31–40 of 201 posts
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.
To put it another way: none of the Theranos-only innovations turned out to be medically sound.
Medical research is in great need of a major shakeup, because I feel like current research models have seriously underperformed in recent years... ...but now that isn't going to happen, primarily because of this debacle. It's so sad that the "keystone cops" at Theranos have done so much damage to the reputation of the medical startup community- Possibly, they've set medical research back by several years with their b…
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.
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…
http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-elizabeth-holmes-reality-disto...
http://www.unz.com/isteve/theranos-maybe-old-white-men-dont-...
Medical research is in great need of a major shakeup, because I feel like current research models have seriously underperformed in recent years... ...but now that isn't going to happen, primarily because of this debacle. It's so sad that the "keystone cops" at Theranos have done so much damage to the reputation of the medical startup community- Possibly, they've set medical research back by several years with their b…
The research models have performed as they always have, if not better.
The only thing that's changed is the introduction of know-it-all Silicon Valley VCs who think bio is the same as software.
Uber skirts city/state regs; you can't mess with the FDA, among other federal agencies (such as FAA).
Theranos potentially could have been amazing for medicine, but more and more this looks like an epic disaster.
It's just a matter of time before huge writedowns in the valuation happen. And Elizabeth Holmes won't be described as a billionaire for much longer (which unless I have missed something is almost all on paper). Without a drastic plot twist it appears this company is little more than vaporware. At least the investors that will lose their money are people who should have all known better (and can afford the loss!), bac…
Almost anytime a startup gets to a valuation that high, the founders have had an opportunity to take some money off the table. VCs like this, because it keeps the founders' incentives aligned with the investors' (they are more likely to take risks and swing for the fences if they don't have to worry as much about their own personal net worth).
It's dangerous if the founder divests entirely, but you want them to have enough that they aren't too worried about the risk of the company collapsing to make bold decisions when necessary.
That said, I don't know Theranos's cap table, but it's probably unlikely that her current stake in Theranos is worth $1B on paper even today - did she really manage to achieve a $9B valuation while holding onto 11% of her company?
Funny 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.
That said personalized medicine should end up being interesting, but I think it's really, really early days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
John the more I think about Theranos the more I think this “mess” is actually deliberate. Looking at the history of Theranos and the composition of the board it appears Theranos was designed from early on as a vehicle to defrauded the US military.
The plan appeared to be to use their connection and access to some rather “helpful” high brass to offload the technology for billions and then later sweep the fact that it didn’t work under the rug (this tactic has worked fabulously for the last 20 years). Avoid the FDA altogether.
Who would have noticed another $10 billion misspent on some wizz-bang technology given the $100s billions lost in other frauds? When the wheels fell of this plan (some underling didn’t play along) the idea seems to be to blame the scientists and say “we were misled”. They might be evil, but they don’t appear to be stupid.