CVS-Aetna: DOJ requests additional information at deadline (updated for CVS earnings)

click to enlargeThe Canary Tweets. The sources [TTA 8 Dec] were correct that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would take the lead on reviewing the CVS-Aetna merger. Yesterday (1 Feb) they did, requesting additional information. This extends the waiting period for an additional 30 days or more.  The CVS Form 8-K (SEC), which reports the request for information, is here courtesy of Seeking Alpha.

The US law governing this is the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR). A pre-merger notification and report was filed with DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on 2 January. There’s a 30-day period for an additional information request and that was taken by the DOJ yesterday. The length of the compliance process may extend for 30 days but may be less if the request is satisfied or more if requested by the parties involved. 

CVS and Aetna still hope to complete the merger by the second half of 2018. The respective shareholder meetings are already scheduled for 20 March. Our previous coverage here.

Editor’s thoughts: CVS-Aetna, despite its size, is a relatively straightforward merger, but because of its nature and size, expect some political haymaking and delays to come. This will be a preview of the action around the Amazon-Berkshire Hathaway-JPMorgan Chase cooperative partnership, in whatever they decide to create, if they create: “there’s many a slip twixt cup and lip.”

Updated for 4th Quarter Financials: CVS is reasonably healthy and nimble. Their earnings report is positive in earnings, operating profit, and reinvestment versus prior year. Under US securities law, it’s silent on Aetna. Form 8-K and press release via Seeking Alpha.

CVS-Aetna: the canary says that DOJ likely to review merger–plus further analysis and developments

click to enlargeThe canary is still tweeting. News reports indicate that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) will be in the lead reviewing the CVS acquisition of Aetna. This should be no surprise to our Readers. This Editor’s first analysis noted regulatory necessity and earlier this week, more explicitly predicted either the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the DOJ would be reviewing.

The New York Post’s Beltway sources (for ex-US readers, it’s the mass market News Corp. paper/site) are talking up DOJ:

President Trump’s Department of Justice appears to be the agency that will review CVS Health’s $69 billion merger with Aetna, sources tell The Post. While the decision is not yet final, the move would not be good news for the merging parties, sources said. “I think they would prefer it to be at the Federal Trade Commission,” one Washington, DC, source said.

The article explains that it’s a tossup as to bailiwicks–FTC reviews retail and drugstore mergers, DOJ insurance mergers. A sound but (by CVS) unwelcome reason for DOJ to review the merger is their familiarity with Aetna after DOJ opposing its failed merger with Humana in Federal court less than a year in the past. Their expertise would be wasted and politically, a cup that FTC would wish to pass inasmuch they are also short on commissioners.

As the Third Century Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus stated, ‘The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small’ (or ‘exceeding fine’ in more modern citations), which means that justice, at least in the Federal definition, will be served eventually.

  • The Trump Administration has let DOJ question the AT&T/Time Warner merger on antitrust reasons up, down, and sideways, to the point where it is nearly derailed. Much the same can be expected here.
  • The businesses create a new type of healthcare system. Expect HHS to have a say.
  • Congress is already demanding hearings, which given the short time to Christmas break will likely be January. 
  • What may help Aetna’s cause is that the merger with Humana was a friendly one; the decision, at least in the press, was accepted with grace. 

But as wags have said for at least two centuries, you can always tell the pioneers by the arrows in their back. When you’re redesigning the Conestoga Wagons, it has to be expected–which is why the experts gathering here in NYC over the past week have had not much to say about it to date.

Certainly it has been a downer for investment pickers, though both companies had significant profitability challenges facing them in the future. We refer here to several articles in Seeking Alpha where it’s predicted that the acquisition will boost CVS’ growth, but saddle it with huge debt: $45B in new debt, $21B in new equity, plus using $4B in available cash. Are they overpaying? Will it reduce internal cost and boost profitability? Will it do what they say they’ll do, which is to bend the cost curve down by start-to-finish engagement with customers? What pieces are missing? And time is a critical factor–how long this will take to realize is not projected. If you like stock and value charts and graphs, here’s the place. Seeking Alpha (by author): Ciura, Arnold, Ward

Other retailers will have their say. We’ve noted earlier that the vast supermarkets like Publix, Wegmans, Shop Rite or Ahold (Stop & Shop, Giant) are likely looking at opportunities with logical alliances or buy-ins to insurers like Oscar, Clover, Bright Health, or the smaller Blues. Target is already allied with CVS for their in-store drugstores. And then there is retail/online giant Walmart. The Wal-Martians need plenty of healthcare and Humana, based on local Louisville-area reports, is in play after not merging with Aetna.

Looming over all this is Amazon. A little-noticed report in Becker’s from July indicated that their 1492 unit has set about extracting data from legacy EHRs and to build a telehealth platform on Amazon hardware such as Echo. Already noted has been their buying of pharmacy licenses in various states. None of which can make any of the usual healthcare suspects happy.

The Theranos Story, ch. 44: Walgreens settles lawsuit, cash box empties further

click to enlargeWalgreens realizes Theranos’ funds are not bottomless. Confirming the June Wall Street Journal report [TTA 26 June] that Theranos had advised its investors of a negotiated settlement with Walgreens Boots Alliance, Tuesday’s announcement offered few specifics. According to the Theranos release, the settlement resolves all claims by Walgreens and dismisses the lawsuit, with no finding or implication of liability. Terms were not formally disclosed, but sources told the WSJ (FoxBusiness) that the settlement was over $25 million. In June, it was estimated to be less than $30 million, so the over/under wasn’t very wide. Payment timing was not disclosed.

As we noted in June, Walgreens had invested an estimated $140 million between direct funding (a $40 million loan convertible into equity), and an “innovation fund’ designed to fund the store location rollout. The lawsuit filed last November was intended to recoup that amount. The thorn that Walgreens and its attorneys grasped was that even with insurance, there was not $140 million left in Theranos and nothing of equivalent non-cash interest. As a public company, certainly the realization that putting $25 million on the books this year was better than nothing. It is also likely that $110+ million has already been written off.

Not much left in Theranos’ till, other than some dollar bills and coins. In June, Theranos disclosed that their cash on hand was $54 million with a monthly burn of $10 million, leaving as of today $44 million. Even if the Walgreens settlement is covered 100 percent by insurance, at best Theranos has about four months of life–if nothing extraordinary happens. There are also ongoing SEC and DOJ investigations, plus the Colman/Taubman-Dye suit in California, which may result in more fines and settlements.

While Theranos makes much of its new management structure and commercializing new technologies (of which there is no word), there are no signs that beyond recapitalization earlier this year that there is fresh investment. Reports indicate they are trying, at long last, to exit real estate they no longer need–subleasing their expansive (and expensive) Palo Alto headquarters and relocating to their former lab in an industrial park in less tony Newark, California. As this Editor concluded in June, it is increasingly difficult to see a future for Theranos without Chapters 11 or 7 in it. It is rapidly arriving at a familiar place for startups, but not former Unicorns: Flat Brokedom.

Meanwhile, Walgreens Boots Alliance, barely dented in the exchequer, has closed on a $1.4 bn joint investment with KKR for institutional pharmacy company PharMerica. Drug Store News

The Theranos Story, ch. 43: Walgreens settles, $54 M in cash draining away

click to enlargeWhile your Editor was on leave last week, it appears that Theranos may have grasped the thorn of Walgreens Boots Alliance’s lawsuit and settled. The Wall Street Journal (subscriber access only, largely reported on Fox Business) reported that Theranos told investors of a tentative settlement with Walgreens for less than $30 million. 

Walgreens’ lawsuit, filed last year, was intended to recoup their $140 million investment in the company and store location payments. It surprised many observers that Walgreens would be content with 21 cents returned for every dollar of its investment, but since the original contribution took place over several years from 2010, much of this has likely been written down on Walgreens’ books as adjustments for bad debt. 

But this seeming win for Theranos further rips the veil off their dire financial situation. Theranos also told investors recently that it is down to $54 million in cash, according to the WSJ/Fox Business. This is much reduced from their last report of $150 million in March [ch. 41]. With a monthly burn of $10 million a month, this would leave $120-130 million if the March estimate was correct. Part of the settlements, including Walgreens, may be covered by insurance policies. However, what has transpired since then may further account for the discrepancy.

  • In May, Theranos settled with Partner Fund Management (PFM) for an undisclosed amount which WSJ sources estimated at $40-50 million. They sought to claw back their $96 million investment. (more…)

Breaking-The Theranos Story, ch. 41: settling, not fighting, with Partners Fund on fraud

click to enlargeBreaking News and Updated. Settled–but not settled? Theranos’ May Day celebration was an announcement of a settlement with investor Partner Fund Management (PFM) LP on their two lawsuits alleging investor fraud. PFM’s funds had invested $96.1 million in Theranos’ February 2014 funding round. The amount and terms of the settlement were, as usual, not disclosed.

PFM’s original filing in Delaware Chancery Court in October claiming fraud on various representations that Theranos had made, such as 98 percent reliability on its small sample Edison labs. The second filing in April [Ch. 40] temporarily blocked Theranos’ added equity offer to investors, an offer which had the important condition of blocking further legal action once accepted [Ch. 38]. PFM had powerful and damaging evidence on its side from 22 deposed former employees and directors to bolster its allegations of investor fraud, which was revealed in snippets from unsealed documents last week.

This settlement, according to reports, ends both court actions and permits Theranos to continue their equity offer to investors. According to Theranos, 99 percent of investors were willing to accept it, which neatly heads off additional legal actions. The offer to C-1 and C-2 investors expires 15 May. Theranos release.

Yet the depositions obtained in this case appear to have taken on a life of their own. Digging down into the WSJ report (not yet paywalled if you go in through the ‘What people are talking about’ right-hand sidebar on LinkedIn, or if you have a subscription) is the interesting tidbit that “Federal investigators have obtained depositions taken in the Partner Fund litigation, including those of former Theranos employees and directors, according to a person familiar with the matter.” The WSJ also filed to have the depositions unsealed on Monday (1 May), which an outside entity can request under the rules of the Delaware Chancery Court even after a case is closed.

Despite settlements with PFM, the state of Arizona, and CMS, Theranos still faces a live investigation from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department (DOJ). There are also major lawsuits from Walgreens Boots seeking to recoup its $140 million investment (and remove the egg on their corporate face) and the Colman/Taubman-Dye suit in California. The latter action has the potential to become a much larger lawsuit, as the US District Court in Northern California has requested a show-cause from the plaintiffs on including third-party sellers (Lucas Venture Group, Celadon Technology Fund, SharePost) as defendants. It also personally charges Elizabeth Holmes and former CEO Ramesh ‘Sunny’ Balwani (ch. 39).

Time and money are running out–and with a Federal investigation in the mix, the future of Theranos still resembles our picture above.

  • In March, Theranos reported $150 million in cash holdings. With another settlement, how much is left in the bank?
  • That equity offer, expiring in two weeks, may be a moot maneuver. After investors do the math and look at the calendar, they may decide that legal action may be a better way of capturing whatever’s left, before it’s all gone or tied up in Chapter 11. Perhaps PFM is smart indeed in moving to settle early.
  • Federal investigations usually do not end happily, unless you are Mayor De Blasio of NYC. Who knows what high-powered maneuvering is going on behind the scenes to prevent Ms. Holmes’ black turtleneck from becoming orange? And where in the world is co-defendant ‘Sunny’ Balwani?

Additional coverage: TechCrunch, Bloomberg  Our index of Theranos coverage is here.

The Theranos Story, ch. 28: when the SecDef nominee is on the Board of Directors

click to enlargeDoes ‘Mad Dog’ ‘Warrior Monk’ James Mattis, General, USMC (ret.) have a blind spot when it comes to Theranos? President-Elect Donald J. Trump has selected him as the next Administration’s nominee for Secretary of Defense. A remarkable leader and, yes, scholar (check his background in various sources), but he has some ‘splaining to do, in this Editor’s opinion.

This Editor leads with this question because those who have been following the Continuing Saga (which, like the Nordics, seems never-ending) know that Theranos stuffed its Board of Directors (BOD), prior to last October, with a selection of Washington Luminaries, often of a great age: Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sen. Sam Nunn, Sen. Bill Frist (the only one with an MD), William Perry and Gary Roughead, a retired U.S. Navy admiral. It also reads like a roster of Hoover Institution Fellows except for Sen. Frist, who sticks to the East Coast. Another interesting point: Hoover is based at Stanford University, an institution from which Elizabeth Holmes dropped out to Follow Her Vision. Obviously, there was an accompanying Vision of Washington Pull.

