theranos

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Yeah, I know. They basically are building a lab business with different instruments, slightly less blood, and probably equivalent (or worse given need for couriers) TAT for the majority of tests. REVOLUTIONARY.

If the machines truly are revolutionary they would most likely be offered to all labs, not just Walgreens.
I know the corporation that runs the 150 hospitals 1 of which I am affiliated with has met with her personally. They are waiting to see how it pans out, but they are interested. They see it as a way to greatly reduce lab labor and lab supplies. It would help make their stock price soar. As long as I still get to bill PCCL, I don't care.

Here is another good article about the technology and inventor. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...edles-inspired-invent-new-way-test-blood.html

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
I know the corporation that runs the 150 hospitals 1 of which I am affiliated with has met with her personally. They are waiting to see how it pans out, but they are interested. They see it as a way to greatly reduce lab labor and lab supplies. It would help make their stock price soar. As long as I still get to bill PCCL, I don't care.

Here is another good article about the technology and inventor. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...edles-inspired-invent-new-way-test-blood.html

Well the problem with that is that they are operating as lab developed tests, so they have to basically have their own lab in order to run the tests if they want to avoid regulatory issues. Can't remember where I read that point but it was valid. As it stands now, they can't put their analyzers in someone else's lab. They would have to build a lab near the hospital and then deliver the specimens to the lab. That would mean longer TAT. That is not going to last, either the technology is going to be mainstreamed and other companies will make analyzers or they will give in and deal with the regulatory issues. If this technology is truly different and actually does work, it won't stay secret forever, or someone else will modify it.

A lot of their suppositions seem strange to me. Not just the "lab tests today take 85 tubes of blood and 5 days to get results," but also the fact that there are millions of people avoiding getting labs drawn because they are afraid of needles. I think they (or she) are projecting their own fears or dislikes onto the general population.

And while their labs are (currently) cheaper, if more of them actually get drawn and run won't that make it MORE expensive in the long run?

I remain a bit skeptical, no doubt this has the potential to change the lab business but don't think it will be as revolutionary as the media seems to want it to be. Part of the problem is that the media is completely infatuated with this woman (YOUNGEST FEMALE BILLIONAIRE!! SHE's BLONDE!!! SHE WEARS THE SAME CLOTHES AND EATS THE SAME THINGS EVERY DAY DIDN'T STEVE JOBS DO THAT?!?!?!?!) and the critical questions haven't really started yet, this article was one of the first ones to ask real skeptical questions.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The costs to get the infrastructure in place will be great. I don't see how they could continue to have prices near client billing levels. Where is their pull through business? Good luck building labs, hiring couriers, EMRs, med techs, even phlebs. while keeping your pricing low.
 
Given the number of investors they have, maybe they plan on an amazon.com business model, taking a loss for years and not worrying about making money. But that would seem unlikely to me. If I had to guess, they will end up following all the quality/regulatory requirements, then marketing the machines + the control reagents and such just like other companies.
 
But perhaps they will be able to place their machines in acute care hospitals for stat labs and in core laboratories for acute care hospitals for non-stat labs.

I just can't believe how much misogynisticsm and hatred there is for a young female that will likely turn our industry on its head.

Thats the one thing that I have learned about pathologists. They want things to remain how they were 200 years ago. H&E H&E H&E..morphology is the gold standard! **** your H&E and **** morphology. The world is changing.
Well the problem with that is that they are operating as lab developed tests, so they have to basically have their own lab in order to run the tests if they want to avoid regulatory issues. Can't remember where I read that point but it was valid. As it stands now, they can't put their analyzers in someone else's lab. They would have to build a lab near the hospital and then deliver the specimens to the lab. That would mean longer TAT. That is not going to last, either the technology is going to be mainstreamed and other companies will make analyzers or they will give in and deal with the regulatory issues. If this technology is truly different and actually does work, it won't stay secret forever, or someone else will modify it.

A lot of their suppositions seem strange to me. Not just the "lab tests today take 85 tubes of blood and 5 days to get results," but also the fact that there are millions of people avoiding getting labs drawn because they are afraid of needles. I think they (or she) are projecting their own fears or dislikes onto the general population.

