Unspinning the Theranos scientific advisory board communications spin

April 9, 2016 | by | 1 Comment

[grow_thumb image=”https://telecareaware.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Yak_52__G-CBSS_FLAT_SPIN.jpg” thumb_width=”150″ /]Spinning oh so flatly…..As reported in MedCityNews (and here) yesterday, Theranos has made a Radio City Rockettes-showy move in opening at least part of its scientific books to a prestigious group of eight academic researchers from top-flight institutions. The Theranos press release is a masterpiece of positive spin to counter the negative results of the CMS report released last Thursday. However, when the fine-spun web is picked apart by Matthew Herper, a staff reporter for Forbes, it embarrassingly falls apart. The clues are all there, of course, in the elided language, the lack of specificity on numbers, the over-the-top quotes from the CEO and one of the advisory board members….

Upon interviewing three members of the scientific and medical advisory board, the glowing statement of Dr Helfet–who had been a co-chair of Theranos’ existing scientific board–was revealed as not quite accurate in the impression it gave.

  • The full advisory board has not met as a group yet. The impression was given in the release that they did.
  • They were split into three groups, each spending about a day at the Palo Alto HQ “viewing data shown to them by the company about its blood tests, examining Theranos’ Edison machines, and asking questions”. They did not visit any working labs, including the two under CMS fire.
  • Drs Ladenson and Spitalnik thought that what they saw looked “promising” and “intriguing” but would not answer questions on whether Theranos’ devices were ready to be used. Eight hours for Dr Spitalnik was, as he stated, was enough to whet the appetite, but not more than that.

It remains that Theranos has not published one peer-reviewed study, despite promises, promises. The company leadership took in a lot of investor money, gained a $9 billion valuation, got Safeway and Walgreens as partners (now rescinded)–never proving that Theranos’ tests would do what they said they would do. Besides being the bottom line and the one proposition that must be proved, they potentially endangered trusting patients in Arizona and California. And gave a black eye and probably a broken nose to innovation in and consumer access to lab testing.

At least the Yak-52 aerobatic aircraft and its pilot are in a planned, recoverable flat spin. Nothing about Theranos’ spin can be. Forbes

Theranos/FDA update: nanotainers are ‘uncleared medical devices’

October 29, 2015 | by

And the battering of their USP continues. On the heels of Walgreens Boots Alliance (which this week proposed a merger with #3 Rite Aid to create the largest by location US drugstore chain) putting a screeching halt on expanding its 41 Theranos testing locations, the FDA has told Theranos that its nanotainers are actually ‘uncleared medical devices’ which further violate because they are being shipped over state lines. The company was also scored on handling complaints poorly, keeping poor records and failing to conduct quality audits including on the manufacture of the nanotainers. These were revealed on redacted FDA Form 483s filed as a result of a month-long inspection ending in mid-September, which were published per a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to MedCityNews, the nanotainers were mistakenly classified as Class I and not II. Fortune quotes one of the reports: “The design was not validated under actual or simulated use conditions,” (more…)

Blood is drawn: Theranos responds vigorously to TTA re WSJ

October 22, 2015 | by

From his very first interactions with Theranos, the reporter made abundantly clear that he considered Theranos to be a target to be taken down, and not simply the subject of an objective news story. The articles that appeared last week are the inevitable product of that approach.–Theranos Facts, 22 Oct

Breaking news. Blood is drawn. A spokesperson for Theranos (from FTI Consulting), Ms Shea Maney, has responded directly to this Editor regarding the content of the Wall Street Journal article, previously covered here (The $9 billion question mark) along with followup in primarily Fortune but also commentary in the Health Care Blog. Her note to me (which undoubtedly has gone to other press) is reprinted below in its entirety, save the standard closing line:

We read your coverage of Theranos with interest, and noticed you were particularly interested in accuracy and our finger-stick tests, among other themes. There have been a lot of inaccuracies in the coverage of these topics, which is why we have posted detailed information on our technology, accuracy, and conversations with The Wall Street Journal on our website: https://www.theranos.com/news/posts/custom/theranos-facts

On accuracy: Theranos’ technology is reviewed by regulators, proven in the field, and praised by leaders in the industry and doctors and individuals that we serve. We are confident in the reliability of our tests, because we have validated their accuracy. (more…)