Also joining the BOD as of July 2013, well before The Troubles, and shortly after his retirement, was Gen. Jim Mattis (also a Hoover Fellow, photo above). When the Washington Luminaries were shuffled off to a ‘board of counselors’ after the Wall Street Journal exposé hit in October, Gen. Mattis remained on the governing BOD. Unlike his fellow Fellows, he had actually been involved with a potential deployment of the lab testing equipment. As we previously noted, as commandant of US Central Command (CENTCOM is Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia), he advocated tests of the Theranos labs under in-theatre medicine conditions in 2012-13. Leaked emails cited by the Washington Post (in Gizmodo) and also in the Wall Street Journal indicate the opposition from the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at health-intensive Fort Detrick MD, which oversees medical research, based on the undeniable fact that the equipment and the tests weren’t FDA-cleared, which remained true two years later…and which Gen. Mattis tried to get around, being a good Marine. Nonetheless, the procurement of Theranos equipment was halted. DOD permitted him to join the BOD after retirement as long as he was not involved in any representations to DOD or the services. (Wikipedia bio)

Yesterday, Theranos also announced that it is dissolving (draining?) the ‘board of counselors’. They led with a BOD shuffle, with Daniel J. Warmenhoven, retired chairman of NetApp, replacing director Riley P. Bechtel, who is withdrawing for health reasons. (Warmenhoven also serves on the Bechtel board, so they are keeping an eye on the estimated $100 million they invested). Gizmodo and Inc. While effective January 1, the Theranos website has already scrubbed the counselors and updated the BOD.

However, Gen. Mattis remains a director, until such time as he actually becomes Secretary of Defense, which is not a lock for Senate approval by a long shot. First, he requires a Congressionally approved waiver demanded by the National Security Act of 1947, as he has been retired only four years (as of 2017) not the required seven. Second, his involvement with Theranos has already been questioned in the media. After all, it is a Federal Poster Child of Silicon Valley Bad Behavior: censured by CMS, under investigation by SEC and DOJ. It is a handy, easily understandable club with which to beat him bloody (sic). WSJ’s wrapup.

In this Editor’s opinion, the good General should have left in October, but certainly by April when CMS laid the sanctions down, banning Ms Holmes and Mr Balwani from running labs for two years in July. What is going on in the ‘Warrior Monk’s’ mind in sticking around? Is there anything to save? 

If the WSJ articles are paywalled, search on ‘Gen. James Mattis Has Ties to Theranos’ and ‘Recent Retirement, Theranos Ties Pose Possible Obstacles for Mattis Confirmation’.  Oh yes…see here for the 27 previous TTA chapters in this Continuing, Consistently Amazing Saga.

The Theranos Story, ch. 22: the human cost of lab error (updated)

click to enlargeSave this one for the coffee or lunch break. What is the cost of a lab error on the human psyche? It can be mildly upsetting to you and your doctor, warning of a developing condition and some changes have to be made–or make for a very bad day/week/months. It can be falsely reassuring or simply confusing.

We know that in April, Theranos flunked a CMS review, and in May voided all test results from its proprietary Edison devices from 2014 and 2015, as well as some other tests it ran on conventional machines. The results were not only off, but way off, according to the WSJ. “Notes from the CMS inspection show that 834 out of 2,890 quality-control checks run on the Edison in October 2014, or 29%, exceeded the company’s threshold of two standard deviations from its average result. Standard deviation is a statistical measurement of variation. In addition, 80% of the 834 quality-control checks that raised a red flag under Theranos’s internal standards were more than three standard deviations from its average result, the inspection notes show.”

They also failed to notify patients for weeks or months, and often not until forced to. At least 10 lawsuits have been filed in Arizona and California. Some of the human stories of Theranos’ improbable lab results, which included tens of thousands of patients, with the cost of retesting, repeated doctor visits and agonizing suspense :

  • After five widely different Theranos blood coagulation tests in six weeks, a retired marketer living in Arizona and his doctor so distrusted the results that the latter recommended that he stop taking warfarin and switch to a milder medication. This patient found out only last Friday that Theranos had corrected a September 2015 test showing his blood taking more than six times longer than normal to clot. The other four tests showed the warfarin wasn’t thinning his blood enough. Contradictory results confusing both doctor and patient on treatment.
  • A thyroid cancer survivor got thyroxine results (T4) from three tests conducted in October 2014. The extremely high results could have indicated hyperthyroidism at the least, or a more serious condition. The results–false after retesting failed to confirm.
  • A breast cancer survivor had extremely high levels of estradiol, which could have been produced by a rare adrenal tumor that can secrete estradiol or an elevated risk of breast-cancer recurrence. Again, false results but found only after retesting.

