Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's sad to hear Theranos still has issues, but I think people should give them credit for showing the world the lab experience can be quick, simple and painless; not to mention the fact that they actually publish their prices online, which other labs do not do. You can also order and view all your results on the phone app, which is also nice.



Lots of things are quick, simple and painless, but also utterly useless. If the labs don't work, how did they prove it could be all of those things?

I like public prices and a nice phone app, but that's completely peripheral to the actual objective of real, reliable, verifiable medical data.


My understanding is that they've had issues with just some of their tests, not all of them. For instance, I wouldn't call Google useless if it couldn't answer reliably a small percentage of my queries. Yep, I know it's not a perfect analogy, but still.

Theranos could ditch the faulty tests and provide only those which are reliable, and the experience they would provide would still be superior to that of other labs, by a long shot.

Now if you want to question their honesty as a company, as a way of doing things, well, that's a different story.


I think there's plenty of evidence to question their honesty as a company :-P

You're right there are a few labs they do on commercial hardware that does work, and I think they're allowed to provide a test (for Herpes I think? could be wrong on specific test) that is inherently based on very small sample sizes. As I recall though, none of those tests use any new tech at all, and if it's an old blood test then it's not going to require less sample, therefore not that much less painful re. needles anyway.

Take that all away and you have a nice app and pricing experience. Pluses to be sure, and I'd love those things to happen more in medicine, but not very innovative or well positioned to take down $10B megacorps.

Lab tests aren't 100% reliable either, it's true. But the nature of that unreliability is understood and the value of the resulting tests are well established to be related to a clinical outcome. The main criticism of Theranos is that they never put themselves to that kind of test or scrutiny.


From my experience, their prices are much lower than those offered by the competition.

All things being equal, even if the only advantage Theranos has over its competition is lower pricing, I'd take it, because having access to affordable medicine has numerous positive implications for the entire society. What's the point of all the medical innovation if people cannot afford it? Ideally we should strive for both innovative and affordable healthcare, but unfortunately things in the healthcare sector are moving extremely slow.


Having an advantage implies they can do equivalent tests with their proprietary methods, which has not been rigorously proven.

If the tests aren't actually equivalent, they haven't improved anything. Charging less for vaporware doesn't mean it's better, it's still fuckin' vaporware. :P


"Just some of their tests, not all of them"

As of now, the -only- test they are allowed to perform is for HPV, by traditional methods.

The FDA has "concerns" about every other test they offer or have offered.


I really don't know how to say this politely, but pretty much all of your statements are incorrect.

* First off, it's HSV not HPV. Pay attention, as they are two different viruses.

* Theranos' proprietary test system for the herpes simplex 1 virus IgG (HSV-1) has been approved by FDA, so no, it's not by traditional methods. [1]

* Other tests are performed actually by traditional methods

I'm not associated with Theranos in any way, so I couldn't care less, but please don't throw around random statements.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/18/theranos-gains-fda-approval...


have you read yourself the link you submitted?

"This new approval, classified as CLIA certificate of waiver, allows testing outside of the lab for those determined to be so simple there is little room for error."

If i remember this is the "lab developed tests" loophole that Threanos was trying to sneak through, and which was shut close for them on the basis that spreading their devices around, like interstate commerce, is a clear violation of the loophole and they do need actual FDA approval... the rest of the story we have been observing for the last several months.


Quick, simple, painless, and wrong.


Read my comment above!




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: