Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 280 posts

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#61

Post by schwarrrtz »

ben_jones wrote: post #49
Fricken wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to imagine myself willfully misleading her investors and the public for as long as she did, and at that scale extends beyond my capacity for empathy. I suspect she's genuinely delusional. I don't know how else someone could do something like that.

I honestly think most entrepreneurs are capable of it. The hype level of Theranos is present at MOST start-ups. I.E. A Large software company that allowed user data to be stolen because of known security issues. Software company does not inform the public of the breach until forced to. A large medical company that allowed a very large failure rate of testing devices from known issues. Medical company does not inform…

Agreed. This should be a case study for the importance of following best practices and adhering to appropriate safety protocols. Such protocols should exist in any organization that designs products for other people to use.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#62

Post by kumarski »

I've talked to over 100 hematologists.

This business, didn't pass a basic litmus test of objective criticism from people who work in the space.

There seems to be this bravado among founders who believe they're sticking it to all the people who say something's amiss. I think if there's an elephant in the room though, it probably should be assassinated with a huge body of transparent evidence.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#63

Post by thesimpsons1022 »

gravypod wrote: post #6

I cant read this article. Can someone provide some backstory? What is Theranos? Why was it shut down?

Theranos was a hot startup (mostly popular because the founder was woman and dropped out of stanford). Everyone bought the story because it fit their narrative of a succesful single young woman from stanford revolutionizing the medical field by introducing cheap, painless blood testing. They even got Henry Kissinger (the war criminal) on their board. Turns out it is all BS.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#64

Post by atarian »

sndean wrote: post #15

If they're going to ban her from operating labs for two years, does that mean they think she'll be, in some way, rehabilitated and capable of soundly running labs after that? Maybe there is little precedent, but that length of time seems a bit arbitrary (and too short?).

Doubt she'll have much impact if she decides to return after two years. Her reputation is beyond repair at this point.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#65

Post by yeukhon »

And she went to Stanford? What a joke. Seriously, I am tired and sick of government and regulators not sending people to trials at all. I was watching Elizabeth Warren's hearing in the Senate on finance issues, and she brings up a good point. Wall Street banks have not been punished hard enough. In case of evident and deliberated fraud and cover up, no one was sent to trial. This is stupid.

FYI, I am not the kind of guy goes around and preach about reform. But this shit is stupid as hell. I think major offense like these should be sent to trial or even requires congressional hearing and congressional punishment.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#66

Post by MawNicker »

rtpg wrote: post #58
MawNicker wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm talking about "playing marketing games" and not advertising in general. Then I'm talking about how hard it is to tell the two apart and the lousy compromises we've made in doing so. That being said I think brand awareness is mostly manipulative. Consumers need product awareness. It's definitely on the safer side of games though. I suspect it's fairly intrinsic/necessary. I don't want to advertise for my competitors.

The sidebar on StackOverflow is great.

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#67

Post by wiz21c »

ben_jones wrote: post #49
Fricken wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to imagine myself willfully misleading her investors and the public for as long as she did, and at that scale extends beyond my capacity for empathy. I suspect she's genuinely delusional. I don't know how else someone could do something like that.

I honestly think most entrepreneurs are capable of it. The hype level of Theranos is present at MOST start-ups. I.E. A Large software company that allowed user data to be stolen because of known security issues. Software company does not inform the public of the breach until forced to. A large medical company that allowed a very large failure rate of testing devices from known issues. Medical company does not inform…

What scares me most is that the failure are always seen as morally acceptable loss to the founders : "it's that or we have to fire half the company", "it's that or we can't pay salaries", "it's that or closing the company", "it's that or we're in even bigger legal troubles". It basically boils down to "I know I'm doing something wrong but I have no choice". I've personally met one these people. Very smart guy, but unable to say "I'm doing something wrong, so it's better to stop now".

Ethics should be hammered in some people's head...

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#68

Post by jsemrau »

nell wrote: post #53
arcticbull wrote: post #4

Hear 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.

If you pull a string that has the length of 1au, would it take 8 minutes for the other side to react to the tug, or would it move as soon as you pull the string?

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#69

Post by solidsnack9000 »

wiz21c wrote: post #67
ben_jones wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think most entrepreneurs are capable of it. The hype level of Theranos is present at MOST start-ups. I.E. A Large software company that allowed user data to be stolen because of known security issues. Software company does not inform the public of the breach until forced to. A large medical company that allowed a very large failure rate of testing devices from known issues. Medical company does not inform…

What scares me most is that the failure are always seen as morally acceptable loss to the founders : "it's that or we have to fire half the company", "it's that or we can't pay salaries", "it's that or closing the company", "it's that or we're in even bigger legal troubles". It basically boils down to "I know I'm doing something wrong but I have no choice". I've personally met one these people. Very smart guy, but un…

"I know it's wrong but those are my orders..."

Re: U.S. Bans Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes from Operating Labs for Two Years

#70

Post by solidsnack9000 »

rtpg wrote: post #20
fnbr wrote: post #9

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…

I agree with the sentiment, this stuff's important. But when does "playing marketing games" become OK? Maybe for mobile games, but even then you have kids taking their parent's credit cards out of wallets and spending 100s... everything's important to somebody. Clearly medical tech is extra important, and the consequences even more grave, but I hope this is a lesson to everyone that trying to dupe all of society some…

Maybe it's never "OK" but sometimes it threatens life and limb.
Post reply on HN