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

211–220 of 280 posts

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

#211

Post by jasonlaramburu »

gmarx wrote: post #197
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future (when everything works, out of course). I'm sure even Bernie Madoff believed at some point he would win it all back and no one would ever know or be harmed.

Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? When I read that they were using regular lab test machines to perform the majority of tests, it struck me as pretty much what my YC friends reported as received wisdom- that it's legit to start out doing it "by hand" before you get your tech working.

I don't think so. As I understood, their core value proposition was that they could deliver detailed, accurate blood test results with just a few drops of blood and their proprietary analysis technology. In reality, they used traditional venous draws (way more than a few drops), and competitors' systems to deliver test results of lower accuracy than their competitors. If they were really 'doing it by hand,' they would have still delivered on their core value prop of detailed results with only a few drops of blood.

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

#212

Post by kilroy123 »

aerovistae wrote: post #202
joeyrideout wrote: post #7

Ouch. Sanctions mean "shutting down and subsequently rebuilding the Newark lab from the ground up, rebuilding quality systems, adding highly experienced leadership, personnel and experts, and implementing enhanced quality and training procedures". There is a chance to appeal, but "such appeals have rarely succeeded in the past". Couple that with an "unspecified monetary penalty" and this looks like a very big nail in…

Whenever you can't view a WSJ article due to paywall, copy/paste the article headline into google search then click the article out of the google results. Paywall will vanish. If you're talking about a different problem, sorry, no idea.

I just use this chrome extension which does it automatically:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bypass/ekfnpmbmfml...

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

#213

Post by arprocter »

aerovistae wrote: post #202
joeyrideout wrote: post #7

Ouch. Sanctions mean "shutting down and subsequently rebuilding the Newark lab from the ground up, rebuilding quality systems, adding highly experienced leadership, personnel and experts, and implementing enhanced quality and training procedures". There is a chance to appeal, but "such appeals have rarely succeeded in the past". Couple that with an "unspecified monetary penalty" and this looks like a very big nail in…

Whenever you can't view a WSJ article due to paywall, copy/paste the article headline into google search then click the article out of the google results. Paywall will vanish. If you're talking about a different problem, sorry, no idea.

You can also click the 'web' button under the headline here

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

#214

Post by dragonwriter »

jacquesm wrote: post #76
dcgudeman wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does "operating a lab" mean the same thing as being the CEO of Theranos?

Ditto 'owning'. Effectively this says 'Theranos as a company will not go anywhere until Holmes steps down, and after that the chances of it remaining in business are still extremely slim'.

Since "owning" and "directing" are there, and Holmes is not only CEO but also majority shareholder (and owning stock that gives her disproportionate control for her stock ownership), wouldn't she have to not only step down but also divest at least enough to no longer be either majority owner or have majority voting power?

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

#215

Post by sseveran »

gmarx wrote: post #197
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future (when everything works, out of course). I'm sure even Bernie Madoff believed at some point he would win it all back and no one would ever know or be harmed.

Isn't this just a combination of generally admired startup behavior (fake it til you make it) combined with a business on which people's health might depend? When I read that they were using regular lab test machines to perform the majority of tests, it struck me as pretty much what my YC friends reported as received wisdom- that it's legit to start out doing it "by hand" before you get your tech working.

Startups aren't about "fake it til you make it". At its core a startup (and its founders and investors) are typically making a contrarian bet that must be right. Theranos bet that it could use a small amount of blood could be used to the same effect of much larger blood draws. It has turned out that this was not right at this point in time. If its technology worked we would not be reading this news story.

Of course while every company wants to paint itself in the best light it is probably best not to engage in outright deception. If discovered that can be fatal.

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

#216

Post by ceejayoz »

27182818284 wrote: post #184
electic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their cars were reviewed by agencies and given the highest safety ratings out there. That can't be said for Theranos.

I'd note that the safety ratings currently have no ranking that'd be relevant for stuff like autopilot.

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

#217

Post by auggierose »

tps5 wrote: post #191
scott_s wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with your characterization of Bernie Madoff. He knew he was running a scam. He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. (See Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen"; that's how Markopolos figured out it was a scam.) I think Madoff is, at the least, a borderline sociopath. (If not an outright one.) A sociopath may think they can get…

I never paid much attention to the details of the Madoff case but I think people on the internet throw out the "sociopath" label way too freely. Not much is gained from that label, in my opinion. And I certainly wouldn't apply it to Bernie Madoff or Holmes based on what I know of their situations.

I don't know, his investors were mostly rich people wanting to get richer. I don't feel empathy for those people either.

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

#218

Post by maxerickson »

ryporter wrote: post #87
kumarski wrote: post #62

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…

Tesla can be looked at as a play against battery cost and energy density, both of which have vaguely predictable trajectories:

http://i.imgur.com/NjvUGXh.png

Deciding to build a company that aggressively rides the edges of those curves is a lot different than building a company around a completely new technology that aims to beat anything in existence by a huge multiple (which is the claim for Theranos, that they would do accurate tests with vastly smaller amounts of blood).

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

#219

Post by FireBeyond »

27182818284 wrote: post #184
electic wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Their cars were reviewed by agencies and given the highest safety ratings out there. That can't be said for Theranos.

Actually, they weren't. For a few reasons, Tesla has actually made a "point" of _not_ submitting vehicles for testing, which is why you won't see it here:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List

Per http://www.torquenews.com/1083/why-tesla-s-2014-model-s-cann... - has some interesting comments, too.

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

#220

Post by oldmanjay »

scott_s wrote: post #176
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if scam is the right word. Everyone is capable of deluding themselves into believing their current, morally questionable actions will be seen as justified in the future (when everything works, out of course). I'm sure even Bernie Madoff believed at some point he would win it all back and no one would ever know or be harmed.

I don't agree with your characterization of Bernie Madoff. He knew he was running a scam. He was clearly lying in his marketing materials, saying his fund performed certain trades that they never did. (See Harry Markopolos' book, "No One Would Listen"; that's how Markopolos figured out it was a scam.) I think Madoff is, at the least, a borderline sociopath. (If not an outright one.) A sociopath may think they can get…

Why do you think you have such powerful psychiatric skills that you can third-hand diagnose a man?
Post reply on HN