Live data from Hacker News

Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence

arstechnica.com

31–35 of 35 posts

Re: Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence

#31
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cult of personality was the only reason for Theranos existing. Holmes is a young, rich Stanford dropout who idolizes Steve Jobs down to the sweaters, lives like a monk while consuming elaborate vegan smoothies, and claimed to be upending generations of practice with the power of outside-the-box thinking. She raised money and endorsements by being Silicon Valley's wet dream, while the scientific establishment's co…

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. She was also held up as a successful female entrepreneur/leader. There was a lot of expectation for her to set an example and be a role model.

That... Did not work out very well. The woman behind Spanx would be a better role model for my daughter, methinks.

And that's considering that my daughter likes to look at blood under my microscope.

Re: Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence

#32
post #7

> Still, last week’s news raises the question of what will happen to the company’s other clinical laboratory in Scottsdale, Arizona, at which 90 percent of the company’s tests are processed. So far, that lab has passed regulatory muster, and the company said it will remain open for now. I find it interesting that their Arizona lab passed...would this imply they do indeed have a legitimate product?

No, it implies that Siemens sold them a legitimate product.

Re: Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence

#33
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's harmful is looking at someone in this kind of position primarily as a woman. Compare the treatment of Holmes to that of Parker Conrad, the ousted Zenefits CEO. Conrad is a white guy who went to prestigious New York schools and then Harvard. Is anyone saying that Conrad doing a bad job as a founder CEO will be harmful to white Harvard graduates everywhere? Of course not. You only "reflect badly" on your peer gr…

> Is anyone saying that Conrad doing a bad job as a founder CEO will be harmful to white Harvard graduates everywhere? No, because people have plenty of competing examples of white male Harvard graduate CEOs of startups. So one outstanding failure (or unusual, for the category, success, for that matter) barely moves the needle on the expectations of the category. > You only "reflect badly" on your peer group if it's…

When there isn't much data, you shouldn't be segmenting your population. Instead it is common in data analysis to collapse variables to have meaningful observations. Why would that be any different here?

Re: Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either that or the Arizona regulations are just a little looser. Arizona is still in the United States, so it has the same federal regulations ;-) Who knows, though, maybe they were just busy with the smaller lab and haven't got to Arizona yet.

That's entirely possible. My instinct would be to say that California would have more strict regulation but we could also be dealing entirely in federal.

"We" are. FDA is the relevant regulatory body.

Re: Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence

#35
post #14

A pretty good example for why this founder as perment dictator corporate structure is really short sided. Nobody can fire Holmes since she controls the company herself. Is Theranos cash flow positive? Or do they still rely on investments? Who would invest now.

If she owns* it, why shouldn't she able to stay? If she didn't control the company I would imagine any competent board would boot her, but she does, so she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what she chooses to do. * in the sense that she controls 50% + 1 of the votes

> she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what she chooses to do

Not really. Even if she owns it she has a fiduciary responsibility to her other shareholders as an officer of the company.

Unfortunately it is quite possible that Holmes staying put IS in the best interest of all other shareholders given how little else Theranos seems to have going for it...

Post reply on HN