And while their labs are (currently) cheaper, if more of them actually get drawn and run won't that make it MORE expensive in the long run?

I remain a bit skeptical, no doubt this has the potential to change the lab business but don't think it will be as revolutionary as the media seems to want it to be. Part of the problem is that the media is completely infatuated with this woman (YOUNGEST FEMALE BILLIONAIRE!! SHE's BLONDE!!! SHE WEARS THE SAME CLOTHES AND EATS THE SAME THINGS EVERY DAY DIDN'T STEVE JOBS DO THAT?!?!?!?!) and the critical questions haven't really started yet, this article was one of the first ones to ask real skeptical questions.
 
I think the word you want is "misogyny."
You seem to be the one obsessed with the founder, the skepticism sounds to me more about the claims and hype from this company who isn't revealing their data.
 
But perhaps they will be able to place their machines in acute care hospitals for stat labs and in core laboratories for acute care hospitals for non-stat labs.

I just can't believe how much misogynisticsm and hatred there is for a young female that will likely turn our industry on its head.

Thats the one thing that I have learned about pathologists. They want things to remain how they were 200 years ago. H&E H&E H&E..morphology is the gold standard! **** your H&E and **** morphology. The world is changing.

Um, no. There is no misogyny here. I haven't seen any at all. Part of the problem I am having with learning more about this is that the media who report about it spend about half the article talking about her appearance, her age, and her background as well as her personal health practices. The media (and much of the general public) is obsessed with things like this and they think it has much more relevance than it does. It is quite clear that this woman has gotten where she is by hard work and intelligence. Her appearance has nothing to do with it, although I suspect her appearance does work in her favor somewhat (as is obvious by media fawning) by creating some sort of buzz and mystique that gets some people more interested than they otherwise would be. But if the company is a success it will be based on the technology and their business plan. Otherwise, they will not be able to just continue their current practice of saying "this is a revolutionary technology but you can't see our data and you just have to trust us." No one is going to just trust them for significant health care dollars.

There is also no hatred here. Just questions. The initial media reports do not answer critical questions that would clarify just how successful they will be or what their further plans are.

And I don't really understand your rant about H&E and morphology. People have been predicting the death of H&E and morphology for many years and it's still not happening. Why? Because it's cheap, efficient, reproducible, and more standardized. Newer technologies have not replaced H&E. The closest it is coming is in pap smears and it may happen some day in thyroid FNA or urine cyto. But not yet. Newer technologies, especially in a cost-cutting age, are going to have to be proven to save money or reduce further spending down the line. Right now, it's harder to get cheaper than formalin fixation, processing, and H&E slides. Eventually something will be cheaper, but for that to happen there will have to be TONS of studies to prove the replacement technology is as effective or more so than existing methods. And it will have to be not significantly more expensive unless the benefits are significantly greater. You could take every lung biopsy and sequence the genes right now, you might learn something or make more accurate diagnoses in many cases. But in many others you wouldn't, and it would be less informative than the H&E.

I don't think most pathologists are trying to keep the past alive, they are just working in the present. You can't really act like it's already the future, you can only try to plan for it and stay educated so you are ready.

And one other thing: Part of the reason people are talking about this technology as being revolutionary actually has little to do with the technology. It's about similar prices for services, and prices that are available and transparent. Health care does NOT do this well now because of the myriad insurance rules and secretive payment schemes. Changing this to a more transparent policy would be a true revolution in health care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
But perhaps they will be able to place their machines in acute care hospitals for stat labs and in core laboratories for acute care hospitals for non-stat labs.

I just can't believe how much misogynisticsm and hatred there is for a young female that will likely turn our industry on its head.

Thats the one thing that I have learned about pathologists. They want things to remain how they were 200 years ago. H&E H&E H&E..morphology is the gold standard! **** your H&E and **** morphology. The world is changing.

You just want to marry her. Maybe you should go to Theranos' facility and pick her up like that scene in An officer and A Gentleman. I can hear the music now. "Love lift us up where we belong...." RIP Joe Cocker by the way.

I dont think people are being more critical because the CEO is a woman. The secrecy and bizarre statements by her and people on the board are causing people to get angry.