The comments under the article are worth the long scroll. (They are running 98 percent in favor of Holmes for Prison 2017. Also there are a few shots at Walgreens’ role in legitimatizing Theranos by putting their centers in store; this embarrassing part of the story isn’t over, in this Editor’s opinion.) What is evident–fraud perpetrated on patients and doctors–and anyone who invested. David Boies, their legal supremo and board member, is gonna have a full docket between this and the various legal actions taken by the Alphabet Agencies.

Agony, Alarm and Anger for People Hurt by Theranos’s Botched Blood Tests. If the WSJ is paywalled, search under the headline text.

See here for the agony of TTA’s 21 previous Theranos chapters. We hope that John Carreyrou and the WSJ investigative team, which we’d assume includes Mr Weaver, this article’s author, are awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

The Theranos story, ch. 17: closing the barn door after the horse

click to enlarge And it may work, though the horse is in the next county. Late last week, with American eyes elsewhere, Theranos announced that they hired two executives with regulatory responsibility–a chief compliance officer and an VP regulatory and quality–and formed a new board committee focused on same. The CCO is Dave Guggenheim, the former assistant general counsel for regulatory law at HIT/medical distribution giant McKesson. The VP, Daniel Wurtz, comes from a similar senior director position at biotech Thermo-Fisher Scientific.

The country maxim, ‘closing the barn door after the horse has bolted’, applies. In fact, the horse is in town and having a growler of beer at the local tavern. The Newark, California lab is shut and the principals, including the CEO Ms Holmes, are technically prohibited from operating a lab for at least two years (that means you, Ms Holmes) starting in a month. Messrs Guggenheim and Wurtz (or similar) should have been on board years ago. Even small companies in our field realize they HAVE to do this!

This also doesn’t affect the interesting interest that DOJ and SEC have in Theranos. [TTA 10 July]

However, this Editor will take the contrarian view that somehow, some way, the ‘fix’ is being worked out, if not in. Don’t make reservations for the fire sale quite yet. The ban on Ms Holmes won’t take place for another month, minimum. That gives time for David Boies, their legal supremo, and his firm to stall for more time, and time for some calls to ask favors from friends, of which he has many in this administration. More than likely, Boies on behalf of Theranos will appeal the CMS rulings to an administrative judge. Ms Holmes may take the hit, but may get a handsome payday to depart despite her reported control, if the investors can salvage something out of the company.

At HQ, they may be rehearsing saying ‘mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa’ three times, kneeling deeply, in preparation to Going Forth And Sinning No More.

The Object Lessons taught by the Theranos Troubles, to us in healthcare tech, continue.

WSJTheranos Hires Compliance, Regulatory Executives  (more…)

More reflections on, significance of the Theranos quagmire (updated)

click to enlargeTheranos’ spin towards the Auger In continues. Truth or Consequences are apparent. So are setbacks.

Wired has put together a timeline of the key events in The 9 Events That Have Pretty Much Doomed Theranos, most of which our Readers in following our coverage (index here from 2013) are already familiar with. One interesting point is #7, which touches on another gift to the legal profession–the class action lawsuit. Eight lawsuits are already in process, and at least one names former partner Walgreens Boots.

SEC and DOJ’s interest. The SEC, limited in its action because Theranos got big without going public (see below for more), is likely seeking misrepresentation of technology to investors–as in, ‘it really didn’t work’. Penalties may include repayment or settlements to investors and barring principals from ever leading a public company. The DOJ will likely focus on consumer impact. Knowing that your blood tests are inaccurate but continuing to sell them violates all sorts of Federal health regulations, and can earn the principals orange mock turtlenecks and a long stay in a place with iron bars, pesky regulations and no choice of wardrobe. Sadly, Theranos’ legal counsel and board member David Boies won’t have a chance to unleash one of his favorite intimidation weapons, the libel lawsuit. Instead, he’ll be uncomfortably playing defense (but for how long?) Give the man a crying towel, and remind him to bill in advance. Wired (from April)

*Updated: Here’s the CMS letter, courtesy of the WSJ. (If John Carreyrou doesn’t receive a Pulitzer Prize, the fix is in!–Ed.)

The market demonstrated inefficiency in allowing companies like Theranos to get big without going public. You cannot short or sell the stock (a negative ‘opinion’) which demonstrates that investor-backed Unicorns represent ‘incomplete markets,’ according to Robert Shiller’s Efficient Markets Hypothesis. Of course, before going public, the SEC would have demanded disclosure–another reason why Theranos (and possibly other Unicorns) aren’t. Forbes.

