Theranos Founder Faces a Test of Technology, and Reputation

Theranos Founder Faces a Test of Technology, and Reputation
nytimes.com

This seems a little unfair to Holmes. In this one paragraph, anonymous former employees paint Holmes as a megalomaniac -- e.g. she fires people "who pointed out problems" and lies about the existence of technology. She may very well be a megalomaniac, but these assertions should at least have vague anecdotes ("A former employee recalls a 2008 incident in which Holmes fired a senior engineer in a Reply-All email after he replied that he didn't think the machine could be finished on deadline."). The judgment of what is simply pointing out a problem is sometimes context dependent. And nothing else in the story mentions other proof that would affirm that Holmes is a power-freak when it comes to being the CEO. Yes, there are plenty of anecdotes of her being headstrong in negotiations and attempting projects and deals that went nowhere, but that's a different thing than being a vindictive charlatan among her own employees. The NYT sat down with her for a 2.5 hour interview and could have at least confronted her with this and given her a chance to deny it. In contrast, the WSJ, who couldn't score an interview, had actual anecdotes [0] (the hearsay of one of Theranos's chief engineers, who had claimed the technology was a fraud before committing suicide, and emails about fudging the FDA tests).

The parts about her pre-Theranos life were similar to the New Yorker's story from last year [1]...it sounds like she was the real deal in terms of being a passionate engineering student. It makes me wonder if she had spent at least a couple more years beefing up not just her engineering experience, but life experience, that some of the poor CEO decisions she's made would have been mitigated.

[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-bloo...

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-simpler

How was a college dropout able to get a break in the healthcare sector? Becoming a doctor requires years of education and training and along comes this young woman who just decides "I'm going to change all of this." What? I don't understand how a person with no experience, no vetting, no medical training, no engineering training, and frankly a product that I find to be of questionable value ends up getting millions in funding and at the head of a multibillion dollar company.

Perhaps I just don't understand the phobia that some people have around blood tests but it is my understanding that you get a blood test as a way to gauge your health, not because it makes you feel nice. The hold up doesn't seem to be that tons of people are afraid of needles otherwise they would be getting tested all the time. The hold up to people getting blood tests all the time is that doctors don't order them, presumably because doctors don't think people need them. As long as the test isn't extremely uncomfortable for the patient, I would think that accuracy is really the only measure of quality for a test and it seems to me that they are willing to sacrifice accuracy in favor of making people feel comfortable.

Also, why would I ever get a blood test at a grocery store? Why would I ever trust some random employee at a food store to respect my privacy and be medically competent enough to administer a test like that. What exactly do I have to gain by getting one in the first place?

Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this because this is just my viewpoint as an outsider. I would however never get a blood test from Theranos and if I wanted one I would call my practitioner and have them administer one at a doctor's office, not at the local grocery store.