Bill Frist saying labs use 1940's technology for example. I also find it weird that many of the patient experiences I have read online involved getting a conventional blood draw. They constantly beat the drum that patients are scared of needles and this is a major cause of them not getting tested. I also don't understand why they keep acting like they are the first to have price transparency. Many labs have direct access testing menus with prices listed online.

Another trend I am noticing that will cause Theranos a world of hurt is the proliferation of occupational health clinics. The health clinics around me are being set up by a local hospitals. Many large employers in my area are doing this (factories, schools etc), impacting the local primary care docs. Guess where the lab work is going? To the hospitals who are setting these clinics up of course. In other areas it may be different, with national companies setting these clinics up, who could actually partner with Theranos. In my market, it's been local hospitals.

She sure uses her hands a lot when she speaks. Any body language experts wanna weigh in on her delivery?

http://www.healthevolutionpartners.com/a-new-day-in-diagnostics/
 
Right. They are using bad anecdotes as "proof" that lab testing in its current state is terrible and unevolved. Stuff, like,
1) Takes 5-7 days to get a lab result. Um, ok. Something routine done at our draw site can be reported within an hour most of the time. Getting results to patients usually takes so long because the results have to get to the patient's doctor, the doctor has to actually look at it, and then has to call the patient. This is changing as regulations change and test results can go right to patients.
2) "Current lab testing uses gallons of blood. You have to draw a tube for every test!" Not really. Tests have different collection requirements but you can always add on tests if the collection tube was appropriate. The fact that they can run a PT and a serum sodium off the same sample is great but if this is critical then other testing companies will figure out how to do it.
3) "People hate needles! This is much less painful!" OK, well it's still piercing the skin. It's a marginal improvement. Until you can get lab tests without drawing blood at all (there are some advances which allow you to measure glucose without a blood stick) it is only a marginal change. Very important to some people, but is that really a huge substantial part of the population? I would also suggest that the patients who really hate needles and hate blood draws are the ones who consume more health care expenditures, so allowing them to get more and easier testing isn't really a good thing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
I have been following this company for a bit and it seems the media have labeled the company and its Wunderkind CEO some marvel of modern medicine. The founder/CEO has a charming story about dropping out of Stanford and using her college money to found the company.

Now when delving deeper , just what is this company offering that hasn't been around for over a decade? Seriously, their claim is to be able to analyze a drop of blood and give accurate lab results. I am sorry but I have been using that technology for years, it's called and iStat. The only novel clinical test they have FDA approval for is a new test for HSV1, which frankly doesn't really mean much for the world at large. Now tell me again why this CEO is a tech billionaire? Seriously I want to see something amazing here because so far I can't find it. I see an over-valued company and overhyped technology.
 
Webvan was to the grocery business as
Theranos is to clinical chemistry.
 
But perhaps they will be able to place their machines in acute care hospitals for stat labs and in core laboratories for acute care hospitals for non-stat labs.

I just can't believe how much misogynisticsm and hatred there is for a young female that will likely turn our industry on its head.

Thats the one thing that I have learned about pathologists. They want things to remain how they were 200 years ago. H&E H&E H&E..morphology is the gold standard! **** your H&E and **** morphology. The world is changing.

You were right, she did turn our industry on its head...;)

I am amazed how reputable labs get shaken down like criminals by CMS, meanwhile this secretive lab was/is allowed to exist. CAP sure was quiet this whole time. Shame on the physicians stupid enough to actually refer patients there, our organizations for standing by with their thumbs up their a** and the managed care companies signing deals with them.

They need to rename their Einstein machine something else. Anyone got any ideas?
 
This is all sounding very familiar.

Someone has this tremendous machine, or process, or trading strategy that can revolutionize the world. And you can be an early investor and get a guaranteed incredible return on that investment. But of course it is so secret we can't actually let you see the machine work or explain how our process or strategy actually works.

From the man in the 1800's who invented a magnificent machine to purify sugar in seconds (fed through a secret tube from the room above), to Ponzi to Madoff, this is beginning to sound the same.

When someone is incredibly secretive about their "invention" - given that real protection comes from patents, not secrecy - and needs "big names" to ensure legitimacy, then it is time to be concerned.
 
