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

171–180 of 201 posts

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#171

Post by mortona »

coderjames wrote: post #107
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…

No. Retail investors don't have the opportunity to scrutinize the company's records beyond what is publicly availbale, to take up references, or to meet with the management team. The VCs and funds investing in late-stage private companies do have these options. They can do as much, or as little, due-diligence as they like. And not just because they can demand things as a condition of the investment, but because it's perfectly reasonable to spend $50,000 on a couple of expert technical opinions when you're investing $1m+ but unfeasible if you're putting in $30k of life savings.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#172

Post by vidarh »

dcgudeman wrote: post #24
danem wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of questions exactly? It seems to me that having such powerful, influential, former members of government on your board would be highly valuable in navigating the difficult regulatory environment companies in this industry face.

Why do you have Henry Kissinger on your board and not a veteran medical device or medical test industry expert. Henry Kissinger might have tons of foreign policy experience but this is a completely different field.

If you could get Henry Kissinger on your board and don't have moral issues with him, why wouldn't you? I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but in that respect Kissinger is definitively an exception, because while he may not have the medical credentials, he has tremendous value just because he is someone who is so well known that he can be a door-opener "anywhere".

He's also run a consulting company that's specialising in identifying partners and acting as door-opener for the last 34 years.

In other words: He's not on that board for his expertise in their field, but for his expertise and contacts related to getting in to talk to the right people.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#173

Post by CaptainZapp »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #144

To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In.

When you click on the discussion you see a "web" link at the top.

This takes you to Google News search from where you can click through to the article.

It usually works.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#174

Post by hga »

madgar wrote: post #123
hga wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the ones done on me for bog standard tests in the last dozen years or more, that wasn't done, but the extra gunk in the vial just might be intended to grab the contaminants as well as stabilize the blood. Or maybe these more standard tests allow for whatever amount of contamination is in the drawn blood, suppose it's 2-3 orders of magnitude less.

They don't throw out the first vial right there in front of you.

When they only take one vial, they'd better not be throwing it out and sending my doctor and myself "results"!

Now, it's possible I'm mis-remembering this, although the protocol includes showing me the vial after the draw so I can confirm it's labeled correctly and I tend to remember additional vials, since that manipulation often hurts more than anything else. I'll pay attention, heck, ask the phlebotomist in a few months during my next annual checkup.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#175

Post by yxhuvud »

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.

I agree with your first section, but not the second. A fart can look close to getting to the moon given enough layers of incompetence.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#176

Post by peter303 »

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…

Ex polticians want to share in Silicon Valleys riches too. George HW Bush got lucky and made a large amount on a telecom optical cable play.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#177

Post by peter303 »

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…

Note that Schultz is a former MIT professor and has run large companies.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#178

Post by samuraig »

mplewis wrote: post #46

Rehosted for 24 hours without the paywall: http://pastebin.com/RwipXxds

Thanks. I find it interesting that they refer to "redactions" in the CMS report that Theranos wanted to "protect trade secrets". I suspect it is more dirt that would show just how much they are hiding behind their facade. I wonder if CMS will end up releasing the full report to the public.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#179

Post by ArkyBeagle »

School-Cotton wrote: post #117
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 In what sense?

In the sense that it is not charging monopoly rents on taxi medallions.

Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing

#180

Post by desireco42 »

mk1202 wrote: post #165
desireco42 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are a good number of successful young females working in tech. They just aren't billionaires or hyped as much, that's all. Here's an example: http://www.ted.com/talks/tan_le_a_headset_that_reads_your_br...

Sure, and I was just expressing that. Like I said, I didn't study her, I might have seen article here and there.
Post reply on HN