You can see every red flag in Theranos 2.0
This article discusses the scientific limitations of blood testing technology, using the Theranos scandal as a case study for overhyped biotech claims. It explains why finger-prick blood samples are often unreliable compared to traditional venous draws.
Why it matters
It highlights the importance of scientific skepticism and due diligence when evaluating disruptive health technology startups.
This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they’re going to change your life. Opt in for Optimizer here.
From afar, it’s easy to look back at the Theranos debacle and scream at Nathan Fielder that, obviously, Elizabeth Holmes is lying in You Can See Everything. In the weeks since the movie’s release, journalists and whistleblowers alike have rushed to remind moviegoers of Holmes’ numerous documented lies. Chief among the facts: The Theranos device never worked as advertised. But Fielder’s aim with this film wasn’t relitigating Theranos. Even the most mind-bending of three-hour documentaries doesn’t have enough time to fully tackle the quagmire that was the secretive biotech startup.
Also covering this story
2 other newsrooms covered this event. We read each version separately.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in