Thats the one thing that I have learned about pathologists. They want things to remain how they were 200 years ago. H&E H&E H&E..morphology is the gold standard! **** your H&E and **** morphology. The world is changing.

This above statement is true. The resistance of the greater pathology community to adopting cutting-edge technology is embarrassing.

Theranos is most likely a pipe dream, but that's not a good reason for us to absolutely disregard any new technologies or technological possibilities that could improve, or even replace, our current ways of doing things.

Take for instance the Hololens. The possibilities are endless. Combine this with in-vivo micro, and you could have the next "gold standard".



Of course, leave it to the academic pathology community to limit their technological pursuits to obsolete and largely useless brown-stain pattern studies, with the occasional PhD-associated lab at some big university coming up with an automated molecular test that'll largely supplant any microscopy (think of what's going on with gliomas).

The question isn't if things will change; it's when will things change.
 
You were right, she did turn our industry on its head...;)

I am amazed how reputable labs get shaken down like criminals by CMS, meanwhile this secretive lab was/is allowed to exist. CAP sure was quiet this whole time. Shame on the physicians stupid enough to actually refer patients there, our organizations for standing by with their thumbs up their a** and the managed care companies signing deals with them.

They need to rename their Einstein machine something else. Anyone got any ideas?
I was giving her the benefit of the doubt. But now I'm too skeptical, while her technology may work for some tests, it probably can't be broadly applied to all outpatient lab tests. While just one example, the report that it gave a critically high values for multiple tests that were retested as normal in the hospital is concerning. But that happens sometimes with conventional lab tests too.

I also find her comments about how her testing is going to identify diagnoses earlier because people are too afraid to get conventional blood tests humorous. That's the sort of bs that only non-medical people can buy.

But still she had a good idea, just like uber or airbnb or Twitter which many people were skeptical about in the beginning. Mark Cuban had the chance to co-fund uber from the beginning, but passed because "it couldn't work". How wrong was he? He said on Colin cowherd's radio show that passing on the opportunity to invest in it was the biggest regret of his life.

My opinion as of today is that theranos is going down probably due to a lack of real lab experts in the inner circle and advising those funding it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There is no doubt technology is going to replace us. There are so many pre and post analytic errors in the way we do things now that companies like Know Error exist. It is crazy. Tissue has always been a horrible gold standard and is poised to be replaced. Pathology better be heading in an interventional direction if it wants to survive. Sitting in a reference lab many miles away from the patient is going away.

Pissed me off this reckless company was even able to get off the ground and people were praising them as revolutionary. If they had invented accurate home testing or an implantable device that delivers real time data then that would be revolutionary.
 
They were supposedly a CLIA high complexity lab, so who was their medical director? What's sad is that they probably could have had a board certified pathologist for fairly cheap. From the articles, it sounds like they had lab techs reporting to upper management with regard to PT issues, which makes no sense at all.
 
It is incredible Theranos was able to keep up the charade for as long as they did. It should be seriously studied in academia as THE modern example of the Emperor's New Clothes business plan.

I think a huge part of it was carefully shielding the technology from actual pathologists, who like Dorothy would point out the man (or woman) behind the curtain of Oz...
 
Theranos is the same as the labs we have seen pushing LDTs until the wheels finally come off, either they are shown to be a con or reimbursement dries up. Those labs were smaller scale and not as publicized. The model has been out there for a long time. Good way to make a quick buck and then disappear like a fart in the wind.

The lab industry is the wild west anymore. LDTs need oversight big time and don't say that oversight will stop innovation. It's BS.
 
All the articles say she is with 4.5 billion. If the company goes belly up will she be worth nothing or do you think she will at least walk with 100 million.
 
This is all sounding very familiar.

Someone has this tremendous machine, or process, or trading strategy that can revolutionize the world. And you can be an early investor and get a guaranteed incredible return on that investment. But of course it is so secret we can't actually let you see the machine work or explain how our process or strategy actually works.

From the man in the 1800's who invented a magnificent machine to purify sugar in seconds (fed through a secret tube from the room above), to Ponzi to Madoff, this is beginning to sound the same.

When someone is incredibly secretive about their "invention" - given that real protection comes from patents, not secrecy - and needs "big names" to ensure legitimacy, then it is time to be concerned.

