
Theranos Has Struggled with Blood Tests - OopsCriticality
http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901
======
danso
Here's a nice profile from the New Yorker in late 2014:

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-
simpler](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-simpler)

I mean "nice" as in, a good read...it's a flattering profile of Holmes -- she
comes off well, as a genuinely passionate person, and even if she had stayed
in school, it sounds like she would've still made a great impact.

But the article also raises concerns that seem to be corroborated by the OP:

> _Clarke argues that finger-stick blood tests aren’t reliable for clinical
> diagnostic tests; because the blood isn’t drawn from a vein, the sample can
> be contaminated by lanced capillaries or damaged tissue. Holmes strongly
> disagrees: “We have data that show you can get a perfect correlation between
> a finger stick and a venipuncture for every test that we run.” When I asked
> for evidence, I was sent a document by Daniel P. Edlin, Theranos’s senior
> product manager, titled “Select Data.” It purported to show favorable
> results from numerous comparison tests. I asked Edlin if the tests had been
> conducted by an independent third party. He replied by e-mail: “The clinical
> tests were conducted by a combination of Theranos and external labs,” but he
> wouldn’t say which ones._

Um, OK. I don't know much about this testing process...but...what trade
secrets are being protected by hiding the methodology and source of the
comparative test results?

~~~
dbcooper
I was helping a friend design a microfluidic device for platelet
characterisation, and the first thing he told me was that only a vein was
suitable for drawing blood for platelets. He had to take a phlebotomy course
just for the blood for testing prototypes.

------
downandout
Like many of us, Elizabeth Holmes is smart and had a good idea to change a
large industry. Unlike many of us, she has managed to convince several
billionaires to make her one too, based almost solely on the strength of her
idea. I don't know how much money she has personally taken off the table
during her funding rounds, but for her sake I hope it's enough to last her for
the rest of her life.

I don't doubt that she is sincere in wanting to build this business and take
over the blood testing industry. But Theranos is looking more and more like a
cautionary tale about why VC's and angels shouldn't give any Stanford dropout
with little more than an idea and a dream a multi-billion dollar fictional
valuation and tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in real cash to burn in
the streets.

~~~
NN88
is she smart?

------
Pyxl101
> Mr. Balwani replied the next day, copying in Ms. Holmes. “I am extremely
> irritated and frustrated by folks with no legal background taking legal
> positions and interpretations on these matters,” he wrote. “This must stop.”

Wow. What a terrible response to get from company leadership. It should be
completely appropriate for an employee to bring a concern to the attention of
leadership based on a plain-English reading of a statute or regulation.
Obviously, I don't know what kind of email the person sent, but if it was
something like, "A plain English interpretation suggests that we are required
to ... " then the right response is to thank them for bringing it to
attention, and then engage people for an appropriate review. Every time I've
dealt with a legal situation in a corporate environment, the plain English
reading was ballpark a correct way to understand it, with occasionally some
detailed nuances for which it was important to have legal input, but which did
not radically change the situation. I've never run into a case where the
required action was opposite than it seemed, or anything like that, although
I'm sure surprising things come up from time to time.

I understand why they might ask people to stop discussing it, on a big company
email list or something like that, but bringing it to the attention of the
appropriate company leader, is exactly the right thing to do. Thank them and
look into it.

~~~
danso
Without seeing the full emails, I'm hesitant to judge. The excerpt sounds
reasonable, but for all we know, the subject line could've read, "WHAT WE ARE
DOING IS WRONG!"...I thought company lawyers generally frown upon speculation
of legal matters via email. Not necessarily to stamp out internal and genuine
complaints, but because they end up being a rich source of material to be
taken out of context should litigation come up...that said, Mr. Balwani
probably should've kept that in mind before writing something that appears
quite dickish when excerpted in an investigative news report.

The other parts of Theranos's media strategy, according to the WSJ, doesn't
seem particularly friendly:

\- Threatening to sue a widow whose Theranos-employed husband expressed doubts
to her before killing himself.

\- Going around to people who had been interviewed by the WSJ and asking them
to sign statements (before the story was even published) that the WSJ had
misquoted them.

\- Holmes ignoring WSJ for _five months_. Then standing them up last week. The
CEO is famous for being an inspirational, thoughtful speaker but can't even
make time in _five months_ to give a bland statement of defense or explanation
to the Wall Street Journal, on a story that strongly hints at violations of
federal health regulations? It's one thing to refuse comment when a news
organization ambushes you the night of the deadline -- it's inexcusable to
hide for five months..._especially_ if the company isn't actually doing
anything wrong.