‘Theranos has probably set back the tremendously promising field of microfluidics by a decade.’ An investor who was rooting for Theranos (but didn’t invest) recounts the dodgy behavior of entrepreneurs from eToys.com to Tesla. ‘Hype is what entrepreneurs do best’; fabbed-up PowerPoint decks are par for the course. “Sadly, the journey from charisma to coercion to lying is quick and often complete.” Ms Holmes, you have a lot of company. When Startups Put The Fab in Fabricate. (WSJ; if paywalled, PDF attached)

Where do we go from here? We’ll close with advice to startups in biotech and medical innovation: pace thyself, know thyself. What’s needed: an internal culture amenable to science–and external regulation–and knowing when to apply the brakes to prevent slamming into The Wall Marked Failure. (Mentioned is a useful tool called a pre-mortem) Wired

Theranos denouement: CMS closes lab, fine, 2-year ban on Holmes (breaking)

click to enlargeBreaking News. Theranos has been slapped very soundly by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for violations arising from operations at their Newark, California laboratory. The fine is not disclosed. CMS has revoked the lab’s certificate and also prohibits the owners and operators of the lab from operating a lab for at least two years. That means that Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO, her management and anyone immediately involved with the Newark lab is effectively out of a job.

As the Theranos press release was issued well after hours Thursday night US Eastern Time, there’s no mention of the board actually removing her, but that is another shoe that this Editor expects to drop sooner, not later. COO Sunny Balwani was removed in May [TTA 19 May] Who is not tainted who can actually run the company? Is there a capable person in the industry who wants to touch it? As has been revealed, Ms Holmes still controls the company [TTA 27 Apr].

The revocation will be in effect in 60 days, according to the Wall Street Journal*, but the Newark lab has been closed. There is no mention of the Palo Alto lab which was also under scrutiny [TTA 20 Apr].

The details appear to be lifted or nearly lifted from the CMS order, and are quoted directly from the Theranos release: (more…)

Theranos–the drama and examination continues

The latest chapters:

Theranos’ boards–the advisory board chock full of Blast From The Past political figures like George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Bill Frist and Henry Kissinger–and a governing board–are standing by CEO/founder Elizabeth Holmes. Of course, they have essentially no choice, because Ms Holmes utterly and completely controls the company in the Silicon Valley Manner. The governing board, split off from the advisory board after The Troubles started last October–consists of Ms. Holmes, COO Sunny Balwani, Riley Bechtel of the eponymous construction firm, retired Marine Corps General James “Warrior Monk” Mattis and David Boies, prominently featured in both articles below. Mr Boies is politically well wired and the kind of attorney you call in when you are facing Big Trouble and need Big Defense–or Offense. These boards of course bear responsibility for the governance of the company, including fiduciary, and the actions being taken by CMS, the US Attorney’s office in San Francisco and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may be making for some sleepless nights. New York Times, Vanity Fair (which overlaps the NYT article)

Trust But Verify is the extraordinarily apt ‘eyebrow’ on this ‘rise and fall’ Quartz article reviewing l’affaire Theranos by a professor of medicine at Dartmouth College. For the non-scientists among us, it gives a layman’s explanation on why venous blood for most tests is needed versus fingerpricks (the latter mixes blood and tissue fluid, and doesn’t accurately measure large molecules such as proteins and lipids–but fine for the smaller blood glucose molecules, as testing diabetics know). It also touches on the Icahn Institute/Mount Sinai study [TTA 26 April, see comment] and points to the Smoking Gun of boards largely not constituted of those with medical or biochemical expertise.

Update: Bloomberg explores a POV in an opinion piece that blood tests are inherently variable, and only one factor in a proper diagnosis. Theranos’ promises to run multiple blood tests on a tiny quantity of blood are not only suspect but also that the “assumption that succeeding in this quest would improve public health” is specious indeed. Theranos and the Blood Testing Delusion

The stakes are high, and getting higher, for Ms Holmes, indeed.

[Ed. Donna’s comment below our earlier article, Theranos’ triple whammy: CMS, DOJ and SEC, addresses some concerns our Readers may have about our coverage. While we are a website interpreting the news and the Editors generally refer to multiple published sources in an article to supply various points of view, we also express our opinions. We try our level best to be fair, to stay in good humor and buttress our points. When you the Reader has a point to add, differs with our interpretation, or believes that your Editors are hanging too far out on that swaying limb, please feel free to comment. We do have a Comments policy which isn’t onerous…it’s posted here.]