My personal opinion is that their technology was too disruptive and would have ultimately undermined too much money making in the industry so it had to be stopped. The whole things smacks too much like a witch hunt. Including the fact that whenever I mention my opinion is gets down voted to oblivion.
Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
181–190 of 201 posts
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#182My personal opinion is that their technology was too disruptive and would have ultimately undermined too much money making in the industry so it had to be stopped. The whole things smacks too much like a witch hunt. Including the fact that whenever I mention my opinion is gets down voted to oblivion.
> Including the fact that whenever I mention my opinion is gets down voted to oblivion.
Because its just conjecture has no proof behind it? HN isn't the place for conspiracy theories.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#183Earlier 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…
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 Contra…
"IMO The Theranos basic concept is viable, but their implementation is flawed."
Can you point to any sources indicating that the basic concept is viable?
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It says in the article that she has >50% equity.
I'm going to guess that these big name investors have liquidation preferences of at least 2x, meaning that her stake will probably be worth nothing once this all blows up even if the company maintains any value (and it probably won't anyways)
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought one of the key ideas of a MVP is that it's something you put in the hands of customers to get feedback on. How many of those 1,000s have you given to customers?
> I thought one of the key ideas of a MVP is that it's something you put in the hands of customers... Internet-type startups, at their core, are about marketing more than they are about technology. Getting the technology right is absolutely no guarantee of success, but you can hack together some PHP and -- if you get the marketing right -- make a shitload of money. Psychology is kinda hard to do rigorously, so you te…
Not true, plenty of biotech startups fail because they believe this.
Consider the pharma route. Does it solve something that slots in, or will the process be hard, or maybe they have something close enough that disrupting the pipeline isn't worth it? Many projects don't get into testing, many testing projects don't get purchased, and as generally only one pharma will want to purchase, scale won't be hit (so you're dependent), and many purchased projects won't get acquired.
There are other routes and they have their own business risks. The MVP / market analysis process is different for biotech, but still should happen. It's pretty fascinating!
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#186Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#187Wow this is personal. The 4 trillions dollars empire strikes back
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#188I've been short Theranos from the beginning. It's very obvious to people who have interacted with the type of person Holmes is.
> Stanfraud graduate (not even graduated)
> Father has a IV in his name
> Both parents work in DC (east coast)
These are HUGE red flags in a field where results are much more tightly correlated with technical expertise. They wouldn't be in another field that is less tightly correlated such as banking or politics.
Furthermore, anybody that has done any amount of research in any capacity knows that an undergraduate claiming their research project (in biology especially. CS is possible) could launch an entire company is either purposefully delusional or incompetent.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#189The 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…
Bill Frist is/was actually a highly regarded heart and lung transplant surgeon.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#190Medical research is in great need of a major shakeup, because I feel like current research models have seriously underperformed in recent years... ...but now that isn't going to happen, primarily because of this debacle. It's so sad that the "keystone cops" at Theranos have done so much damage to the reputation of the medical startup community- Possibly, they've set medical research back by several years with their b…
>I feel like current research models have seriously underperformed in recent years... The research models have performed as they always have, if not better. The only thing that's changed is the introduction of know-it-all Silicon Valley VCs who think bio is the same as software.
It's certainly not a recent phenomenon. Genentech was founded in the seventies, and Kleiner Perkins was one of the original investors.