~~~
Pyxl101
True. Concern about legal issues is what leads one to consult counsel in the
first place typically though. Counsel discourages speculation by people who
aren't involved and aren't the right people to be discussing it - like they've
read a news article. I haven't heard anyone discourage genuine inquiry into a
specific issue they're concerned about, and that it's appropriate for them to
raise. It sounds like the employee had specific knowledge about an aspect of
the company's operations. The word speculation is used a lot in that context,
but every piece of legal advice I've ever received (outside of impersonal
training) started with me thinking: it seems like this might be a problem ...
I wonder if it's really a problem or not ...

Counsel also gives training about when to ask for legal advice and how to
handle privilege and confidential communication, which doesn't sound like were
followed here (or maybe never provided). As you say, it could be a liability
during litigation. However, the response to that could have been "I've added
our legal team for input on the issue you've raised. Please don't discuss
legal issues except in privileged communication with our legal team." I guess
that's easier to say and do when you have inhouse counsel. -g-

I would also hope that a thread like that would be deemed to be protected by
privilege if counsel were immediately added like that as part of a request for
legal advice. Perhaps someone more familiar with the boundaries of privilege
could comment. From what I understand though, opposing counsel are usually
pretty hesitant to attempt to pierce privilege, especially if there's a tinge
of legitimacy on it. E.g., random guy raises legal concern to superior, who
immediately involves counsel. Opposing counsel has to actually attempt to make
the case that it's not privileged communication, which they are reluctant to
do in such cases (but doesn't mean it can't happen).

------
dbcooper
A critical opinion piece on Theranos from the journal _Clinical Chemistry and
Laboratory Medicine_ :

[http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2015.53.issue-7/cclm-20...](http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2015.53.issue-7/cclm-2015-0356/cclm-2015-0356.xml)

~~~
sremani
Thanks for the article, this quote hit me >> Details of the Theranos
technology have not been disclosed to scientific journals and for this reason
it is not possible to comment. << So they have handful of tests that are FDA
approved and then their protocols or technology never went through scientific
scrutiny, but the whole company is valued $9billion? This is disconcerting.

~~~
cowsandmilk
What I find disconcerting is the faith Walgreen's has put in them. To be
honest, their revenue plus the partnership with Walgreen's likely justifies
the valuation. It is just that Walgreen's shouldn't partner with organizations
for testing that aren't on solid scientific footing.

~~~
Nicholas_C
I would hope Walgreens at least did some due diligence.

------
nrao123
I am genuinely confused by the overall thrust of the article.

1st Theme says: Theranos doesn't use Edison (thier in house testing device) &
instead use regular equipment from companies like Siemens. This is a marketing
problem because the company is saying its using one device but is actually
using another one.

2nd theme: lab tests from Theranos differ from generally accepted standards.
How do they differ if in fact they are using the same tests as everybody else?
Is it just the general variability of lab results and similar variability
could be find in quest diagnostics as well?

3rd Theme: almost all people say Theranos is dramatically cheaper than
competitors. How is that possible when they are using the same equipment as
everybody else for most of the tests? Is it a process innovation in operations
rather than from Edison/better equipment tech? Or are they just subsidizing
these costs and being cheaper and possible have bad unit economics?

The are two plausible storylines that can seem to reconcile these three themes
is:

Storyline 1 (Negative)- Theranos seem to be doing a process innovation rather
than an underlying equipment innovation. That process innovation perhaps
includes diluting blood samples 1) to meet thier marketing promise of taking
less blood 2) somehow taking less blood and diluting the samples to meet the
standard for traditional equipments AND still lead to cheaper operational
costs that lead to lower prices. But - somehow these diluted blood samples
show more than normal variability.

Storyline 2 (not so negative) Traditional lab companies are ridiculously
inefficient from an operations perspective. Theranos is able to take the same
equipment as everybody else but because of thier operational efficiency make
the end service dramatically cheaper. The variability in tests results is kind
of standard in the lab testing market.

Am I thinking about this the right way or missing any big parts?

