Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing • Hacker News Board

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#101

Post by logfromblammo » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

jonwachob91 wrote: post #54

entee wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of Biotech VCs in the bay area. The one I know best is Third Rock Ventures, but there are others. The timelines for success are extraordinarily long so it's not quite as splashy a space. It's almost impossible to "fail fast" with a "MVP" in the biotech space, so you have to put in tons of capital for a long time. That said personalized medicine should end up being interesting, but I think it's really…

Bull Shit. Biotech companies produce more MVP's then any other sector. Just because we don't need to test if the business will work (as much as say a facebook) we do need to test the science. My startup is working on infection resistant materials for around hospitals. Infections are a problem, if we solve it we will have customers, how many and at what cost is the question. But because science is the question, and it…

I'm not certain the availability of infections-resistant materials is the problem. Most majority-copper alloys are naturally antibacterial, but most hospitals still stick with stainless steel and things that can be bleached or autoclaved.

Your product will not only require extensive marketing to make it into a major hospital system, it will also need to be cheaper than brasses and bronzes.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#102

Post by jonathankoren » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

stevebmark wrote: post #91

Federal regulators "banning" a specific person from an industry is rare. 23 and Me didn't receive anything close to this type of regulation, scrutiny, and public accusations. Theranos may not be a perfect company, but it's likely some powerful people are pulling strings to snub them out for an agenda that supersedes regulation.

I think that's because 23 And Me's tests actually did what they said they did. The problem with 23 And Me was that all about the reporting of the results, not that the results were fundamentally flawed. The FDA's problem with 23 And Me was that they were coming very close to, and perhaps were, crossing the line into giving medical advice. It's legitimately very hard to interpret the results of say a BRCA1[0] test, and so doing at home isn't recommended.

In the case of Theranos, there are high school biology labs that are run safer and better.

[0] http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetic...

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#103

Post by jonathankoren » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #69

blakeyrat wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you want a taxi cab with wheelchair access; Uber utterly fails that market. The traditional cab companies (who have to cover that market by law ) are quite right in crying foul, IMO.

Uber isn't a taxi company, and wheelchair access is a very small percentage of customers. Also, Uber's 5-6 years old, give them a chance to fix that problem in the coming months/years before crying foul along with a bunch of monopolists like the taxi companies. They have done nothing for us, except sit on their monopolies. The number of times I was passed by open taxis on the street, or stuck waiting hours for a sche…

> Uber isn't a taxi company

That's funny. You must work for Uber PR.

> and wheelchair access is a very small percentage of customers.

Well in that case, fuck 'em. And fuck the ADA too.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#104

Post by programminggeek » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

It seems like Theranos was a scheme to trick investors. It feels like the emperor has no clothes, but it was one of those ideas where "they are successful because they are successful" without anyone looking behind the curtain.

Maybe it's that legitimate medical tests take long enough that you could get a lot of sales and investment off of early trials and social proof.

I don't know anything about it to say that it really was a Bernie Madoff type situation, but it has a bizareness to it that feels similar.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#105

Post by DanBC » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 9:55 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #85

blakeyrat wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also disagree with things like "taxi medallions", I'm just saying that Uber throws out the baby with the bathwater. Right now, there's a real risk they'll put legit taxi companies out of business , and then those people in wheelchairs who need transportation are simply screwed. But nobody at Uber cares, of course, because the company is run by complete jerks.

I know many friends and former Googlers who are now at Uber and can tell you that it's not run by complete jerks. The company and the employees take their commitments to the cities they operate in very seriously. There might have been issues pre-2015, but not anymore. Also, you appear to be wrong about each taxi company requiring to support wheelchairs. As far as I can tell from my brief search, the ADA requires trai…

ADA mandates "equivalent service" for transportation.

Most places in US ignore that.

https://wheelchairtravel.org/taxi-companies-local-government...

> Sec. 37.103 Purchase or lease of new non-rail vehicles by private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people.

> (a) Application. This section applies to all acquisitions of new vehicles by private entities which are primarily engaged in the business of transporting people and whose operations affect commerce, in which a solicitation for the vehicle is made (except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section) after August 25, 1990.

> (c) Demand responsive systems. If the entity operates a demand responsive system, and purchases or leases a new vehicle other than an automobile, a van with a seating capacity of less than eight persons (including the driver), or an over-the-road bus, it shall ensure that the vehicle is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless the system, when viewed in its entirety, meets the standard for equivalent service of Sec. 37.105 of this part.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#106

Post by trhway » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 10:04 PM UTC

rzt wrote: post #40

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…

In discussion on other HN threads, some commenters suggested that the board was composed that way to grease the wheels of a DoD acquisition of the company's "tech". As OP put it [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11403165 ]: 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…

>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.

they actually attempted exactly that back in 2012

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/inter...

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#107

Post by coderjames » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #2

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…

> back in the dot com boom this thing would have been held by mom and pop.

Who also should have known better. If someone doesn't understand how a company they invest in makes a profit, or what the risks to that company are, they have no business investing in it. For example, I hold agency-MBS REITs in my portfolio, but only because I'm willing to read the quarterly filings and keep an eye on news relevant to interest rates. They are absolutely not an investment I would recommend to most people who want something simple they can "set and forget."

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#108

Post by pfarnsworth » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 10:11 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #105

pfarnsworth wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know many friends and former Googlers who are now at Uber and can tell you that it's not run by complete jerks. The company and the employees take their commitments to the cities they operate in very seriously. There might have been issues pre-2015, but not anymore. Also, you appear to be wrong about each taxi company requiring to support wheelchairs. As far as I can tell from my brief search, the ADA requires trai…

ADA mandates "equivalent service" for transportation. Most places in US ignore that. https://wheelchairtravel.org/taxi-companies-local-government... > Sec. 37.103 Purchase or lease of new non-rail vehicles by private entities primarily engaged in the business of transporting people. > (a) Application. This section applies to all acquisitions of new vehicles by private entities which are primarily engaged in the busin…

As far as I can tell, the taxi drivers need to take people with wheelchairs, as long as you can fold up the wheelchair and it fits in the car. They aren't allowed to tell them to wait for another car if the car they have can accommodate them. But besides training, the ADA doesn't mandate that companies have wheelchair-lifting vehicles, from my searching.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#109

Post by pfarnsworth » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 10:13 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #103

pfarnsworth wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber isn't a taxi company, and wheelchair access is a very small percentage of customers. Also, Uber's 5-6 years old, give them a chance to fix that problem in the coming months/years before crying foul along with a bunch of monopolists like the taxi companies. They have done nothing for us, except sit on their monopolies. The number of times I was passed by open taxis on the street, or stuck waiting hours for a sche…

> Uber isn't a taxi company That's funny. You must work for Uber PR. > and wheelchair access is a very small percentage of customers. Well in that case, fuck 'em. And fuck the ADA too.

You should probably look up what the ADA requires taxi companies to do.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#110

Post by droopybuns » Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 10:15 PM UTC

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…

I have met many later-in-their-career, senior government folks cultivating a transition into the private sector.

They seem particularly vulnerable to this kind of catastrophe. It's like they have their favored peers who are also retiring & they get them connected to a firm by someone who also left and wants to help out other govies. They do 20 years in the military and then go work in private sector for companies that will sell to the government. So the board gets loaded up with civil servants rather than entrepreneurs.

My perception is that their career experience doesn't arm them with the ability to identify a company with inadequate runway & execution talent. They seem to think a a well connected "who-you-know" network would have enough collective wisdom to avoid this scenario, or maybe they don't really consider that failure is possible, given the funding environment of the military.