21–30 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
click web > go to article from google
I have read the article (there was no 'web' button but some other comment posted a working link). Still have no idea what Theranos is or what they have done. Apparently they worked fro Walgreen or something?
I wonder how long she will be able to hold the CEO position?
well the bar is "owning, operating, or directing" a lab. She can appeal and that would delay it.. but when this takes effect, it sounds like she's out.
The WSJ article and the Theranos press release [1] don't agree. There's no mention of the 2-year ban in the press release. The press release indicates it's business as usual for Theranos at their Arizona lab. Supposedly only their Newark (CA) lab is being shut down. [1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160707006570/en/Ther...
Revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation
But yes.. they really didn't care to expand on that at all... or explain how it would impact their business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the one hand, hopefully not long, as she can't provide any effective leadership with this in place. However, my understanding is that Theranos has an unusual corporate structure that gives Holmes control of most of the votes, so if she doesn't want to leave, I don't know if anyone can force her.
Seems like an odd arrangement for investors to agree to, one I am sure they are currently regretting...
Hear that? That's the sound of $9B in valuation disappearing :| There is really a thin line between delusion and brilliance.
It's quite strange, how easy it is to build a valuation
The WSJ article and the Theranos press release [1] don't agree. There's no mention of the 2-year ban in the press release. The press release indicates it's business as usual for Theranos at their Arizona lab. Supposedly only their Newark (CA) lab is being shut down. [1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160707006570/en/Ther...
"Revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation" (emphasis mine)
The WSJ article and the Theranos press release [1] don't agree. There's no mention of the 2-year ban in the press release. The press release indicates it's business as usual for Theranos at their Arizona lab. Supposedly only their Newark (CA) lab is being shut down. [1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160707006570/en/Ther...
I have no sympathy for her. It's incredibly irresponsible to do what she did- play marketing games with medical technology. Theranos' unethical behaviour has made it much more difficult for future innovation in the medical field, and has potentially cost lives. This sanction is appropriate. My fiancee works as a laboratory scientist in a hospital conducting patient sample testing, and her and her co-workers take thei…
The WSJ article and the Theranos press release [1] don't agree. There's no mention of the 2-year ban in the press release. The press release indicates it's business as usual for Theranos at their Arizona lab. Supposedly only their Newark (CA) lab is being shut down. [1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160707006570/en/Ther...
I don't know the laws regarding this, but the title of the article states that Holmes can't operate a lab, not that Theranos is unable to. So it sounds like they are taking her to task rather than the entire company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have read the article (there was no 'web' button but some other comment posted a working link). Still have no idea what Theranos is or what they have done. Apparently they worked fro Walgreen or something?
i think wikipedia has you covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos
Has there been any clue as to why this ban has come about? That seems rather harsh for a "simple" (I'm using that very loosely) mistake. Is there evidence of faking data or other nefarious deeds on the side of the company?