~~~
danso
You seem to be missing the part where former employees claim that the company
skirted federal regulations by using other machines for the proficiency
testing, while using the Edison machines for patient testing. The accuracy of
those claims have some relevance to the kind of speculation you hope to make.

~~~
cowsandmilk
exactly, the dilution of samples needs to move to the forefront of the
discussion.

Theranos:

(1) takes a much smaller amount of blood, claiming they will use the Edison
machine to analyze it

(2)(a) sometimes uses the Edison machine, whose accuracy is disputed

(2)(b) sometimes dilutes the sample to test using a regular machine. The
dilution moves normal concentrations outside the range of detection of the
machine, so when a 10x dilution has its concentration multiplied by 10, there
are huge errors, often causing misdiagnosis

When Theranos receives a proficiency test, they don't receive a small amount
of blood. They receive the amount of blood a normal lab receives. These are
the only samples that they can run in the manner the standard machines were
designed for.

Theranos competes on costing less and taking less blood. The doubts are all
around whether you can get accurate results with smaller amounts of blood from
a different body part.

~~~
abb1234etric
This seems to me to be the most premise summary of what likely happened.
Startup raises a ton of money for a new model that isn't ready yet.. so they
use existing machines to fake it till they figure out how to get the Edison
machine to work. Not terribly dissimilar in some way from jet.com just buying
goods you ordered off of other sites and paying for the difference, in hopes
they can test the market, build a brand and eventually make their model work.
Problem is that it isn't obvious that scale helps you reach the ultimate goal
here (unless you reason that more money/longer runway = higher likelihood of
success). Unfortunately for Theranos, actual lives are at stake here and there
is a lot of regulation in the medical space for good reason.

------
Gatsky
Aside from whether their technology actually works or not, the central premise
that cheaper, easier and more frequent testing will improve outcomes is
unproven. There are many potential downsides. It might increase health
spending through extra doctor visits, the need for repeat testing and more
invasive and expensive investigations. But will it actually make anyone's life
better? Bear in mind that even a single, obvious test performed in a high risk
population to screen for say breast cancer or ovarian cancer, either barely
moves the needle in saving lives or ends up being useless. What effect does
Theranos think indiscriminate widespread testing will have?

With all these competing risks, this frequent testing strategy needs to be
evaluated in randomised double blind clinical trials. Before that though,
Theranos needs to submit their tests for independent validation in many
thousands of patients, and publish the results.

I note this single study which compared Theranos' CRP to a conventional method
[1]. The Pearson correlation was 0.85, which I don't think is really good
enough.

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091290/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091290/)

~~~
gcanyon
On the other hand you have things like blood glucose testing, which mid-
twentieth century happened only in a doctor's office, when today diabetics do
it several times daily. Obviously not all tests are going to be like that, and
I haven't looked at the list of tests Theranos is performing, so all, some, or
none of their tests might be similar.

------
qq66
It's not necessarily bad business or bad practice to launch a company before
the technology is ready, and to use a more conventional, cheaper substitute in
the interim. I remember reading about a company that offered automated
translation, but started out with human translators to validate the increased
market size at the lowered price point. They used the validation to raise
enough money to continue growing a user base at a per-unit-loss as well as
develop the machine translation software to the point of marketability.

------
ogezi
Getting blood from someone's finger will lead to incorrect results in many
tests because other things diffuse into the blood. The things can lead to very
inaccurate results. This is a BIG problem for Theranos.

