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

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#131

Post by danieltillett »

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.

I think you need to read what the military have to say on this topic [1].

It is estimated that six percent of all procurement dollars are lost to fraud nation-wide annually. If you apply that amount to USAspending.gov’s figure of $700 billion dollars that the Federal Government spent on average each of the past nine years, that would total $42 billion dollars per year or $378 billion dollars lost to procurement fraud during the past nine years.

1. http://www.dodig.mil/iginformation/archives/finalwebsnips.pd...

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#132

Post by gradys »

mistermann wrote: post #128
jobu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first part seems probable (sell to the DoD), but intentional fraud is unlikely. Remember Hanlon's Razor - "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." It seems more likely they were very close on the science, and decided to run with it while they worked out the last 10%. That works great for most tech companies, but healthcare technology is very different.

> intentional fraud is unlikely. Remember Hanlon's Razor Hanlon's razor isn't proof of anything.

No, it's more like a prior.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#133

Post by danieltillett »

jobu wrote: post #84
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 first part seems probable (sell to the DoD), but intentional fraud is unlikely. Remember Hanlon's Razor - "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." It seems more likely they were very close on the science, and decided to run with it while they worked out the last 10%. That works great for most tech companies, but healthcare technology is very different.

Tillett’s Razor - ”Never ascribe to incompetence that which can be explained by corruption”

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#134

Post by fatjokes »

return0 wrote: post #60

Why haven't we heard anything from the VCs or , for that matter from anyone except WSJ ? If this letter is true, this is completely gross, how can a startup which is being punished for fraud still enjoy high valuations and, apparently the tolerance (if not support) of the silicon valley ?

A lot of powerful folks on that board.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#135

Post by jonwachob91 »

logfromblammo wrote: post #101
jonwachob91 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd don't want to detract from the original topic, but if you want to know more you can check out my Appy HN thread -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11443122

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#136

Post by tobz »

plainOldText wrote: post #88
entee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's plenty of evidence to question their honesty as a company :-P You're right there are a few labs they do on commercial hardware that does work, and I think they're allowed to provide a test (for Herpes I think? could be wrong on specific test) that is inherently based on very small sample sizes. As I recall though, none of those tests use any new tech at all, and if it's an old blood test then it's not…

From my experience, their prices are much lower than those offered by the competition. All things being equal, even if the only advantage Theranos has over its competition is lower pricing, I'd take it, because having access to affordable medicine has numerous positive implications for the entire society. What's the point of all the medical innovation if people cannot afford it? Ideally we should strive for both inno…

Having an advantage implies they can do equivalent tests with their proprietary methods, which has not been rigorously proven.

If the tests aren't actually equivalent, they haven't improved anything. Charging less for vaporware doesn't mean it's better, it's still fuckin' vaporware. :P

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#137

Post by unclebucknasty »

jobu wrote: post #84
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 first part seems probable (sell to the DoD), but intentional fraud is unlikely. Remember Hanlon's Razor - "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." It seems more likely they were very close on the science, and decided to run with it while they worked out the last 10%. That works great for most tech companies, but healthcare technology is very different.

Why does Hanlon's Razor exist when it can just as easily be put the other way around?

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#138

Post by pizza »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #137
jobu wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first part seems probable (sell to the DoD), but intentional fraud is unlikely. Remember Hanlon's Razor - "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." It seems more likely they were very close on the science, and decided to run with it while they worked out the last 10%. That works great for most tech companies, but healthcare technology is very different.

Why does Hanlon's Razor exist when it can just as easily be put the other way around?

P(malice) > P(competence & intent)

That said, Hanlon's razor can't explain away evidence.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#139

Post by unclebucknasty »

pizza wrote: post #138
unclebucknasty wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Hanlon's Razor exist when it can just as easily be put the other way around?

P(malice) > P(competence & intent) That said, Hanlon's razor can't explain away evidence.

   if (benefit > 0) {
      P(malice) >> P(stupidity)
   }

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#140

Post by sndean »

Someone wrote: post #100
sndean wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't seen it, this a pretty interesting and controversial paper: Increasing disparities between resource inputs and outcomes, as measured by certain health deliverables, in biomedical research http://www.pnas.org/content/112/36/11335.full Basically, increased funding of biomedical research hasn't resulted in better output, and that we do, indeed, need to change the model. The current model is really ineffic…

I don't think that paper clearly shows that. It could also be that the low hanging fruit has been taken, and that, as we reach for ever more hard to reach fruits, the effort needed per unit of health improvement necessarily increases. Another explanation could be that the money givers haven't gotten as much health improvements as they would want because they haven't directly asked for them, as this paper acknowledges…

Ah, maybe "better output" should have been "health improvement."

And yeah, I heard Casadevall speak at a conference and "used up low hanging fruit" was one of the theories. It's less likely that there'll be another penicillin moment.

It's all pretty depressing, and very true that it's all driven by Science/Nature/Cell publications, not by discoveries.

Post reply on HN