Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty
by buzzdenver on Monday January 03, 2022 @08:38PM
(#29789999)
Wasn't Theranos' claim that they could do tests from much less blood? So how could the results be accurate if they presumably didn't have enough samples?
They were often doing full blood draws, not finger pricks.
During the purported early use of their technology, they were also taking full-size blood draws for "validation" against existing machines, i.e. the results were actually from off-the-shelf full-sample-size machines.
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty
by ClumsyPilot on Monday January 03, 2022 @10:06PM
(#29790792)
"test results where in general correctish"
"we gave you treatmemt for wrong type of cancer, close enought!"
Re:Elizabeth Holmes found guilty
by rossdavidh on Monday January 03, 2022 @09:15PM
(#29790365)
If Theranos still existed as a company, some of their results were bogus enough that they probably could get sued (IANAL). But Theranos doesn't exist any more.
>> test results where in general correctish, they where just not gotten in exactly the way it was claimed, which was also not noticable less reliable or anything.
Guess they just answered the question of "If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?".
> test results where in general correctish
They diluted the blood. They couldn't possibly be correct.
I might also have gotten the wrong information.
The maybe not right information I got was:
During the trial phase they get full sized blood samples + finger prick to do cross validation.
The results they send back where "from the validation" as it was basically the only test done.
Because und test results where in general correctish, they where just not gotten in exactly the way it was claimed, which was also not noticable less reliable or anything.
And what the user bought was the test result.
As far as I understood, with my very limited understanding of US law it seems hard to sue as a consumer as you where deceived but not hurt/damaged in any way.