If Theranos' technology was all it was cracked up to be, she would have licensed the patent and really made a fortune. But the secrecy surrounding Theranos is starting to peel back and it doesn't look so good. I forget the article showing the significant discrepancies between Theranos' tests and hospital laboratory tests on the same patient, but its amazing that they could prove their test was as good as a comparable methodology to the FDA. Then again, they were probably bought off.

I rest well for the time being with the knowledge that my clinical colleagues won't accept a Theranos result anyway.
 
One thing is for sure, Theranos is going to heat up the debate about regulating LDTs. That will be their legacy. It is now out in the public.

The industry needs to accept more regulation since companies are abusing the loophole and have been for years.

The Wall Street Journal has been a good ally for pathology, unless you love the wasteful corrupt system we have right now. Think about all the stories that have appeared on it's pages. They've had some about client billing, in-office labs and now this. They have done more to bring transparency than anyone.
 
All the articles say she is with 4.5 billion. If the company goes belly up will she be worth nothing or do you think she will at least walk with 100 million.

I am sure the goal is to attract more investors to allow for their pump and dump scheme to work. If this happens, sure, Elizabeth Holmes will walk away a very rich woman. I honestly believe (and hope) that this thing goes belly up and she walks away with zilch. It sure looks like this is the direction things are going...

I'm not sure what makes me more irate... the fact she thinks everyone is a hater and afraid of "change" or those damn turtlenecks she wears.
 
Were they really the first people to ever try doing lab testing on fingerstick blood? I feel like that can't be true. And if they aren't, then there's likely very good reasons why labs and phlebotomists still do venipuncture and not fingerstick for blood work.
 
Did anyone ACTUALLY believe for 1 min this wasnt a classic Pump-n-dump?

"I have a super duper secret technology I came up with as a UNDERGRAD at Stanford" should have been a red flag so large it would be able to be seen from the International Space Station. The fact we are TWELVE+ years after the start of Theranos and literally still have no clue what is going on here is should be a the nail in the coffin.

Everyone at Stanford knows the undergrads are pretty much total screw offs and routinely fabricate all sorts of crap in the eternal Silicon Valley quest to get rich quick and check out. Substitute "Stanford undergrad" for "Roma gypsy" and then see what SHOULD have happened to this company years and years ago...
 
Did anyone ACTUALLY believe for 1 min this wasnt a classic Pump-n-dump?

"I have a super duper secret technology I came up with as a UNDERGRAD at Stanford" should have been a red flag so large it would be able to be seen from the International Space Station. The fact we are TWELVE+ years after the start of Theranos and literally still have no clue what is going on here is should be a the nail in the coffin.

Everyone at Stanford knows the undergrads are pretty much total screw offs and routinely fabricate all sorts of crap in the eternal Silicon Valley quest to get rich quick and check out. Substitute "Stanford undergrad" for "Roma gypsy" and then see what SHOULD have happened to this company years and years ago...

Still doesn't make sense, though. This company was able to attract MAJOR investors who should be far more shrewd than that. And they're not public, so it's not like they got a lot of poor sap retail investors sucked in to milk dry. Not to mention the huge political and other names who bought in. When the company completely implodes I can't wait to hear all the insiders explain everything.
 
Still doesn't make sense, though. This company was able to attract MAJOR investors who should be far more shrewd than that. And they're not public, so it's not like they got a lot of poor sap retail investors sucked in to milk dry. Not to mention the huge political and other names who bought in. When the company completely implodes I can't wait to hear all the insiders explain everything.


Let me introduce you to a guy named Madoff. He stole from the one ethnic group that previously most considered IMPOSSIBLE to steal from...

The lesson is shrewd people in a greedy pursuit of even more gold can and will be duped. This company will absolutely implode to zero dollar value. And when the dust settles, the "technology" component here will be unveiled as one of the greatest scam of modern times.

"Disruptive tech" you say for pathology? Let me laugh more.

HOLD IT, WTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: She also assailed the Journal for quoting the widow of a Theranos researcher whom the newspaper said committed suicide in 2013 after reportedly telling his wife that the company’s technology wasn’t working.

