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

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#111

Post by droopybuns »

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.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#112

Post by tryitnow »

cb18 wrote: post #34
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…

Here's some further reading on the matter making similar observations. http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-elizabeth-holmes-reality-disto... http://www.unz.com/isteve/theranos-maybe-old-white-men-dont-...

Not really.

Sailor makes the case that there's a strong dose of affirmative action involved. His blog posts don't really contribute much to the discussion other than adding that slight "politically incorrect" slant. His posts just pull from all the other sources people have already mentioned.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#113

Post by mbesto »

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 company didn't start as a way to draw blood for civilians but for a quicker/easier way to draw blood on the battle field...hence the original board composition.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#114

Post by entee »

mbesto wrote: post #113
rzt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 company didn't start as a way to draw blood for civilians but for a quicker/easier way to draw blood on the battle field...hence the original board composition.

That's not strictly true, the board composition was far more traditional prior to 2013, a lot of these government guys came on at that point. From the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos

In July 2013, the composition of the Theranos board of directors changed markedly, with departure of Channing Robertson (emeritus professor, chemical engineering, Stanford University),[39] experienced pharma and biotech executive Robert B. Shapiro (former chairman/CEO of the Pharmacia, Monsanto, and G.D. Searle group of companies), and financier Pete Thomas (principal, ATA Ventures).[6][38] Remaining from the original board were Theranos President and COO Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani and former Secretary of State George Shultz;

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#115

Post by adventured »

entee wrote: post #45
rzt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm a little confused, does the military acquire companies wholesale? I've never heard of that happening, that's not to say it can't but what are some examples of this kind of scheme? Instead was the plan to milk the military for a long time on R&D expenses and just pocket the cash as one goes along? If so how does that work for the VC-backed structure of the company?

I can answer that for you. No, the US military does not acquire private companies, except in extraordinary circumstances of national security (think: WW2 type events). They'd only do it if the company possesses something of extreme strategic importance and could no longer operate as an on-going concern, and the first thing they'd do is try to arrange a sale to another friendly defense contractor. Buying a private company would be the very last thing they would do in the chain of actions there; further, what they would do, is purchase the technology, not the corporation.

Accordingly, the theory about Theranos being set-up to be sold to the DoD, falls entirely flat.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#116

Post by cb18 »

tryitnow wrote: post #112
cb18 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some further reading on the matter making similar observations. http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-elizabeth-holmes-reality-disto... http://www.unz.com/isteve/theranos-maybe-old-white-men-dont-...

Not really. Sailor makes the case that there's a strong dose of affirmative action involved. His blog posts don't really contribute much to the discussion other than adding that slight "politically incorrect" slant. His posts just pull from all the other sources people have already mentioned.

Ok, you're free not to read it...

Edit:

I don't agree with your characterization of the main post, you may also consider that for someone interested in this matter, there is additional information in the comment sections of the linked posts.

I'm also perplexed as to the driving factor behind your somewhat dickish, snide comment.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#117

Post by School-Cotton »

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

In what sense?

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#119

Post by mc808 »

vonmoltke wrote: post #48
rzt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you are cheapening the meaning of "fraud" if you think there is hundreds of billions worth of it going on in the government.

Medicare fraud is something like $60 billion or 10% of total spending. It's conceivable that the rest of the government would approach some multiple of $100 billion, even having lower rates of fraud than Medicare.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#120

Post by lawnchair_larry »

chimeracoder wrote: post #37
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…

> And Elizabeth Holmes won't be described as a billionaire for much longer (which unless I have missed something is almost all on paper) 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 do…

Her current stake is irrelevant. She sure won't be selling it. It's only a question of what was already cashed out.
Post reply on HN