At what point does the fraud become criminal?
Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
11–20 of 201 posts
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#12Funny to see tech VCs try to get into the medical space with no knowledge or expertise in the subject. Expect more of this as clueless GPs try to cash in on personalized medicine trend and shady founders give them every opportunity to hop aboard. There are already professional VCs who do this shit all day everyday, they just hang out in Kendall Square and RT. 128 not SF.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#13I can't imagine being in her shoes. Kind of sorry for her, she was supposed to be an inspiration for women everywhere. On the other hand, she is an excellent example of how not to be disconnected from reality for founders.
That statement borders on the obscene.
Just because someone gets anointed by family connections to money and PR, that doesn't make them an 'inspiration', regardless of gender.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like open source not making all bugs shallow, start-up capitalism doesn't guarantee an accurate assessment.
And with this specific industry it would be cheaper to not do the deep assessment (medical compliance work is $$$ and you can only lose 1x your investment, if it is real you can make 100x).
But if it is 100x more likely to not be real then it is worth investing the money to do the confirmation. This is true for medical and a lot more. Any company with a scientific foundation should have due diligence in the form of test accuracy, precision and reliability before a penny is invested. Anyone investing in a company where the technology is a scientific breakthrough should insist on confirmation tests. If those are forged then it becomes a criminal issue and you don't get to hide behind an officer level position.
I think with this specific industry testing and compliance is more important in due diligence.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#15The more I read about theranos the more apparent it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with it's core goals, leadership and technology. One easily identifiable red flag is the composition of its board. It's nearly all ex-military and government officials not veteran entrepreneurs and technologists. Just to name a few: George Shultz (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn and Bill Frist (former U.S. Senators…
What if the company had been wildly successful, would you still view it's board composition in the same light? I agree with you, these are some pretty powerful 'non-scientific' people and it should raise some questions.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#16I can't imagine the stress she must be under right now, unfortunately, it seems like the vast majority of it was her own doing.
Will be interesting to see what the company does. Normally the CEO would be "asked" to step down from having any involvement with the company whatso ever.
However, I believe she's the majority shareholder so the usual remedy of removing her from the company altogether might not work so well.
Man, there goes any hope of a decent exit anytime soon Thernos, as usual its the employees themselves who will absorb the brunt of this. I hope they have alot of money saved because if they try to raise again, and its debatable if t hey'd be able to, its going to be a nasty round.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
And with this specific industry it would be cheaper to not do the deep assessment (medical compliance work is $$$ and you can only lose 1x your investment, if it is real you can make 100x).
But if it is 100x more likely to not be real then it is worth investing the money to do the confirmation. This is true for medical and a lot more. Any company with a scientific foundation should have due diligence in the form of test accuracy, precision and reliability before a penny is invested. Anyone investing in a company where the technology is a scientific breakthrough should insist on confirmation tests. If th…
She had an inside track to a lot of investors (and big name board members) which helped her immensely. Add on a nice demo and it's not hard to imagine.
According to the WSJ she was childhood friends with Tim Draper's daughter and that's where she got her first round.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-theranos-many-strategies-and-...
> The first $1 million came from Tim Draper, a founder of Draper Fisher Jurvetson, through two of his funds. Ms. Holmes was a childhood friend of his daughter and came to him “with extraordinary energy and brilliance,” he says.
At that point you have a very bright founder who interviews well and is backed by Draper. Everyone else assumes everyone else did their research.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#18The more I read about theranos the more apparent it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with it's core goals, leadership and technology. One easily identifiable red flag is the composition of its board. It's nearly all ex-military and government officials not veteran entrepreneurs and technologists. Just to name a few: George Shultz (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn and Bill Frist (former U.S. Senators…
What if the company had been wildly successful, would you still view it's board composition in the same light? I agree with you, these are some pretty powerful 'non-scientific' people and it should raise some questions.
What kind of questions exactly? It seems to me that having such powerful, influential, former members of government on your board would be highly valuable in navigating the difficult regulatory environment companies in this industry face.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#19In light of all the negativity about this company, I would like to note that I have a friend who regularly uses their services in Arizona and is delighted by them.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#20I can't imagine the stress she must be under right now, unfortunately, it seems like the vast majority of it was her own doing. Will be interesting to see what the company does. Normally the CEO would be "asked" to step down from having any involvement with the company whatso ever. However, I believe she's the majority shareholder so the usual remedy of removing her from the company altogether might not work so well.…
> However, I believe she's the majority shareholder so the usual remedy of removing her from the company altogether might not work so well.
She could step down voluntarily if she believes that someone else could turn the company around. That would be better than going bankrupt and losing her entire fortune in Theranos stock.