I hadnt heard that before.The dishes are done man. The dishes are done.

ref: http://www.wired.com/2015/10/theranos-ceo-calls-wsj-a-tabloid-at-wsjs-own-conference/
 
Bill Clinton speaking with Elizabeth Holmes and Jack Ma at the annual CGI meeting (Clinton Global Initiative):



If you invested in Alibaba stock or followed the trends and storylines as of late... you'd know that this is the new holy trinity.
 
One article said they had ran 3.5 millions tests...With their low pricing, how long will it be before they burn through investor money?

Investing is gambling. We all make bad ones from time to time no matter how smart you are. Google asked tough questions and made a great decision to stay away.

I read a phlebotomist's experience working for Theranos and she said that the job is boring because there are literally no patients. Hopefully physicians will quit refering anyone to them all together now.
 
Your identity as an American is defined by your ability to place obscure movie references from the 80s and 90s. My personal defense against a modern version of Operation Greif here on US soil..2 of you passed. Excellent.

There is a follow up article in WSJ on Theranos today Oct 22 and it looks like the dishes are truly done now. Holmes admits she is doing literally only ONE test now using her "super secret dorm room magically created between beer pong games in Roble Hall" lab analyzer while the rest are being done on traditional analyzers...for get this, 45 Walgreens locations in Phoenix...for the low low price of $450,000,000 meaning at this point they have market penetration at the price tag of 100 MILLION dollars per pharmacy draw location.

To make this drama even more rich, now you have all these tech giants coming out and saying they had Theranos lab work and then went to drawn at the actual Stanford Hospital Lab and the results are TOTALLY DIFFERENT..

Better yet, since Holmes would never pass an actual proficiency test of any kind, they do some "alternate" hand waiving proficiency test for all their analytes where they dont actually compare them to any standard peer group whatsoever!! Yes, re-read that, this is insanity time now.

Lessons from this debacle:
1.) The San Fran bay area has a near limitless capacity for producing idiots with narcissistic personality disorders, move over Hollywood as there is a new king in town.
2.) Be highly suspicious when there is new tech out there but the actual professionals in that field wont go anywhere near it.
3.) The next poster who says "Disruptive Tech" in the context of Pathology or Lab Medicine, everyone bum rush and beat the snot out of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
And yet another talking about the Lab Director in Palo Alto...(they still have the job position open on Linkedin)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67c9b894-7903-11e5-a95a-27d368e1ddf7.html#ixzz3pQ3M9OlK

Separate documents show that the full-time director of Theranos’s California laboratory resigned at the end of last year.

He was replaced by Dr Sunil Dhawan, a dermatologist who practices at a clinic in Fremont, California, and who works for Theranos on a part-time basis. He is an experienced practitioner who has run large-scale clinical trials for large pharma companies, such as Allergan, the maker of Botox.

Two people in the industry said that the appointment of a dermatologist on a part-time basis to run a high-profile complex laboratory was unusual. Unlike his predecessor, Dr Dhawan is not certified by the American Board of Pathology, and devotes much of his time to his practice.

Certification by the ABP or a similar body is not a formal prerequisite for laboratory directors, although it is customary for people who run large labs. “Generally, they are certified if they are at a laboratory with an extent of high complexity testing,” said a California state official, who asked not to be named.
...

Dr Dhawan declined to comment, citing a non-disclosure agreement.

A Theranos spokesperson said that the company had a full-time, board-certified lab director who was “waiting for his California licensing to go through.”

One former employee said that the company had struggled to find a new laboratory director when Dr Dhawan’s predecessor resigned in December 2014. The person said that the company had found it difficult to retain staff at the California lab.
 
Looks like Walgreen's is a bit peeved that their in-store laboratories are the equivalent of a phlebotomist with a magic 8-ball and is reexamining the relationship with Theranos.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/walgreens-scrutinizes-theranos-testing-1445644015?alg=y

Elizabeth's damage control road-show isn't going so well. Maybe she should hire this guy:
07-minister.jpg


I wish this company was publicly traded so I could short it.
 
Walgreens needs to break ties immediately. Wonder what Cleveland Clinic has uncovered since they partnered with Theranos?

Thank you once again Wall Street Journal.
 
Top