Could you elaborate on why? My expertise is limited to an EMT certification that expired half a decade ago, but isn't obvious to me why this would be the case.
Blood is constantly circulating, and even a veinous blood drawn doesn't remove an appreciable amount of blood compared to the total flow.
When a you stick a needle in a persons arm you often trigger a flight-or-flight repsponse. It's actually fairly similar if you prick their finger. The problem with this study is that one was done after or before the other. It depends what you look for, but for example white blood count (which was tested) would/should change subtly after a blood draw.
The amount can vary (or not vary) depending on the person. For example, when I get my blood drawn my arm swells, it's not actually that I am allergic, but my body reacts in said way.
Regardless, my only comment was that the study seemed to be on somewhat shaky footing.
[1] http://www.frhg.org/documents/Lab_Manuals/Blood-Collection-A...
Interesting. What mechanism or phenomenon are you proposing would be happening? Why do you think sampling order has more influence than the sample method (venipuncture v. finger prick)?
> Further, when the baseline (i.e. other labs) also have varying results, its fair to call into question the whole study.
Why? That's an expected outcome when dealing with multiple testing labs.
Furthermore, it's hard to imagine how results could be dramatically altered. How would having a previous finger prick blood test for say glucose level, cholesterol, triglycerides, blood count (CBC), calcium levels, blood urea levels, or the presence of antibodies possibly change the results of a subsequent test?
Although I have my doubts Theranos blood tests are as acurate, I feel the study was pretty flawed.