a great opportunity to ask so many people things about the future and advice and we thought we d ask a few questions that run a little bit of a gamut really quickly. i m sorry. you ll also be looking into the lens. okay. we thought it would be interesting to ask you in the year 2025 what s the thing you are most certain about? more people will have access to their own health information. what do you dream for something in 2025? that less people have to say good-bye too soon to people they love. that s a great one. can you tell us a secret? i don t have many secrets. are you a scientists or a technologist or an entrepreneur? i think entrepreneur. i was trained as an engineer but now my time is spent on doing whatever it takes to realize this mission. theranos is a combination of therapy and diagnosis. if we can shift toward a model in where we are determining the onset in time for therapy to be effective, we will change outcomes. you founded this co
patient samples. i was, like, filling up containers, doing so many manual things with my hands. and the scary thing was they could hop off your tray and they would be on the ground and you might not be able to spot them. they had to dilute the nanotaners to run off the machines, which was not how they were supposed to be used. so, people who worked in the clinical lab were nervous about that because they were violating the operating standards for those devices, which are rigorous standards, since they re being used to test people for diseases. we were fudging results, rerunning qualify control tests until they passed. the solution at some point was, you know, if you just throw out that one data point, then the other three look beautiful. that s not the way you approach science that s going to be impacting people s lives. there were people running tests on devices they knew weren t working and give those results to patients.
and the scary thing about the containers was they could hop off your tray, and they would be on the ground, and you might not be able to spot them. they had to dilute the nanotaners to run off the siemens machines, which was not how they were supposed to be used. so people who worked in the clinical lab were nervous about that because they were violating the operating standards for those devices, which are rigorous standards since they re being used to test people for diseases. we were fudging results, rerunning qualify control tests until they passed. the solution at some point was, you know, if you just throw out that one data point, then the other three look beautiful. that s not the way you approach science that s going to be impacting people s lives. there were people running tests on devices they knew weren t working and give those results to patients. people were very upset. you know, crying. some members of the lab would
you look at this from a distance and you d see, well, this is not a very cleverly made device. it s very common. but what the bomb technicians say is, yes, but, whoever built these managed to get them both to go off within 15 seconds of each other. and that suggests certainly some level of knowledge or or sophistication if you will. so they ve taken all those pieces, chris. here s an interesting piece of data. the control tests have shown that after you blow up something like a pressure cooker bomb, the pieces are not consumed by the explosive. they re just made into thousands of pieces and spread all over the place. it is possible to recover 98%, 93% to 98% of them. that s why they ve all been shipped here to the fbi crime lab, trying to keep them separate, which device they think is which, and they will try now to reassemble them, reconstruct them so they ll learn more about how they were made. you know, one unfortunate point