[SilasX]

No knowledge of the biotech, but this is really shady. Above-board companies simply do not look like this.

1) Refusal to use the ground-breaking technology:

>Then I asked about what Theranos calls “nanotainers” or tiny vials that can give you test results with a single drop of blood.

>“Oh you have to order that separately,” she informed me. “We take those intravenously if you bundle a bunch of tests together.”

>[...]I then informed them I was a journalist and would like to take the test separately to test the technology. They told me I would still need to order it separately.

2) Sudden delays and bizarre excuses when you insist on using their ground-breaking technology and identify as a journalist:

> So I went to order it separately.

>That’s when things got weird. It took much longer to process this separate order at the counter. I was told it was because they had to manually type in my order on the other end.

>[...]I spoke with Chris, the Theranos manager, on the phone who informed me it was about supplies. Okay, but the people with the supplies to administer [the] test thought I could take it until management said they could not that day.

3) Extreme concern with following a central PR script when people ask questions:

>Then I walked myself back to the testing center and could overhear one of the women on the phone with management in a panicked voice telling them I was a journalist doing an investigative piece (I wasn’t, just curious as to how it worked).

4) Scouts that are instructed to alert central command whenever people start asking questions (edit: especially when that was during a patient consultation):

>I reached out to Theranos head of communications Brooke Buchanan for an explanation as well. She’d already been informed I was in the store today.

5) Insistence that you check only specific cases of their product:

> I was asked why I chose not to go to the Theranos main office in Palo Alto for a test instead [of the Walgreen's location the author went to].

Also -- just a personal observation -- the use of the phrase "at this time" strongly correlates with how badly someone wants you to stop asking questions (police officers citing you, HR employees with bad news, PR spokespeople in a bind, etc).

[Animats]

"Scouts that are instructed to alert central command whenever people start asking questions, especially when that was during a patient consultation."

That's a HIPPA violation.[1]

The article author asks others to write to her about their experiences with Theranos "nanotainer" tests.

[1] https://www.hipaa.com/the-reality-of-hipaa-violations-and-en...

[drcode]

I agree it's shady, but it might not be a HIPAA violation- The lab company hierarchy has a valid "need to know" about lab tests being performed under their responsibility in order to do their jobs correctly.

[SilasX]

The head of communications has a need to know the name, occupation, and tests requested by everyone who comes in?

[icegreentea]

Man, obviously they didn't do that. The reporter talked to the remote manager of the site, and also openly told the manager that he was a reporter (or at least openly told the on-site employee who told the manager). Honestly, I fully expect press interactions to escalate pretty quickly, especially in a company in 'oh shit' PR mode.

[SilasX]

Sorry, let me clarify.

I'm not saying they were automatically relaying name/job/tests-requested of everyone coming in. I was just bringing that up as the level of "need to know" that the hierarchy would need to have in order to automatically have access to the key details in the story.

Second, I agree that the conversation with the manager is fair game (or at least, not a HIPAA violation) to relay to the head of communications.

Nevertheless, look what happened: the HoC (Buchanan) was pre-emptively given at least the information that Buhr went to the clinic (not simply that she spoke to a manager). That is itself borderline.

But Buchanan was probably also informed that she asked about the specific test in question. That sounds very much like a HIPAA violation, just as it would be if you released to the Quest Labs head of PR that so-and-so asked for an HIV test.

[icegreentea]

I think you're being a bit too harsh.. or at least your getting distracted by all the wrong stuff.

None of this interaction really screams shady to me, just defensive actions by a company facing shitty PR. Some crap went down, and they're pulling back all their feelers and trying to maintain some degree of control.

The REAL shady parts of Theranos is all their other shit with their dealings with the FDA, the questionable effectiveness of their testing, their insane board of directors, and the what not.

All this piece shows is the Theranos is panicking (and panicking has nothing to do with how above board you are).

[SilasX]

I agree that those other things are stronger evidence, but I think the stuff I cited is still a significant, independent strike against Theranos.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in a negative PR storm, isn't it a godsend when people (especially journalists) are actually trying out your product for themselves rather than joining the bandwagon based on innuendo? Why would they be turning away people from trying the one technology they (still) hype the heck out of on their website?

And why would the communications director be getting names of patients (point 4)? Passing private medical information over to a PR agent is really shady and an abuse of trust.

[Pyxl101]

I agree with the GP on this one that most of those points are not shady. Point #1 is bogus: if you're already doing a venous draw then why do another separate test as well? That's just good sense.

The other points don't especially surprise me either. They seem mostly like either just a cautious response to learning she's a reporter or even standard practice. Many above-board companies who are cautious about their press presence train their employees not to talk to reporters, or to be careful around them, and to report them to the company's PR team.

Reporters don't get everything right, and some have an axe to grind and will twist details to suit their narrative. It's normal for companies to attempt to control their interaction with them.

This strikes me as a cautious response and doesn't even seem especially paranoid to me, or only a little. They have taken really bad press recently and it's not unusual for their employees to have been told by this point to be careful around reporters and to notify headquarters.

Unfortunately the piece does not include a detail that it would have been really useful to know, which is what happens if you walk in and order the one test that can be conducted with a finger prick - would they use their test or not? The difficulty ordering the test that occurred when she asked could have been affected by the fact that she had told him she was a reporter, and the employees freaked out a bit. Those were low level employees who had presumably not been trained on how to interact with the press, but knew about their company's bad situation. I would not recommend reading too much into it.

Plus the reporter almost certainly got Theranos' hackles up by communicating with them and receiving an invitation to have a test done, and then going behind their back to do it anonymously at another center. I won't say that it's unethical for him to have done that, but it's definitely an aggressive action or will seem so to Theranos.

[SilasX]

>Point #1 is bogus: if you're already doing a venous draw then why do another separate test as well? That's just good sense.

Note what followed in point 2 (and what I should have added on 1 but for being too repetitive): when you do ask for just that test, suddenly it's not available!

>Unfortunately the piece does not include a detail that it would have been really useful to know, which is what happens if you walk in and order the one test that can be conducted with a finger prick - would they use their test or not? The difficulty ordering the test that occurred when she asked could have been affected by the fact that she had told him she was a reporter,

I think it's just as important to reveal that bit: that whether they use the top-secret tech might depend on whether you're a skeptic or otherwise not a sympathetic party.

>Plus the reporter almost certainly got Theranos' hackles up by communicating with them and receiving an invitation to have a test done, and then going behind their back to do it anonymously at another center. I won't say that it's unethical for him to have done that, but it's definitely an aggressive action or will seem so to Theranos.

In my book, "a company that is upset that you tested a sample offered to the general public rather than one they cherry-picked for you" is a shady company.

[Pyxl101]

In asking for that specific test, she disclosed that she was a reporter conducting a surprise investigation into the company. That would reasonably freak out a company in Theranos' position, especially low level employees who might have heard they should be careful about reporters but don't know exactly what to do. It's hard to draw conclusions from the story. We'd have learned more if she had asked for that one test alone for which they use finger prick.