Exactly. This is what I was hoping for from an investigative piece on Theranos. Even an n=1 sample where the author had his or her blood tests done with Theranos and a competitor would be worth more than all the speculation in this article.
I don't think an n=1 test would be useful. Depending on people's preconceived biases, they would just say "see this confirms what I thought!" or "lol n=1 is meaningless". To do something conclusive, you'd need to do a real trial with n>>1. That costs way more money than Business Insider (or most other venues) is going to spend on an article.
Especially if such a test gave different results than the accepted competitors test.
But they would have to spend money on tests, wait for them to finish and there might be a possibility tests won't show what they hoped for(even if their hypothesis is true). While speculation is cheap, fast and always trueish enough to warrant an article.
You mean they to hope that the tests would work as advertised? After all we're all in it for the best of the patient and a decrease in healthcare costs or an increase in quality for the same price, right?