
Theranos Wellness Centers Aren’t Using “Nanotainers” at This Time - oznathan
http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/26/theranos-wellness-centers-arent-using-nanotainers-at-this-time/
======
SilasX
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).

~~~
Animats
_" Scouts that are instructed to alert central command whenever people start
asking questions, especially when that was during a patient consultation."_

That's a HIPPA violation.[1]

The article author asks others to write to her about their experiences with
Theranos "nanotainer" tests.

[1] [https://www.hipaa.com/the-reality-of-hipaa-violations-and-
en...](https://www.hipaa.com/the-reality-of-hipaa-violations-and-enforcement/)

~~~
drcode
I agree it's shady, but it might not be a HIPAA violation- The lab company
hierarchy has a valid "need to know" about lab tests being performed under
their responsibility in order to do their jobs correctly.

~~~
SilasX
The _head of communications_ has a need to know the name, occupation, and
_tests requested_ by everyone who comes in?

~~~
icegreentea
Man, obviously they didn't do that. The reporter talked to the remote manager
of the site, and also openly told the manager that he was a reporter (or at
least openly told the on-site employee who told the manager). Honestly, I
fully expect press interactions to escalate pretty quickly, especially in a
company in 'oh shit' PR mode.

~~~
SilasX
Sorry, let me clarify.

I'm not saying they were automatically relaying name/job/tests-requested of
everyone coming in. I was just bringing that up as the level of "need to know"
that the hierarchy would need to have in order to _automatically_ have access
to the key details in the story.

Second, I agree that the conversation with the manager is fair game (or at
least, not a HIPAA violation) to relay to the head of communications.

Nevertheless, look what happened: the HoC (Buchanan) was pre-emptively given
at least the information that Buhr _went to the clinic_ (not simply that she
spoke to a manager). That is itself borderline.

But Buchanan was probably _also_ informed that she asked about the specific
test in question. That sounds very much like a HIPAA violation, just as it
would be if you released to the Quest Labs head of PR that so-and-so asked for
an HIV test.

------
adevine
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.

~~~
sandGorgon
Is this something innovative? In india, i just paid 90$ and got 14 different
tests including tumor markers tested for. The blood was collected at home (and
then sent to a central testing facility).

Unless, it is radically new technology... I'm curious on the value proposition
here.

~~~
TTPrograms
The blood was collected at home? As in the patients draw vials of their own
blood?

~~~
sandGorgon
no - there's a dude who comes with this very interesting sealed testtube (with
a rubber seal on top) and a kind of gel inside. He takes the blood out (labor
is cheap in India!)

You have to remember that Delhi easily exceeds 115 degrees fahrenheit in
summer. this gel is supposed to stabilize the blood for upto 48 hours and it
is shipped across the country to Mumbai where there is this massive test lab
which does all the tests I have paid for.

------
swingbridge
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.

~~~
cat-dev-null
It doesn't look like they're "acting shady," but that Walgreens + Theranos
hasn't streamlined their bureaucracy and user experience which promotes the
value-add of change instead of offering a lesser experience (like the much
touted credit card chip, which takes longer and not as forgiving to user
interaction as the ol' magstripe).

Most of the time, the only lab work I trust Walgreens with is a cholesterol
test and a flu shot... If they can actually deliver the former without some
complicated extra option or cost, then it's a no-brainer that it should be the
default, not some hidden option that almost no one knows about.

Definitely an advertising / customer education epic fail.

~~~
wavefunction
I agree with swingbridge, they're "acting all shady."

Especially if you've seen their public press appearances.

~~~
randycupertino
Totally agree, they are extremely shady. Especially when they started actively
cultivating press this past spring, and a few months ago and suddenly they're
shocked and pissed off that not all their press is glowing.

------
joshpadnick
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](https://www.theranos.com/news/posts/custom/theranos-facts)

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _But based on mixed signals in the media, there is now an open question on
> whether the test results are in fact accurate._

Were yours?

~~~
joshpadnick
That's the problem. I have no way of knowing since I didn't also get the same
blood tests from a conventional lab. So I have no baseline to compare them to.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Should have done a proper experiment :p

------
codezero
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?

~~~
danso
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.

~~~
codezero
What does this have to do with the photogenicness of the founder? What exactly
did Theranos do wrong here as a company? How does she dress? It didn't even
seem like a favor. Does she wear black turtlenecks and jeans? I'm really
confused about your comment. Does it address what I asked at all? Can you
elaborate?

~~~
Nutmog
Those were reasons why the media and public are interested in it. Yes she does
wear black turtlenecks. I'm sure the way she dresses is part of why people are
so interested in the stories. It's probably largely schadenfreude, the kind
the celebrities are usually subject to when they put on weight or get
arrested.

~~~
joezydeco
I don't agree that this is _schadenfreude_.

Here was a company that popped up, literally out of nowhere, claiming to have
a handle on microfluidic diagnostic assays...something that the major players
in the industry haven't been able to get off the ground since ELISA came along
in the 1960s.

The skeptics were quiet at first. I mean shit, they landed Walgreen's and
Kroeger! It must work, right?

Now we discover a little more of the truth and it's a lot safer to say "put up
or shut up".

~~~
kzhahou
It's absolutely schadenfreude! Company appears to have led VCs, investors, and
the public, and is actually getting called out for it. Lots of people (myself
included) thought the whole thing smelled funny a while back.

------
empressplay
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!

