This article isn't really about Theranos, so much as it is about the unreliability of blood testing as a diagnostic technique even when the tests are working properly.
True, but I'd say that the unreliability of blood testing as a diagnostic technique is extremely pertinent information for investors to have when investing in a company that is built on blood testing as a diagnostic technique. My point is just that it's surprising that the journalist for this story appears to have spent more time researching the subject for this article than the investors putting in ~$700M.
Again: the article isn't about whether Theranos was a good investment. It's about whether, even if Theranos had worked perfectly, convenient blood testing would have improved medical outcomes.
Yes, you've correctly identified what the article is about, and I've never disagreed or said "this article is about Theranos as an investment". I still think it's interesting to think about the article in the context of due diligence in startup investing.