 Biotech company Theranos promised a blood testing revolution. With just a single drop of blood, their machine could run hundreds of medical tests. Except the technology didn't exist. At least not in the way that its founder, Elizabeth Holmes, envisioned it. But that dream isn't over yet. Theranos made some pretty lofty promises that would have upended traditional blood testing as we knew it, with its mini lab dubbed the Edison. If you could have just a single drop of blood, you wouldn't need to go to a lab and get your blood drawn for testing. It would make it so much easier, really revolutionize the blood testing industry. Like that's an appealing promise. Nicole Wetzman is a health reporter at The Verge. She's spent time covering the Theranos trial from the courthouse in San Jose, and explained to us why the blood testing industry even needed a company like Theranos to begin with. For a standard blood test, you have to go and you go sit down and a lab tech will draw vials of blood out of your arm and then it gets sent out to a lab or, you know, some larger offices might have machines in house. So Theranos claimed to be able to create a system that would kind of circumvent a lot of those challenges. So they said that they could have a tabletop doctor's office sized machine that could run hundreds of blood tests on a single drop of blood. But even from the beginning, pathologists questioned the accuracy. What I'm surprised about is, you know, you look at the people in the room and there's clearly been a lot of interest in your company. I would argue that a lot of that comes from the fact that there were these claims that were made that were very broad early on. Seventy tests, the whole, you know, panoply of lab tests from a couple drops of blood. And the evidence that you presented fell far short of that. There are things that you can do with a single drop of blood. You can test your blood sugar level, for example. But there are other things where a single drop is just not realistic. There might not be a high enough concentration of what you're trying to measure in a tiny drop. Studies have shown that important blood markers, such as white blood cell count or hemoglobin, can vary greatly from one drop to another when obtained via the finger. But even if individual drops were identical, certain tests need to separate out cells with a centrifuge or add specific chemicals to the samples that would make repeat testing impossible. Theranos's ambitions are commendable, but the idea was nothing new. So there are things that Theranos was trying to do that are also things that more realistic researchers are also working on. You kind of have a couple of main things happening. You have the single drop of blood issue. You have the lots of tests on one sample issue. And you have the let's shrink this all down to a small machine. And those all kind of individually are things that people are working on. But those are really hard and there are a lot of really significant challenges that a lot of smart people are working on. Experts do not really think that that sort of pie in the sky vision is something that's really going to be feasible, despite kind of the potential for a lot of this stuff to really be improved and innovated on in reality. While many researchers had been trying to advance this technology in labs, a ton of buzz surrounded Theranos because it was telling investors it could all be done right now. According to testimony from the trial, Holmes was telling investors that the machines were already being used on military helicopters and combat zones. These claims would not only come back to haunt Elizabeth Holmes in her fraud trial, but they also had a chilling effect on other research being conducted in the field of blood testing. Folks who are working on blood testing technology and trying to shrink down tests or do more with less had trouble getting funding or interest because investors said, well, Theranos has already done this, so why should we invest with you? And then when it came out that Theranos couldn't actually do what they said they were going to do, you had sort of the opposite problem where people would say, oh, but isn't that all just a scam? And so that made it harder for people to attract funding for their more realistic projects. As we approach the end of the trial of Elizabeth Holmes, it's become clear that this trial has uncovered many cracks in the way that startups operate, particularly healthcare startups. The Theranos scandal and fallout has really made people kind of question whether the Silicon Valley startup move fast, break things ethos is the approach we should be taking to medical technology where people's health and lives are sort of really on the line here and the accuracy and success of these technologies has really important implications for people's health. And because of this, everyone will remain highly skeptical of any new advancements in the blood testing industry for years to come. Like anything in science and medical technology, you're going to see progress and you're going to see kind of iterative innovation. But what we're likely not going to see is someone pop out of the ground with a device that's going to change everything. You know, science is hard and we want to be careful with how we move forward and make sure that the progress we're making is actually real progress.
 Biotech company Theranos promised a blood testing revolution.
 With just a single drop of blood, their machine could run hundreds of medical tests.
 Except the technology didn't exist.
