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

Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 201 posts

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#21

Post by theseatoms »

dcgudeman wrote: post #9

The 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…

Bill Frist is a medical doctor and has focused on healthcare policy throughout his career, for whatever that's worth.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#22

Post by Bootvis »

the_economist wrote: post #19

In 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.

But _should_ he be delighted. As far as we know, the results of tests are totally unreliable.

Astrologers also have happy customers, that doesn't mean their money is well spend.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#24

Post by dcgudeman »

danem wrote: post #18
kelvin0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you have Henry Kissinger on your board and not a veteran medical device or medical test industry expert. Henry Kissinger might have tons of foreign policy experience but this is a completely different field.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#25

Post by ska »

danem wrote: post #18
kelvin0 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is undoubtedly helpful to have people on your board who understand the regulatory mechanisms and industry (leaving aside how well the Theranos board actually does this)

Composition of a board is tricky though. In a case like this you would hope to have equal, if not dominant, representation of people who are strong on the science. Anything else is a bit of a red flag.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#26

Post by chollida1 »

simula67 wrote: post #20
chollida1 wrote: post #16

I 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.

I fully agree that, that would be the best remedy.

But how many CEO's have you talked with in your lifetime?

Every CEO I've ever talked with that has started a company or been there long enough to think of it as their "baby" have all had tough times letting go.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#27

Post by kneel »

dwolfson wrote: post #3

How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.

It's not obvious that the diagnostic assays they were running couldn't scale down.

These assays are performed regularly on large samples no problem, but the sensitivity and accuracy of the assay becomes erratic when you only have a couple micro liters of blood.

Either they couldn't develop proper assays (an engineering problem) or microliters of blood don't contain enough substrates for their assays (a major lapse in knowledge)

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#29

Post by jonknee »

simula67 wrote: post #20
chollida1 wrote: post #16

I 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.

> She could step down voluntarily if she believes that someone else could turn the company around.

The problem is the company is 100% based around her invention that she won't share the inner workings of and apparently that doesn't actually perform up to standards. It's not mismanagement, it's a material issue.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#30

Post by thrownaway2424 »

theseatoms wrote: post #21
dcgudeman wrote: post #9

The 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…

Bill Frist is a medical doctor and has focused on healthcare policy throughout his career, for whatever that's worth.

As has been amply demonstrated by Frist and Ben Carson, being an MD does not necessarily prevent being an idiot as well.
Post reply on HN