~~~
gmarx
It is conceivable that they could use software to correct for this. Is there
is something they can measure that indicates the amount of dilution with
interstitial fluid,there might be a way to take account of it. Similarly you'd
want to correct for hemolysis

~~~
ogezi
I doubt that they'd be able to correct this with software. Take for example
Mineral X. A concentration higher than 1mg/ml of X in blood may indicate
disease D. Imagine that the tip of the finger has a much higher percentage of
X than any other body parts. In testing for D you'd get a reading that may or
may not be wrong as you wouldn't know if a high concentration of X is as a
result of disease D or as a result of the machine's inherent error. Your
screwed both ways. Theranos should understand that it isn't just a traditional
software company that can release an MVP for the public. One screw up and
their reputation is tarnished for ever. Just ask Volkswagen ;)

------
cjbenedikt
[https://theranos.com/news/posts/statement-from-
theranos](https://theranos.com/news/posts/statement-from-theranos)

~~~
thanatosmin
"The sources relied on in the article today were never in a position to
understand Theranos’ technology and know nothing about the processes currently
employed by the company."

This is exactly the problem! Nobody has sufficient information to judge
Theranos's technology outside the company, and they're asking the scientific
community and public to accept their claims at face value because they've
submitted some documents to the FDA.

------
Pyxl101
Sounds like the accuracy testing should be blind but isn't. Why not?

It seems like disclosing that a sample is a test is more likely to negatively
affect the accuracy of the test than improve it. The need for double blind
trials is normally well understood. This is not an experiment, but as a test
it seems like it would benefit from at least single blind: lab is unaware -
accuracy tests are mixed randomly into the genuine population of testing
requests. Kind of like how the TSA is occasionally tested by inspectors who
bring all sorts of weapons through.

~~~
zaroth
How are you going to get a vial of blood into their system with precisely
known characteristics, but blindly? I mean, you can draw blood just before and
hope it's "basically" the same? That's not really satisfying when you're going
to pass/fail the lab based on a discrepancy.

------
OopsCriticality
Seems only sporting to also include a link to their PR response to the WSJ
article: [https://www.theranos.com/news/posts/statement-from-
theranos](https://www.theranos.com/news/posts/statement-from-theranos)

Typical PR drivel. It's also a bit rich to complain about scientific
inaccuracy, and boast of opening things up to the FDA, when the Theranos
testing platform remains to be thoroughly investigated in the peer-reviewed
literature.

~~~
webmasterraj
> _Theranos presented the facts to this reporter to prove the accuracy and
> reliability of its tests and to directly refute these false allegations,
> including more than 1,000 pages of statements and documents.
> Disappointingly, the Journal chose to publish this article without even
> mentioning the facts Theranos shared that disproved the many falsehoods in
> the article._

Then why doesn't the statement say what these facts are?

This reads more like an attack on the former employees who spoke up than a
scientific rebuttal of the article. Which leads me to think even more that the
article is right.

------
dannylandau
Interesting article. While the article paints a bleak picture of company
operations, one item that sticks out in favor of the Company is that
"Walgreens says its partnership with Theranos has gone smoothly overall."

Seems like there would a lot more complaints considering the number of tests
conducted, and that the relationship would have been soured/severed if the
results were not living up to Walgreen's satisfaction.

------
nikolay
Too bad if they are undergoing troubles as I'm really hopeful they become more
widely available in California. I'm using WellnessFX [0] and InsideTracker
[1], but they are expensive and draw too much blood (which could be a good
thing, actually).

[0] [https://wwws.wellnessfx.com/](https://wwws.wellnessfx.com/)

[1] [https://www.insidetracker.com/](https://www.insidetracker.com/)

------
sjg007
Meh..

You can resell a test so long as you follow the rules of the contract of the
manufacturer and applicable CLIA and other FDA regulations. These are subject
to audit etc... You should not report clinical results from tests not run in a
CLIA or FDA approved way. So if a test is run on Siemens for reporting
clinical results then the audit goes on that pathway. Diluting the pinprick
blood to run on a test that requires larger volumes probably won't work either
unless they've shown it does and that of course depends on the CLIA and/or FDA
regulations around the test to prove equivalence. It seems like it won't work
since the tests have specific input requirements (e.g. 100mL plasma vs 1mL).
You might be able to go the other way.. but you miss the cellular and
interstitial components that may add noise (e.g. potassium which cells
bioaccumulate etc)..

Which other rules apply probably depends on interpretation of whether these
are lab developed tests or FDA regulated and this area may require
clarification etc... which will depend test to test etc...

