Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#2It's just a matter of time before huge writedowns in the valuation happen. And Elizabeth Holmes won't be described as a billionaire for much longer (which unless I have missed something is almost all on paper).
Without a drastic plot twist it appears this company is little more than vaporware. At least the investors that will lose their money are people who should have all known better (and can afford the loss!), back in the dot com boom this thing would have been held by mom and pop.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#3How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#4How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.
Like open source not making all bugs shallow, start-up capitalism doesn't guarantee an accurate assessment.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#5How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.
Like open source not making all bugs shallow, start-up capitalism doesn't guarantee an accurate assessment.
And with this specific industry it would be cheaper to not do the deep assessment (medical compliance work is $$$ and you can only lose 1x your investment, if it is real you can make 100x).
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#6I can't imagine being in her shoes. Kind of sorry for her, she was supposed to be an inspiration for women everywhere.
On the other hand, she is an excellent example of how not to be disconnected from reality for founders.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#7How did a company like Theranos get so "far" with all signs early and present pointing to deep, fundamental problems? I refuse to believe investors simply failed to perform due diligence.
I think they ran in stealth mode for as long as possible. I remember finding out about them and not seeing a lot of information other than a few job postings some time back. Seems like once they started their move into daylight, the Wall Street Journal has been on a mission to take them down.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#8Medical research is in great need of a major shakeup, because I feel like current research models have seriously underperformed in recent years...
...but now that isn't going to happen, primarily because of this debacle.
It's so sad that the "keystone cops" at Theranos have done so much damage to the reputation of the medical startup community- Possibly, they've set medical research back by several years with their bad behavior.
Every time from now on when someone dares suggest that medical regulation is stifling innovation, they will be asked to defend Theranos, which appears indefensible.
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#9The more I read about theranos the more apparent it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with it's core goals, leadership and technology. One easily identifiable red flag is the composition of its board. It's nearly all ex-military and government officials not veteran entrepreneurs and technologists. Just to name a few: George Shultz (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn and Bill Frist (former U.S. Senators), James Mattis (General, USMC, retired) and Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired) Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), William Perry (former Secretary of Defense)
Re: Regulators Propose Banning Theranos Founder from Blood Testing
#10Of note is that this letter is dated before the big dog-and-pony show they did of appointing a bunch of experts to their scientific and medical advisory board. Guess that was their attempt to get ahead of this news.