WSJ posted a statement in response to Holmes' interview. <a href="http://www.dowjones.com/press-room/wall-street-journal-statement-regarding-theranos-ceo-interview-at-wsjd-live/" rel="nofollow">http://www.dowjones.com/press-room/wall-street-journal-state...</a><p>> Nothing said at the conference by Ms. Holmes refutes the accuracy of the reporting done by John Carreyrou or of the articles, which were subject to the Journal’s rigorous and careful editing process. Contrary to Ms. Holmes’s claims, the Journal shared all facts and anecdotes published in the articles with Theranos before publication, in accordance with our longstanding editorial practice and principles. The company was given plenty of opportunity to respond. Ms. Holmes declined interview requests from the Journal for more than five months, but the general counsel and outside counsel of Theranos provided significant input, which was fairly reflected in the articles.<p>> We note that Ms. Holmes sought to challenge the reliability of our sources, but it remains the fact that she doesn’t know from whom the information for our articles was gathered. We assure her and our readers that our sources were well positioned to know the information they provided about Theranos, and they were vetted before publication.<p>> The Journal reiterates that our articles about Theranos were thoroughly reported, fair and wholly accurate.
It sounds like she has a fantastic PR team and has been coached very well. But, and perhaps this is unfair, it's starting to feel like there are too many denials here for all of the accusations to be wrong.<p>> Theranos has reportedly dialed back its 240 blood tests to just one. According to the Wall Street Journal, a source close to the matter told the paper that Theranos has caved under regulatory pressure from the Food and Drug Administration and has stopped collecting drops of blood for all but one of its tests. [...]<p>> “We’ve been transitioning to the FDA system voluntarily. As of right now, we’re only using it for the one test,” Holmes told Bloomberg.<p>This answer could be deceptive. "Transitioning to it voluntarily" could mean anything from that they made decision on their own, to that the FDA has declared its intention to file a lawsuit against them to get them to stop, and they caved to that request, and no lawsuit has been filed yet. (They have not yet been compelled to, i.e., it is voluntary). Meanwhile there are claims that the FDA has concerns and conducted an unannounced inspection. I don't think Holmes has claimed that no such inspection has taken place.<p>On the other hand, similar publications have published hatchet pieces against companies I've worked for that advanced one point of view strongly without any balance or contrary point of view, all while doing a very good job of <i>seeming</i> balanced and reasonable. So, who knows.<p>I wonder about one aspect: why does Theranos bother with venous draws if the only thing they do with that blood is put it through commercially available machines? They've just said that the unique service that they provide is by thumb prick only. So they've wasted a bunch of money on equipment and process for lab results that are just the ones that are already commercially available. Why bother? I imagine they must have had to purchase some equipment just to perform their own experiments on their testing methodology, versus existing methods, but why go into commercial operation? There must be a different scale of capital and operating costs involved in that. As an investor, it's not where I'd want them to focus unless there was a good reason, yet it sounds like it constitutes the vast majority of their current business.<p>Perhaps it is a strategy to build up their brand somehow? But venous draws miss their key differentiator that is the premise of their company ... I don't know what to think.