 At least not in the way that its founder, Elizabeth Holmes, envisioned it.
 But that dream isn't over yet.
 Theranos made some pretty lofty promises that would have upended traditional blood testing
 as we knew it, with its mini lab dubbed the Edison.
 If you could have just a single drop of blood, you wouldn't need to go to a lab and get
 your blood drawn for testing.
 It would make it so much easier, really revolutionize the blood testing industry.
 Like that's an appealing promise.
 Nicole Wetzman is a health reporter at The Verge.
 She's spent time covering the Theranos trial from the courthouse in San Jose, and explained
 to us why the blood testing industry even needed a company like Theranos to begin with.
 For a standard blood test, you have to go and you go sit down and a lab tech will draw
 vials of blood out of your arm and then it gets sent out to a lab or, you know, some
 larger offices might have machines in house.
 So Theranos claimed to be able to create a system that would kind of circumvent a lot
 of those challenges.
 So they said that they could have a tabletop doctor's office sized machine that could
 run hundreds of blood tests on a single drop of blood.
 But even from the beginning, pathologists questioned the accuracy.
 What I'm surprised about is, you know, you look at the people in the room and there's
 clearly been a lot of interest in your company.
 I would argue that a lot of that comes from the fact that there were these claims that
 were made that were very broad early on.
 Seventy tests, the whole, you know, panoply of lab tests from a couple drops of blood.
 And the evidence that you presented fell far short of that.
 There are things that you can do with a single drop of blood.
 You can test your blood sugar level, for example.
 But there are other things where a single drop is just not realistic.
 There might not be a high enough concentration of what you're trying to measure in a tiny drop.
 Studies have shown that important blood markers, such as white blood cell count or hemoglobin,
 can vary greatly from one drop to another when obtained via the finger.
 But even if individual drops were identical, certain tests need to separate out cells with
 a centrifuge or add specific chemicals to the samples that would make repeat testing impossible.
 Theranos's ambitions are commendable, but the idea was nothing new.
 So there are things that Theranos was trying to do that are also things that more realistic
 researchers are also working on.
 You kind of have a couple of main things happening.
 You have the single drop of blood issue.
 You have the lots of tests on one sample issue.
 And you have the let's shrink this all down to a small machine.
 And those all kind of individually are things that people are working on.
 But those are really hard and there are a lot of really significant challenges that
 a lot of smart people are working on.
 Experts do not really think that that sort of pie in the sky vision is something that's
 really going to be feasible, despite kind of the potential for a lot of this stuff to
 really be improved and innovated on in reality.
 While many researchers had been trying to advance this technology in labs, a ton of
 buzz surrounded Theranos because it was telling investors it could all be done right now.
 According to testimony from the trial, Holmes was telling investors that the machines were
 already being used on military helicopters and combat zones.
 These claims would not only come back to haunt Elizabeth Holmes in her fraud trial, but they
 also had a chilling effect on other research being conducted in the field of blood testing.
 Folks who are working on blood testing technology and trying to shrink down tests or do more
 with less had trouble getting funding or interest because investors said, well, Theranos has
 already done this, so why should we invest with you?
 And then when it came out that Theranos couldn't actually do what they said they were going
 to do, you had sort of the opposite problem where people would say, oh, but isn't that
 all just a scam?
 And so that made it harder for people to attract funding for their more realistic projects.
 As we approach the end of the trial of Elizabeth Holmes, it's become clear that this trial
 has uncovered many cracks in the way that startups operate, particularly healthcare
 startups.
 The Theranos scandal and fallout has really made people kind of question whether the Silicon
 Valley startup move fast, break things ethos is the approach we should be taking to medical
 technology where people's health and lives are sort of really on the line here and the
 accuracy and success of these technologies has really important implications for people's
 health.
 And because of this, everyone will remain highly skeptical of any new advancements in
 the blood testing industry for years to come.
 Like anything in science and medical technology, you're going to see progress and you're going
 to see kind of iterative innovation.
 But what we're likely not going to see is someone pop out of the ground with a device
 that's going to change everything.
 You know, science is hard and we want to be careful with how we move forward and make
 sure that the progress we're making is actually real progress.