At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags • Hacker News Board

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#101

Post by akhilcacharya » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:43 AM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #60

blakeross wrote: post #37

I wrote a parody of Theranos as a TV pilot that is increasingly becoming true: http://www.pricks.com/ (I'm sharing this here because the Hacker News community seemed to enjoy my Season 3 premiere of Silicon Valley [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179894 ], but apologies if others feel it detracts from the discussion.)

I was just thinking that someone needs to write a novelization of this Theranos nonsense & turn it into a screenplay and voilà:- Silicon Valley's "Wolf of Wall Street" or the next "The Social Network" ... I'm sure someone is already writing it up.

To be honest, I'm just waiting for the company to collapse for Aaron Sorkin to start writing a screenplay about it.

I'm thinking JLaw for Holmes. Like a Joy that doesn't suck and ends on a different note.

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#102

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:45 AM UTC

blakeross wrote: post #37

I wrote a parody of Theranos as a TV pilot that is increasingly becoming true: http://www.pricks.com/ (I'm sharing this here because the Hacker News community seemed to enjoy my Season 3 premiere of Silicon Valley [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10179894 ], but apologies if others feel it detracts from the discussion.)

[deleted]

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#103

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:50 AM UTC

chetanahuja wrote: post #81

isolate wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer an operational definition: a scientist is somebody who does research using the scientific method. But then again, this eliminates a bunch of CS people, since they're mostly doing math and engineering.

Me too. Hence the "practicing such science" part in my comment. University degrees such as Master of Science/Doctor of Philosophy etc. are meant to provide validation from universities that the holder of such degrees has had some training in the discipline but it's by no means a requirement to be a scientist (Leonardo da Vinci certainly didn't have a PhD).

In theory, yes. But when it comes to highly specialized topics, there are a number of things that are very hard to learn on your own (at least for now) without going through an academic path. Chemistry, Biology, pretty much require hands-on experience as part of your education - and you can't do that kind of things from home or simply by reading books.

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#104

Post by 1123581321 » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:54 AM UTC

randycupertino wrote: post #78

GabrielF00 wrote: post #36

Does the composition of Theranos' board strike anyone else as very weird? It seems much more like the board of a foreign policy think thank than a biotech start up. There are three former cabinet secretaries (state and defense), two former very senior military officers, two former senators (one regarded as a foreign policy expert), a bigshot DC lawyer, and the former CEOs of Bechtel and Wells Fargo. The only physicia…

I think they wanted a bunch of Washington power players because their real money grab was pushing regulation changes so that patients could go and do their blood tests themselves, without a doctor's order. Surprisingly, they were actually successful in getting this passed in 1 state already- Arizona. If they were able to push that through it would be a HUGE gamechanging cash cow, because people could either self pay…

Will you please link to a source for the $3-4 million per patient per year figure or the $10 million per year figure for certain diseases?

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#105

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:17 AM UTC

Holmes' backstory is getting so redundantly covered. It's like how every Superman movie has to walk us through how he was sent to Earth when Krypton was destroyed.

I suppose if the author didn't talk about Holmes' history, though, they wouldn't have half the damn article. Certainly nothing interesting to talk about with that company by itself, were it not for the headline grabbing founder.

That said if I read about how this "inspiring" person dropped out of Stanford when she were only 19 one more time I might lose my mind.

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#106

Post by Dr_tldr » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:20 AM UTC

tristanj wrote: post #2

> In April 2014, she got a long email from another employee. The employee alleged that Theranos had cherry-picked data when comparing Edison machines to traditional lab machines to make the Edison look more accurate, according to a copy of the email. > For one test, the device’s accuracy rate increased sharply after some information was deleted and manipulated, the employee wrote. Edison machines also allegedly faile…

Good shout on the glassdoor reviews, it's amazing how even the most rudimentary internet searching seems to elude journalists!

Also, can this be our last Theranos thread before the company officially implodes? I get no small amount of freude out of this schade, but it's becoming the new bitcoin in terms of endlessly rehashed HN topics.

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#107

Post by rasz_pl » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:27 AM UTC

eli wrote: post #90

randycupertino wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glassdoor seems like it has the same business model as yelp- "Buy our advertising and we will make your good rankings rank higher and your worse reviews be filtered or lower." Maybe not outright extortion but certainly not what they claim of being a truly independent forum.

That allegation against yelp has never been proven. I'd be surprised if either yelp or glass door is outright deleting reviews for money.

What would you consider a proof? does a a sales rep asking her friends to post fake negative reviews count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C67Lh4LE5LY

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#108

Post by beagle3 » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:59 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #84

beagle3 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a common, romantic view of how science works - but it is only compatible with reality on a 30-50 year timescale, and probably only because of survivor bias. The science of Dan Shchetman, J. Robin Warren, Barbara McClintock and many others spoke for itself, and for a long time "science" essentially didn't listen. I put "science" in quotes because "science" doesn't speak or listen - scientists do - and the scient…

I agree that good science often doesn't get recognized because it happens to rub some established scientists the wrong way. However, the issue with Theranos is the opposite: it is getting recognized, even though we don't know whether it's good science or not, because there isn't any visibility into what they do and how they do it. The scientists you mention all published their work for the world to see; they didn't h…

I was not remarking about Theranos, but rather to ThomPete's statement.

Rigorous science is not sufficient (e.g. the Shechtmans/Warrens that we don't know about -- it is pure hubris to believe that all those were eventually vindicated), nor is it required (e.g. Vioxx, Thalidomide, ADA recommendations, baby peanut allergy recommendation, dietary cholesterol recommendation, dietary sodium recommendation).

If Theranos is a lesson to entrepreneurial scientists it is probably: "Don't waste your time failing quietly and cheaply, when you can fail extravagantly and retire rich"

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#109

Post by hammock » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 8:10 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #108

pdonis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that good science often doesn't get recognized because it happens to rub some established scientists the wrong way. However, the issue with Theranos is the opposite: it is getting recognized, even though we don't know whether it's good science or not, because there isn't any visibility into what they do and how they do it. The scientists you mention all published their work for the world to see; they didn't h…

I was not remarking about Theranos, but rather to ThomPete's statement. Rigorous science is not sufficient (e.g. the Shechtmans/Warrens that we don't know about -- it is pure hubris to believe that all those were eventually vindicated), nor is it required (e.g. Vioxx, Thalidomide, ADA recommendations, baby peanut allergy recommendation, dietary cholesterol recommendation, dietary sodium recommendation). If Theranos i…

They might have also learned that lesson with Solyndra in 2011.

Re: At Theranos, Many Strategies and Snags

#110

Post by aceperry » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 9:03 AM UTC

For awhile, I kept seeing job posts at Theranos, which is how I know the name. I didn't know whether they were expanding or just had high employee turnover. The WSJ articles and the strange Glassdoor reviews (either totally love the company and CEO or extremely negative about the company and its ethics) leads me to believe that the WSJ is correct. The latest article with the video interview of the CEO, makes me think that she is incredibly smooth at spouting the BS, to the point of being a pathological liar. This company will be VERY interesting to watch during the coming year.