Schadenfreude is probably merited in this case, but I for one think one needs to consider that this could quickly spiral down and end up in Holmes taking drastic action that we will all regret. Hope my meaning comes through here.
U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
51–60 of 280 posts
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#52The article says it isn't clear what the monetary penalty would be.. but the letter CMS sent to theranos in March (re the newark lab) proposes a 10000$/day penalty for noncompliance that would continue until the lab is brought into compliance.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/cms20160412...
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#53Hear that? That's the sound of $9B in valuation disappearing :| There is really a thin line between delusion and brilliance.
It looks like a thin line in one plane but 1AU in a different plane.
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#54I'm usually a huge fan of pg, but in his essay about founders, there was one section which I wasn't very comfortable with: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html Specifically, when he talks about naughtiness, he says: Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that m…
A good post, even as one given over to naturally ignoring stupid rules.
Many start-ups are engaged in the "flout the law and make abnormal profits by hoping society evolves/decides in our favour" gamble.
Uber and Airbnb are two obvious examples, where I'm sure if a couple of people had died in transit, or a house burnt down and killed its occupants, and resulting cases went to court and they were found to have gone against transport/hotelier laws in a jurisdiction, then I imagine the course of such companies would be very different.
I'm sure we'll have more interesting case studies that I'm just not as familiar with as we have startups move into other heavily regulated but emergent/disruption ready/ambiguously policed sectors: see drug legalisation, communications/cryptography/security, financial services, legal services, health/pharmacy, etc as logical places where you'd expect to see these gambles starting to show up...
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#55The article says it isn't clear what the monetary penalty would be.. but the letter CMS sent to theranos in March (re the newark lab) proposes a 10000$/day penalty for noncompliance that would continue until the lab is brought into compliance. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/cms20160412...
That's only 3.65M (or 2.4M if they only count business days) per year. Having no idea of the US system here, could they just continue in noncompliance mode?
It wouldn't be the first time a valley business powers on and pays for noncompliance. I understand that Uber pays the fines it's drivers receive where it's service is illegal...
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed - she should be imprisoned. You don't get to play with lives.
I think that's the problem. It hasn't been linked to deaths yet. I fear it might be impossible to link a ~year of invalidated blood testing as the cause of death. Did Theranos test for fatal diseases? Did they just test for mundane stuff?
> I fear it might be impossible to link a ~year of invalidated blood testing as the cause of death.
I can only see one way this happened. Someone got a false negative. They would have gone to another lab but chose Theranos based on marketing claims. They get tested now and see their positive result for a terminal condition they can no longer treat.
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#57I'm usually a huge fan of pg, but in his essay about founders, there was one section which I wasn't very comfortable with: http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html Specifically, when he talks about naughtiness, he says: Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that m…
Evidence A: How Paul defended shady AirBnB tactics here on hackernews.
Yes, when you're invested, it's "naughtiness". The only possible crime in that case is failing to produce an acceptable exit with acceptable upside.
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But when does "playing marketing games" become OK? When it comes to anything that can affect your health in medical related capacities it's tough to say it's ever okay. But duping a 9 year old into buying $200 worth of bullshit in-app purchases? Also very unethical, in my opinion, but at least it doesn't directly result in inaccurate medical care which could easily lead to serious injury or death. So ultimately I'm…
It's only ever OK. That's just a societal agreement. It's never good. It seems like an extremely conservative application of innocent until proven guilty. Advertising has been deemed necessary despite the ways it can be abused. We should likely be more critical in "serious" markets. It's insane that we let Coke/Pepsi regularly subject us all to babes in bikinis sensually consuming fizzy sugar water. That or whatever…
I mean, advertising can also just be about brand awareness, or talking about a product. How many psychological tricks are ads in the sidebar of Stack Overflow? The concept of advertising isn't inherently evil.
To be clear, I agree 10000% with the action taken here. I would like for us to start applying this strict standard more often.
Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years
#59Hear that? That's the sound of $9B in valuation disappearing :| There is really a thin line between delusion and brilliance.
I'm beginning to wonder if at any point they will pack their bags, return what's left to investors and close up shop...or maybe they'll just keep going until it's completely dead? Hell maybe they pivot to be a traditional lab with traditional equipment?
As a general rule that will serve everyone well on hacker news throughout their lives:
Don't ever expect someone who has gotten their hands on your money to voluntarily close up shop and give it back :p
They'll take it to the casino and bet it all on black, or siphon it off somewhere else before that ever happens...because all your money gone and them giving it back to you is the same thing to the person who no longer has it.