Here&#x27;s a nice profile from the New Yorker in late 2014:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;2014&#x2F;12&#x2F;15&#x2F;blood-simpler" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.newyorker.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;2014&#x2F;12&#x2F;15&#x2F;blood-simpler</a><p>I mean &quot;nice&quot; as in, a good read...it&#x27;s a flattering profile of Holmes -- she comes off well, as a genuinely passionate person, and even if she had stayed in school, it sounds like she would&#x27;ve still made a great impact.<p>But the article also raises concerns that seem to be corroborated by the OP:<p>&gt; <i>Clarke argues that finger-stick blood tests aren’t reliable for clinical diagnostic tests; because the blood isn’t drawn from a vein, the sample can be contaminated by lanced capillaries or damaged tissue. Holmes strongly disagrees: “We have data that show you can get a perfect correlation between a finger stick and a venipuncture for every test that we run.” When I asked for evidence, I was sent a document by Daniel P. Edlin, Theranos’s senior product manager, titled “Select Data.” It purported to show favorable results from numerous comparison tests. I asked Edlin if the tests had been conducted by an independent third party. He replied by e-mail: “The clinical tests were conducted by a combination of Theranos and external labs,” but he wouldn’t say which ones.</i><p>Um, OK. I don&#x27;t know much about this testing process...but...what trade secrets are being protected by hiding the methodology and source of the comparative test results?