I agree that those other things are stronger evidence, but I think the stuff I cited is still a significant, independent strike against Theranos.<p>Correct me if I&#x27;m wrong here, but in a negative PR storm, isn&#x27;t it a godsend when people (<i>especially</i> 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?<p>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.