> Theranos does stand for well thought-out and useful therapy and diagnosis and does not represent the harms suggested by another similar Greek word, thanatos (death).
This is gold. Yesterday Theranos just voided its two years of testing results by its Edison.
Their product is scientific. It's not just a health app or some nutriment recommendation which can be claimed successful without any scientific claims to back it.
Theranos has a very a scientific product with a binary output and so it's claims will stand up to that (i.e. being approved by passing a number of tests)
My lesson was for those who wanted to change the world via healthcare, not those who wanted to get rich.
> The difference between Theranos and OpenAI is the later has created a product which, while imperfect, does something.
I didn’t think it was a fair comparison at first either, but based on this standard it actually might be. Theranos absolutely made something. It had a device that took blood and gave back results. The fraud was that the results were “imperfect”.
I'm sceptical generally of Theranos, but none of this feels in the least bit like a smoking gun. Wouldn't you expect feedback like that for a truly revolutionary product? There's no claim of fraud, there's no claim their technology doesn't work, just complaints about technicalities. Am I wrong?
This is gold. Yesterday Theranos just voided its two years of testing results by its Edison.
reply