Otherwise it sounds like they may have calibration issues which are normal.
Outliers happen all the time. If the technology doesn't have some fundamental
limit of detection based on the sample volume then they just need to keep
iterating. Or the components of blood from the pin prick differ significantly
from blood taken from the vein. The data may just be noisy. What that noise
level is matters in terms of the detection limits. It is probably too early to
tell. Internally they will be tracking this and trying to figure it out.

So this article seems like click bait, but what do I know.

------
auggierose
Is Theranos pulling a Volkswagen?

------
bdcs
To bypass the paywall you can search for the title in Google, or click here:
[http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hot+Startup+Theranos+Has+Struggled+With...](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Hot+Startup+Theranos+Has+Struggled+With+Its+Blood-
Test+Technology&l=1)

~~~
wehadfun
did not seem to work

------
kitkatz
I believe parts are a scam and parts are good The pathology diagnostics field
is ripe for disruption with easy access and visible pricing and even if they
do this well they will probably disrupt the big players. In terms of new
technology I very much doubt they have anything substantial.

------
NN88
She'll be on CNBC tonight at 6

[https://twitter.com/MadMoneyOnCNBC/status/654674975798919168](https://twitter.com/MadMoneyOnCNBC/status/654674975798919168)

------
wehadfun
Sounds like this is a problem with the testing authorities as well. Instead of
sending them full blood samples taken from veins by a trained nurse, they
should have sent them finger pricks done at Walgreens.

------
lobo_tuerto
Article is behind a paywall.

~~~
melling
[https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/hacker-news-
faq-1-ho...](https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/hacker-news-faq-1-how-do-
i-read-an-article-behind-a-paywall/)

------
ccvannorman
In startup-world, this is known as "faking it until you make it." Well done
Theranos, keep at it!

~~~
Jerry2
>Well done Theranos, keep at it!

Really? What if your family member died because of inaccuracy of Theranos'
results? Would you still cheer for them?

This whole article is extremely damning. Some stuff just makes your head spin:

>Carmen Washington, a nurse who worked at a clinic owned by Walgreens in
Phoenix, says she began to question Theranos’s accuracy after seeing abnormal
results in potassium and thyroid tests.

>She says she raised her concerns with the drugstore operator and Theranos’s
lab director, asking for data to show that the company’s finger-prick testing
procedures produced results as accurate as blood drawn from a vein.

>“They were never able to produce them,” she says. Ms. King says the company
did show detailed testing-accuracy data to the nurse.

Anyway, if you ever need any tests done, stay away from Theranos.

~~~
vixen99
I thought the 'well done' was ironic.

~~~
sebiche
Sarcastic, even.

------
danso
Obligatory click-through-Google URL:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=Theranos+Has+Struggled+With+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=Theranos+Has+Struggled+With+Blood+Tests)

edit:

I had known about Theranos mostly for being a highly valued startup by a young
college dropout involving something in the medical field...I assumed it was
more related to the scientific research side...but in the article it says it's
been offering tests to the public since 2013 (and that that appears to be the
main potential source of revenue)...has anyone's doctor suggested the tests to
them? It looks like they have a couple testing centers in Palo Alto but my
general physician has never mentioned the option to me.

~~~
the_economist
I have a friend in Phoenix who has used Theranos's testing system a few times,
and he has been delighted by their service.

~~~
sk5t
Is he able to properly evaluate the accuracy of those results?

~~~
the_economist
This is what the results look like:

[http://padlet.com/dpetersen/khmmi11wy8hz](http://padlet.com/dpetersen/khmmi11wy8hz)
[http://padlet.com/dpetersen/r6dg1vbxmz92](http://padlet.com/dpetersen/r6dg1vbxmz92)

I don't know how an individual could evaluate the accuracy of these results,
but the same goes for a non-Theranos blood test as well.

~~~
ghufran_syed
Anecdata: I'm a physician, and get tests done for myself and my family at the
Theranos place in Palo Alto, for around $5/test (vs $50 for other labs), and I
have no concern about the accuracy of the tests. This abstract discusses some
of the possible reasons for variation in test results:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10887452](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10887452)
Of course, none of this proves that the tests are reliable (consistent) and
accurate, just that there are several explanations for unexpected and
unrepeatable values in a given patient.

