Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Theranos Misled Me

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#31

Post by damienkatz »

teraflop wrote: post #27
sbisker wrote: post #3

Theranos' reply: http://fortune.com/2015/12/20/letter-to-the-editor-theranos-... It reads like it was written by a small team of lawyers who have had little sleep - not a good sign. :/

That link appears to have been deleted, so here it is, via Google cache: ---- Letter to the Editor: Theranos Responds Brooke Buchanan is vice president of communications at Theranos Both the headline and much of the content of Roger Parloff’s December 17 story, “How Theranos Misled Me” are inaccurate and — ironically — misleading. Theranos was honest and transparent with Mr. Parloff, and the headline to Mr. Parloff’s…

Still there for me.

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#32

Post by danieltillett »

teraflop wrote: post #27
sbisker wrote: post #3

Theranos' reply: http://fortune.com/2015/12/20/letter-to-the-editor-theranos-... It reads like it was written by a small team of lawyers who have had little sleep - not a good sign. :/

That link appears to have been deleted, so here it is, via Google cache: ---- Letter to the Editor: Theranos Responds Brooke Buchanan is vice president of communications at Theranos Both the headline and much of the content of Roger Parloff’s December 17 story, “How Theranos Misled Me” are inaccurate and — ironically — misleading. Theranos was honest and transparent with Mr. Parloff, and the headline to Mr. Parloff’s…

Still nothing here about how many of these tests were actually reliable. I have a 100 fairies at the bottom of my garden who can tell me the result of any test without even drawing a drop of blood. Profit!

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#33

Post by damienkatz »

tacos wrote: post #7

Reporter Roger Parloff certainly isn't winning any investigative reporting awards here. He seems genuinely confused why Theranos, despite having the ability to use its own technology, might also be using existing technology. One explanation might be that Theranos is collecting blood by industry-standard means so that they could also verify accuracy of their newfangled tests using a subset of that sample. All parties…

A simple explanation for products using existing tech is be s full service vendor instead of just a few profitable niches. But that would imply them being a real business too, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#34

Post by danieltillett »

dkbrk wrote: post #13
Afforess wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That which flourishes in the night withers in the light of day I definitely feel that vibe from all the news from Theranos. If their methods were revolutionary, they could show off (and license) their innovations with patents, instead of hiding behind trade secrets.

It definitely appears that they had some initial technology which looked promising but has failed to mature into a viable replacement for commercially available tests. What I'm wondering is how well Theranos' investors did their due dilligence. It's not completely incredible that a VC might fund a company based on its team and market position even if its core technology isn't a viable product of a long-term business,…

If I had to bet I would say Elizabeth had something promising at the beginning, but it just didn’t pan out and she got herself in very tight bind. It is fundamentally impossible to get results to the level of accuracy the FDA requires from a single fingerpick for most assays. It is not an issue of sensitivity, but that there is too much variability due tissue and capillary effects.

The one thing we can all agree on is it should make a good movie when the dust finally settles - the supporting cast Elizabeth has will make the film a must see alone.

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#35

Post by adevine »

asadlionpk wrote: post #20

Not to get all tinfoil hat, this sudden press attack on Theranos seems so synchronized.

Possibly because people who bought into the hype are now feeling a little pissed at getting snookered. My initial reaction after reading the title of this article was little sympathy for the author; a journalist's job is to be skeptical and not just be a PR rep for a company. To his credit, the author takes full responsibility for his actions (I've rarely read the words "I blew it" from any journalist), and I found the article to be a very enlightening and interesting read.

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#36

Post by meric »

asadlionpk wrote: post #20

Not to get all tinfoil hat, this sudden press attack on Theranos seems so synchronized.

Theranos was offering standard tests at a lower rate. I'm guessing the market price is so high, it's quite easy to generate positive cash flow from it. Could it be the incumbent industry players do not want a new competitor into the market?

Also Martin Shkreli got arrested recently. Who benefits most from arresting Shkreli? The pharmaceutical industry he shone the light on.

Now where can you buy one of those hats?

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#37

Post by gamesbrainiac »

I did not know much about Theranos before the recent skeptical articles started to appear on newspapers regarding the falseness of their claims.

The larger question is, how do you get to a $9B valuation without having rock solid technology or evidence to prove the effectiveness of their technology?

I would assume that the VCs in SV are a pretty smart bunch. How on earth did this happen in the first place? If Theranos really did not have the kind of earth shattering technology that they claim to have, how did they get so much money?

If you take a look at their angellist page, then you'll see that they did not even need to raise the money in stages, no seed or series stuff. If you take a look at one of their investors, DFJ, has invested in a lot of successful companies like skype and tesla. Also other investors have invested in companies like Uber and Lyft.

I don't know too much about medicine or tests for that matter. But what I do know is that people don't invest their money without good reason to do so.

What is confounding is that $45M is not chunk change, and yet they managed to raise this much cash in an unconventional way.

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#38

Post by chronic50 »

ryandrake wrote: post #30
smegel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But....young...female....billionaire.

...and we know this because every single article about the company comes complete with a video or photo shoot of the CEO.

So you're telling me you don't like young, billionaires who are female?

Re: How Theranos Misled Me

#40

Post by smegel »

chronic50 wrote: post #38
ryandrake wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and we know this because every single article about the company comes complete with a video or photo shoot of the CEO.

So you're telling me you don't like young, billionaires who are female?

Obviously not as much as much as those in the mass media who have been promoting her as the next Steve Jobs.
Post reply on HN