121–130 of 280 posts
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.
Not really...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the string is completely non-elastic?
What if the string isn't actually made of matter but is made up of some hypothetical substance that doesn't follow any laws of physics? Same question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elon Musk wasn't playing with people's lives. The FDA exists for a reason.
You sure? The two autopilot deaths say otherwise. There has and will always be risk in starting a company. Your products might have flaws and they might kill. Some companies make it through these events...some don't. Innovation is embracing a crazy idea to move humanity forward. However, it also means embracing all the unknowns.
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.
To be fair, that is how innovation occurs. There are many examples of "ridiculous" ideas that ended being wildly successful. Where would Elon Musk be if he listened to all of the incumbents who said that his ideas would never work? Obviously, the putative innovators massively failed in this case, but I don't think that the outcome proves that their original idea was fatally flawed, or at least that it wasn't worth at…
While it is difficult I would say much of this is due to the infrastructure and capital requirements to get to this point. No one doubted that an electric supercar could be made, rather that it would be very difficult to achieve scale.
Had Theranos opted for a mass produced microfluidics chip and instrument based on existing chemistries people would have said it would be difficult to compete with the large industry players (Bio-Rad, Roche, Thermo Fisher etc). This would be deemed difficult or "ridiculous" for reasons relating to capital, infrastructure and potential market share rather than the actual science and functionality of the system.
This is where Theranos differs from Tesla, not only trying to achieve scale but do so with a unproven scientific method.
It's a shame that Theranos has played out like this because a system that uses a small amount of blood is a great end goal but should have been a 10-15-20 year goal; just as Musk didn't intend to produce a $30,000 mass market car from the beginning. If Theranos built their own instrument based on existing qPCR research/design and used existing chemistry they could get "in the door" and begin really understanding the market. They would need to differentiate but could do so by attempting build a single benchtop automated unit that removed the need for manual sample preparation. While their solution may be a premium offering and a smaller market this would lead them towards their ultimate goal. Over time they could begin to look into chemistries, chip designs and instruments that would bring them closer to their ultimate goal of low cost and low blood requirement testing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the string is completely non-elastic?
What if the string isn't actually made of matter but is made up of some hypothetical substance that doesn't follow any laws of physics? Same question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is your argument? Mine is that both Holmes and Musk were not initially experts in their respective fields.
Musk lives to learn. Holmes apparently - doesn't. In an engineering culture, there's solid respect for reality. In a political culture there's respect for caste, status, and power, but not so much for reality. Political people believe their own PR. They believe all they have to do is throw money at something and bang the table enough and they can get whatever they want. Engineers know it doesn't work like that. Somet…
If the product don't actually work in the first place, you can't call that innovation and it appears that Holmes failed to do her due diligence.
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.
There appear to be two different sorts of "disruption": 1) There's disruption that's seen as impractical or insanely difficult (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX). Or technically feasible but with significant social or legal obstables (e.g. AirBnB, Uber). 2) Then there's another category, disruption that defies laws of physics. Kickstarter is replete with examples. This includes things like pocket-size underwater rebreaters, self-f…
Hear that? That's the sound of $9B in valuation disappearing :| There is really a thin line between delusion and brilliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There appear to be two different sorts of "disruption": 1) There's disruption that's seen as impractical or insanely difficult (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX). Or technically feasible but with significant social or legal obstables (e.g. AirBnB, Uber). 2) Then there's another category, disruption that defies laws of physics. Kickstarter is replete with examples. This includes things like pocket-size underwater rebreaters, self-f…
What law of physics makes what Theranos attempted to achieve impossible? They were still drawing blood from the patient. Thus, it seems theoretically possible for technology to overcome the challenges the approach presents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There appear to be two different sorts of "disruption": 1) There's disruption that's seen as impractical or insanely difficult (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX). Or technically feasible but with significant social or legal obstables (e.g. AirBnB, Uber). 2) Then there's another category, disruption that defies laws of physics. Kickstarter is replete with examples. This includes things like pocket-size underwater rebreaters, self-f…
What law of physics makes what Theranos attempted to achieve impossible? They were still drawing blood from the patient. Thus, it seems theoretically possible for technology to overcome the challenges the approach presents.