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
I’m going to take a different direction than the rest of the commenters and disagree with your friend.
At the time, without knowing how Theranos was accomplishing what they were suggesting (obviously with hindsight, it’s because they were lying), nothing of what they were suggesting was hypothetically impossible. What if they had discovered a new version of luciferase with 100x sensitivity? Wouldn’t that mean they could run the test with 100x less blood? Or what if they used a combination of modern high-precision liquid handling and modern optics for better resolution?
To your friend’s point, there could be the issue of volume, but there are ways around that as well. You could test for secondary effects of the disease, or you could simply not guarantee the results of that particular test. Imagine you’re sitting at your doctor’s office: they listen to your heart, look in your ears, take a prick of blood to send to general screening, and, oh… one of your enzymes is slightly off. Here, go get the actual blood test later today so we can know more. It’s a great idea. The problem was people gave them a reasonable benefit of the doubt, but I’d argue the fault of dishonesty lies with the liar, not the listener. People just weren’t expecting conspiracy levels of lying, deceit, and secrecy.
Latest Answers