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

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#141

Post by codyb »

danieltillett wrote: post #129
AJ007 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has there been any publicized and verifiable facts that they were close to having something that worked?

No. In fact all the independent data suggests that it is impossible with less than 4 drops of blood (~100µl) due to sampling issues. No matter how great the detection technology is if you are not able to get a representative sample then the end result will be garbage.

If 4 drops is a low bound, couldn't they have aimed for say 10? Can't you draw 10 drops of blood relatively easily from the finger? I feel like I've had that done before when donating blood. It'd still be a much less annoying process than vials after vials like it seems like most blood testing is.

It's hard for me to imagine they wouldn't have said "well, one drop didn't work but we could decently with four but we won't do that."

I haven't followed tremendously the story though.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#142

Post by [deleted] »

desireco42 wrote: post #68
WalterSear wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statement borders on the obscene. Just because someone gets anointed by family connections to money and PR, that doesn't make them an 'inspiration', regardless of gender.

It is not that I studied her, it seemed like young, well educated, successful women, that is all.

[deleted]

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#143

Post by kzhahou »

WalterSear wrote: post #13
desireco42 wrote: post #6

I can't imagine being in her shoes. Kind of sorry for her, she was supposed to be an inspiration for women everywhere. On the other hand, she is an excellent example of how not to be disconnected from reality for founders.

That statement borders on the obscene. Just because someone gets anointed by family connections to money and PR, that doesn't make them an 'inspiration', regardless of gender.

Obscene to feel for someone who fucked up their career so bad? It's just common empathy.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#145

Post by WalterSear »

kzhahou wrote: post #143
WalterSear wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That statement borders on the obscene. Just because someone gets anointed by family connections to money and PR, that doesn't make them an 'inspiration', regardless of gender.

Obscene to feel for someone who fucked up their career so bad? It's just common empathy.

Obscene to think that she should be an inspiration for anybody.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#146

Post by yarou »

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…

Yeah, the board members all fit into "ideas guy" archetype. AKA a useless moron that doesn't contribute to the end product in any way, but still takes all the credit for it.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#147

Post by plainOldText »

FireBeyond wrote: post #122
plainOldText wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that they've had issues with just some of their tests, not all of them. For instance, I wouldn't call Google useless if it couldn't answer reliably a small percentage of my queries. Yep, I know it's not a perfect analogy, but still. Theranos could ditch the faulty tests and provide only those which are reliable, and the experience they would provide would still be superior to that of other labs, b…

"Just some of their tests, not all of them" As of now, the -only- test they are allowed to perform is for HPV, by traditional methods. The FDA has "concerns" about every other test they offer or have offered.

I really don't know how to say this politely, but pretty much all of your statements are incorrect.

* First off, it's HSV not HPV. Pay attention, as they are two different viruses.

* Theranos' proprietary test system for the herpes simplex 1 virus IgG (HSV-1) has been approved by FDA, so no, it's not by traditional methods. [1]

* Other tests are performed actually by traditional methods

I'm not associated with Theranos in any way, so I couldn't care less, but please don't throw around random statements.

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/18/theranos-gains-fda-approval...

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#148

Post by danieltillett »

codyb wrote: post #141
danieltillett wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. In fact all the independent data suggests that it is impossible with less than 4 drops of blood (~100µl) due to sampling issues. No matter how great the detection technology is if you are not able to get a representative sample then the end result will be garbage.

If 4 drops is a low bound, couldn't they have aimed for say 10? Can't you draw 10 drops of blood relatively easily from the finger? I feel like I've had that done before when donating blood. It'd still be a much less annoying process than vials after vials like it seems like most blood testing is. It's hard for me to imagine they wouldn't have said "well, one drop didn't work but we could decently with four but we wo…

It is really hard to get more than a single drop out of fingerprick. The reason why is the capillaries close up very quickly - if you are really lucky you can get 2 drops out, but anything more is a struggle.

The second problem with fingerprick blood is you pick up quite a bit of skin tissue in the process, but the amount collected is quite variable. What you end up measuring is blood + some unknown percentage of skin tissue derived material. None of these things are good for reproducibility.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#149

Post by kzhahou »

WalterSear wrote: post #145
kzhahou wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obscene to feel for someone who fucked up their career so bad? It's just common empathy.

Obscene to think that she should be an inspiration for anybody.

C'mon, the point is a lot of people were inspired by a young woman forming a powerhouse medical company. Now we've found out it was all smoke and mirrors for years, and everyone who looked up to her was let down.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#150

Post by frozenport »

droopybuns wrote: post #110
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 tha…

Henry Kissinger is no debutante
Post reply on HN