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

We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 257 posts

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#131

Post by edanm »

kumarvvr wrote: post #26

The most amazing thing about this whole situation is that there were experts in the field who were shouting out about the impossibility of Holmes' claims right from the beginning. The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. These incidents ought to remind us the exponentially important role media plays in our lives and how important it is that we com…

> The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers.

This is not the most amazing thing, at all. I'm not surprised that "the media" with their limited access, didn't get the full story.

Rather, I'm more surprised about the informed investors, who invested a lot of money, and had access or at least the ability to push for it. How did they invest so much money in something with seemingly so little backing?

> These incidents ought to remind us the exponentially important role media plays in our lives and how important it is that we come up with a framework to penalize misleading journalism, while at the same time, preserving the independence of media.

I don't disagree with the sentiment about the media, but I think this is a singularly bad example - who cares what the public thought about Theranos - the public didn't lose money here.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#132

Post by kijin »

kumarvvr wrote: post #63
sohkamyung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some credit is due to Rupert Murdoch: despite pressure from Elizabeth Holmes (and his investment in it), he decided to allow the reporter, John Carreyrou, to publish his critical pieces on Theranos in the WSJ [1]: Several people who have worked at Murdoch papers have told me that he isn’t above interceding in editorial matters, but in this case, despite his personal interest, he didn’t. A source who has known Mur…

For a man like Murdoch, allowing Carreyrou seems to be more in the vein of "Let there be a public naysayer, lets discredit him, leading to more pseudo-credibility to my investment" I seriously doubt he allowed Carreyrou to continue for the sake of good journalism.

A man like Murdoch cares whether a company he invested in is going to make him money. This means finding out how the company is actually doing, instead of simply trusting the documents presented to him. What better way to do this than to have a reporter snoop around?

By letting reporters in his hire just do their jobs, Murdoch probably gets privileged access to a great deal of secrets and speculations. Carreyrou's reporting could very well have persuaded Murdoch not to make further investments in Theranos, thereby saving him billions.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#133

Post by Cthulhu_ »

cowpig wrote: post #58
sohkamyung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some credit is due to Rupert Murdoch: despite pressure from Elizabeth Holmes (and his investment in it), he decided to allow the reporter, John Carreyrou, to publish his critical pieces on Theranos in the WSJ [1]: Several people who have worked at Murdoch papers have told me that he isn’t above interceding in editorial matters, but in this case, despite his personal interest, he didn’t. A source who has known Mur…

He gets credit for not doing something extremely unethical that would have been quite risky, probably stupidly so (because it would bring him into the controversy)?

Would controlling the media to influence an investment you hold stock in be considered illegal? Similar to insider trading?

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#134

Post by Cthulhu_ »

zeth___ wrote: post #129
shub wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refraining from being horrible is not the same thing as doing something good.

Look at all the people I have not murdered today. Yes yesterday was a bit of a bad day with that school and everything but I should get some credit for today.

It's almost like the nice guy thing. My times I respected women stamp card is almost full!

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#135

Post by madaxe_again »

kumarvvr wrote: post #26

The most amazing thing about this whole situation is that there were experts in the field who were shouting out about the impossibility of Holmes' claims right from the beginning. The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. These incidents ought to remind us the exponentially important role media plays in our lives and how important it is that we com…

What I find truly amazing is that both Kissinger and Mattis were board members, and were party to this grand pump-and-dump, and seem to have escaped any consequence or notice.

Holmes, while equally culpable, appears to be taking the entire fall.

I wonder what she’s getting in return - a cabinet position in a few years once the dust has settled, I’m wagering.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#136

Post by xevb3k »

usrusr wrote: post #108
xevb3k wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s possible. But if it wasn’t consumer testing, then I don’t think it would have been news, and the fallout wouldn’t have been as big. So, we possibly agree. The fact that they started doing consumer testing with a device that didn’t work made this news. However, similar kinds of lies/misinformation gets told to investors in biotech startups all the time. That they actually did consumer testing is what ma…

How does the start of consumer testing mesh with the investment timeline? Unless testing only started after the last investment was committed, the two are the opposite of unrelated.

I can’t quite parse this comment.

But I don’t believe it was quite clear that the consumer testing was a fraud until just before the last round of “investment”.

I put “investment” in quotes because the last 100MUSD was kind of a loan, based by their parent portfolio... so they’ve effectively sold what assets they have.

So yea, consumer testing appears to have been fraudulent, and after that became clear publicly there wasn’t much further investment.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#137

Post by ousta »

Im gonna be downvoted for this but whatever. This would never have happened if Holmes was a man. America is so obsessed by its desire to empower minorities and woman especially that they will allow them to take risks or do things that no man on earth would be allowed to do hence playing with lives and healthcare at silicon valley scale and with billionare investors.

The media is of course the first one to blame for this but also all the PC shit that people endure.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#138

Post by auntienomen »

kijin wrote: post #132
kumarvvr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a man like Murdoch, allowing Carreyrou seems to be more in the vein of "Let there be a public naysayer, lets discredit him, leading to more pseudo-credibility to my investment" I seriously doubt he allowed Carreyrou to continue for the sake of good journalism.

A man like Murdoch cares whether a company he invested in is going to make him money. This means finding out how the company is actually doing, instead of simply trusting the documents presented to him. What better way to do this than to have a reporter snoop around? By letting reporters in his hire just do their jobs, Murdoch probably gets privileged access to a great deal of secrets and speculations. Carreyrou's re…

Also, Murdoch has a $5B investment in the WSJ. The value of that investment depends on the credibility of their business reporting. Spiking stories to protect a much smaller investment doesn't make a lot of sense.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#139

Post by pdpi »

kumarvvr wrote: post #63
sohkamyung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some credit is due to Rupert Murdoch: despite pressure from Elizabeth Holmes (and his investment in it), he decided to allow the reporter, John Carreyrou, to publish his critical pieces on Theranos in the WSJ [1]: Several people who have worked at Murdoch papers have told me that he isn’t above interceding in editorial matters, but in this case, despite his personal interest, he didn’t. A source who has known Mur…

For a man like Murdoch, allowing Carreyrou seems to be more in the vein of "Let there be a public naysayer, lets discredit him, leading to more pseudo-credibility to my investment" I seriously doubt he allowed Carreyrou to continue for the sake of good journalism.

The alternative view is that Murdoch wrote off the investment and allowing Carreyrou the piece serves as a “this is what happens if you play games with me” warning for other prospective partners
Post reply on HN