No, the variability between individual drops of blood are too high for the precision needed to do most of the tests they were proposing even before you look at the tiny fraction of a drop you would be working with to preform multiple tests. Worse you get excessive contamination between blood and other substances from a finger prick.

So, no very quickly people were calling Theranos either incompetent or fraudulent.

"the tests they were proposing" - yeah, I would agree that some (probably most towards the end) of the tests they were trying to make part of the product were a big part of why they were so fraudulent. I agree that it was a bad company.

My point is that the general idea was not a bad idea, and because it was so badly mismanaged (trying to add too many products and run before walking, using other companies' tech illegally, etc, etc) we now are worse off because few people want to attempt doing the possible ideas in this space (because people think none of it is possible - which is simply not true).

The company that could reliably be made is far less 'attractive' of course, but it would still be quite beneficial.

Theranos was a fraud, selling a service based on technology that simply doesn't exist.

Of course... that's absolutely true, and I didn't say otherwise.

However, the basic idea actually is possible, but only for a very select few of the tests they proposed (which they still unfortunately didn't really get right of course). My point is that, unfortunately, the tests that are possible to do now won't get a company to form out of it - simply because they ruined the scene for everyone. Anyone trying to get a company going in this area and raising money for it will be met with a complete block of resistance because of the precedent set, even if the technology is actually completely reliable.