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
Your someone got the gist. Small sample size -> increased variance.
I remember when there was buzz about this. I’ve worked in biotech for years and began searching pubmed looking for novel microfluidics and high sensitivity breakthroughs across a variety of assyays. Needless say nothing jumped out and I thought it sounded pretty dodgy w/o knowing shit about Holmes.
Latest Answers