Someone with a PhD in microbiology explained to me (a layman) why what Theranos was claiming to do was impossible. She said you cannot test only a single drop of blood for certain things because what you are looking for literally may not be there. You need a full vial of blood to have a reliable chance of finding many things.
1. Is this simple but clear explanation basically correct?
2. If so, how could Theranos hoodwink investors for so long when possibly *millions* of well-educated people around the world knew that what they were claiming to do made no sense?
In: Biology
Here’s an attempt at an oversimplified explanation related to what your friend said.
The most sensitive test for HIV can detect it at a sensitivity of about 14 viruses per ml with an input volume of 0.5 ml (note: this is insanely sensitive). Theranos claimed a comparable sensitivity, but boasted of a sample input volume of 0.02 ml. That is 1/50th of a ml.
If I split 1 ml equally into 50 tubes, but I only have 14 viruses in the original ml, then I can *at best* have 14 tubes with one virus in them. And then there will be zero viruses in the remaining 36 tubes. How will the test give an accurate result if 36/50 times, *there isn’t even a virus present to detect?*
Latest Answers