~~~
pkaye
Do you know if anyone can get their blood tested or do you need an doctor's
order? Their prices seem quick cheap and it would be nice to get some periodic
readings for my chronic health problems.

~~~
the_economist
New Arizona Law Allows Lab Tests Without Doctor's Order:
[http://kjzz.org/content/161108/new-arizona-law-allows-lab-
te...](http://kjzz.org/content/161108/new-arizona-law-allows-lab-tests-
without-doctors-order)

As far as I know, Theranos is in two places: Palo Alto and Arizona. It seems
like Arizona is passing laws to allow testing without a doctor's order.
California, you still need one.

------
frozenport
>>Theranos claims that the usual delay of testing in centralized laboratories
is approximately 3 days and that they will generate and deliver their data
much faster (e.g., within 4 h). The 3-day delay claim is not accurate. The
bulk of laboratory testing in centralized laboratories is completed within an
hour or two (calculated from time of sample collection to time of results
posting for physician review). For example, in our laboratory, more than 90%
of creatinine and troponin requests from all wards are completed in <1 h and
more than 97% in <2 h. It is thus questionable that Theranos’s technology will
be able to deliver faster results than the ones mentioned... Consequently,
faster analysis will not have a major impact on patient outcomes.

[http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2015.53.issue-7/cclm-20...](http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cclm.2015.53.issue-7/cclm-2015-0356/cclm-2015-0356.xml)

This is the same kind of bullshit I see in academia, where a new technology is
promised to replace an old technology that works fine, but now they have a 9
billion dollar valuation!

~~~
asgard1024
> This is the same kind of bullshit I see in academia, where a new technology
> is promised to replace an old technology that works fine, but now they have
> a 9 billion dollar valuation!

I am not sure it is bullshit, maybe it's just competition?

Over time, companies within an industry become complacent, cut costs, and
decrease quality of service. Somebody (a young idealist perhaps?) comes along
and says, hey, we can do better! And because she believes in free markets, it
must be that old technology (and indeed newer technology may have marginal
benefit) is the culprit, not human greed or laziness or other deadly sin. So
she goes, touts, implements and there is some success. However, then the
giants will wake up to the threat. They will magically find the way to be more
effective, as they always could have been, and they may even grudgingly
implement some parts of new technology. And so the margin for the disruptor
quickly disappears, and things will return back to the normal state of
affairs, where companies can lazily collect fat paychecks for doing the
necessary minimum. It's actually win-win for everybody, customers get a small
technology/process upgrade, and she is now in the club!

The only minor problem is that this economic model is far from being optimal,
but no one really worries about that except academic economists, since no one
really knows how to attain the optimal model in the human society anyway.

~~~
joezydeco
Theranos' area of interest, diagnostic microfluidics, is nothing exotic or new
to the giants in the diagnostic industry.

I spent a number of years with one major company in this field, and back in
the 1990s they already had a decade of R&D, and countless millions of dollars,
invested in this area. It was a difficult area of research back then and it
continues to be.

The idea that one scientist could come up with a concept to outsmart those
companies is certainly possible and makes a very compelling investor story.
But the reality is probably a little bit different.

------
drugsAreBad0001
Side note: Did anyone else find the writing for this article absolutely
horrendous?

    
    
         “They were never able to produce them,” she says. 
          Ms. King says the company did show detailed 
          testing-accuracy data to the nurse.
    

I would have flunked freshman-english if I wrote papers like this. There was
zero effort to link thoughts together all-throughout the piece. I thought the
point of a pay-wall was to promote and support _good_ content?

~~~
dkural
You're quoting out of context. The "she" in the quote is not Ms. King, which
is very clear in the article.

~~~
fluidcruft
It's also pretty clear without context that those two sentences only make any
sense if "she" is not Ms. King.

------
rajacombinator
No fan of this bizarre Illuminati-backed startup, but this article reads like
a well funded hedge fund hit piece. Maybe some players shorting OTC contracts
on their stock? The biotech industry is heavily manipulated so if they're
facing this kind of opposition, maybe it really does make sense to have guys
like Henry Kissinger on the board ...

~~~
joezydeco
They're not publicly traded.

