsuit - etendue
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/arizona-man-says-bum-theranos-blood-tests-led-to-heart-attack-files-lawsuit/
======
danso
It's not clear in the OP, but according to the complaint, the test that the
plaintiff underwent was the finger prick method:

> _76\. Theranos drew blood from R.C. using its “tiny drop” finger prick
> method. The process was painful and was not quick as advertised. The
> phlebotomist struggled to secure enough blood from R.C.’s finger and had to
> repeat the painful process several times before collecting enough to test._

IIRC, Theranos did regular type of draws, too, as the finger prick tests
weren't performing particularly well. They touted their venous draws as being
more efficient and cheaper than the standard tests, though:. From their
homepage:

> _Our tests, including venous draws, require smaller samples than traditional
> labs. We also use much smaller needles. Ones designed specifically for
> collecting blood for children, taking the smallest sample possible. Theranos
> tests mean less blood, an easier process, and a clear difference in your
> experience._

~~~
throwanem
> Our tests, including venous draws, require smaller samples than traditional
> labs.

This seems highly suspect, considering that their venous draws were processed
on the same equipment as that used by "traditional labs", following the same
procedures as those used by "traditional labs" \- or so, at least, have run
the company's claims, when they're arguing that only the Edison tests are
invalid, and that the non-Edison tests are as reliable as those performed by
"traditional labs". I don't see how both sets of claims can be true at once.

~~~
wmil
Normally nurses draw more than necessary so that the lab can do retests, or do
additional tests. Once you're sticking a needle in someones vein the marginal
aggravation of taking extra blood is pretty small.

So they could probably get away with taking less blood.

~~~
throwanem
If that's the difference, it means either:

\- Theranos' vein-stick patients, in the aggregate, got stuck more often than
patients whose bloodwork was processed by other "traditional labs", because
their vein stick samples didn't include the usual amount of padding; _or_

\- Theranos' "traditional", i.e. non-Edison, results were more than ordinarily
bogus, too, because they didn't have enough sample to rerun questionable
results and didn't poke another hole in the patient to get more.

Neither seems a point in favor.

------
mathattack
Everyone who has had one of their tests and a health issue will sue them. How
can they survive? Is their war chest that big? I can't see them getting any
more money.

~~~
untilHellbanned
I'm sure most of their employees are ethical, intelligent people who should
have good jobs.

But to be clear, Theranos should not survive. Medicine is all about trust.
Theranos appears to rightfully have nobody's trust.

------
gmarx
Obviously people are looking to cash in. The lack of details on this one is
expected. What could be the starting situation in which a man is on medication
for something (unstated) and his blood lipids and blood sugar come back normal
when they were in reality abnormal and, further, if that abnormality had
showed up the doc would have changed the meds in such a way that the heart
attack wold have been prevented one month later? One one month pre heart
attack you are probably pretty occluded already. Are we to assume this guy had
no angina a month prior? Are we to assume that he did not but seeing a high
blood sugar would have led his physician to an investigation that would have
led to a cardiac study?

~~~
scott_s
I do not see this as an "obvious" attempt to take advantage of Theranos' bad
situation. The lawsuit claims that the patient and his doctors made medical
decisions based on the test results, and those decisions likely contributed to
his heart attack. That sounds like a reasonable argument to me.

~~~
gmarx
Clearly you do not have a medical background and either ignored or did not
comprehend what I wrote. You offer no counterargument. You are simply
restating their vague argument more succinctly and asserting it is reasonable.

