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

151–160 of 201 posts

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#151

Post by RockyMcNuts »

wombatpm wrote: post #7
dwolfson wrote: post #3

How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.

I think they ran in stealth mode for as long as possible. I remember finding out about them and not seeing a lot of information other than a few job postings some time back. Seems like once they started their move into daylight, the Wall Street Journal has been on a mission to take them down.

Maybe the WSJ has been tough on Theranos but there are other journalists who were big boosters, who now feel like they were misled -

http://fortune.com/2015/12/17/how-theranos-misled-me-elizabe...

Once one journalist finds one problem and does the legwork and prints it, others who know of problems find that journalist because they know he/she will do the legwork and get the story out.

The company then puts their side out to journalists they think might not put them in a bad light, who maybe get special access if they don't ask the toughest questions.

There's a natural triage of journalists in these battleground stocks/stories into pro- and anti- factions, even if the journalists are doing the fairest job they can with the info they get.

Not to say the company, the competition and other interested parties don't feed tips, leaks and tough questions to one side or another.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#152

Post by forgotpwagain »

entee wrote: post #51
dwolfson wrote: post #3

How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.

I heard from a friend who is fairly prominent in the microfluidics space (doing lab work with much smaller amounts of material than ordinarily required) that initially it was a drug delivery company. Delivering compounds in a reliable time released way is challenging and valuable, and I think their initial foray was in that direction. Apparently it didn't work well early on and they pivoted in this direction, so mayb…

Microfluidics is a sexy field. About ten years ago, it was nearing the peak of its first hype peak. This brought a lot of attention to the field and corresponded to the first time people started talking about precision medicine and "lifestyle" diagnostic tools.

Theranos was at the right time with a very intriguing idea, but one that was ultimately not a model for reality. They were able to get lots of capital at this time in preparation to develop a product that ultimately never materialized (and more fundamentally, may not be physically possible).

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#153

Post by sk5t »

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.

Different situation entirely--here we are looking at an improperly-run clinical diagnostic lab. 23andme's sanctions were for marketing/product offerings to consumers.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#154

Post by shawn-butler »

vonmoltke wrote: post #79
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.

No, the traditional cab companies do not have to cover this market by law. I am aware of only one cab company in the DFW area (Yellow) that offers wheelchair vans as an option. A quick search shows that there are plenty of cab companies around the US that do not have wheelchair capabilities at all. Also, for the record, small cab companies were allies of Uber here in Dallas.

You are entirely mistaken. It is required my municipal and county code that taxicab companies in Dallas dispatch wheelchair accessible vehicles[0].

The extent to which it is enforced I have no idea but that would be up to consumers to make complaints to the regulatory body.

[0]: http://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/T...

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#155

Post by SilasX »

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.

Not if the f-up was the result of their own fraud and they'll have a golden parachute anyway.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#156

Post by newjersey »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #139
pizza wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Yup, when I make a mistake in my income tax filing and over pay by $2k that's incompetence. I wouldn't be so sure about attributing an unreported offshore shell company holding millions of dollars as incompetence.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#157

Post by trhway »

plainOldText wrote: post #147
FireBeyond wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 Theran…

have you read yourself the link you submitted?

"This new approval, classified as CLIA certificate of waiver, allows testing outside of the lab for those determined to be so simple there is little room for error."

If i remember this is the "lab developed tests" loophole that Threanos was trying to sneak through, and which was shut close for them on the basis that spreading their devices around, like interstate commerce, is a clear violation of the loophole and they do need actual FDA approval... the rest of the story we have been observing for the last several months.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#158

Post by neurotech1 »

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…

IMO The Theranos basic concept is viable, but their implementation is flawed.

There have been somewhat recent cases of the SECDEF firing a General or Admiral if a development or acquisition goes awry. The JSF Program Executive Officer, MG David Heinz [0] was one example. I doubt a senior officer would risk a $10Bn acquisition program on unverified technology. Development programs are another story.

The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) [1] are known for being rigid when it comes to the units meeting contracted specifications. They also require technical documentation, so trade secret wouldn't be an excuse. If DCMA are on vacation, then no deliveries take place. This happened during federal shutdowns.

If Theranos sold the DoD a device that was faked and didn't meet specifications, It's entirely likely DCMA would reject the delivery.

Development programs with DoD funding sometimes (often?) go awry, and sometimes specifications get changed (e.g F-35) but the unit must meet contractual specifications.

[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Contract_Management_Ag...

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#159

Post by dnautics »

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.

More like they had a taste of the science and decided to work out the last 90%.. But that's actually the right way to do science generally.... Just not in this case.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#160

Post by dang »

cb18 wrote: post #116
tryitnow wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

Please don't add to such things.

Post reply on HN