151–160 of 226 posts
Why is the SEC involved in a failure-to-quality-control issue? Were investors materially misled?
Thankfully, the SEC has our backs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I had never heard of Theranos until they came up in the news with all these issues (and I read HN every day).
June of 2014 there was a massive press roll out for Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes. You couldn't go anywhere, or look at a magazine rack, without seeing her face. http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-blood-holmes/
I also don't read magazines, read newspapers, watch TV, or listen to the radio.
Here's a television parody I wrote about Theranos that ends right where this story begins... http://pricks.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, that's a nonsense point of view. The investors want to get as much of their investment back as possible, or, if they've given up on that, they at least don't want to be seen as having invested in criminals.
If they have concluded that their was some kind of fraud involved then having the government investigate and expose the facts is a lot easier and cheaper for them. They will then be free to use those facts to recover money.
Institutional investors are a lot more worried about the (additional) reputational damage, from having invested with criminals, than they are about recovering fractions of fractions of fractions of pennies on the dollar by raiding Elizabeth Holmes' personal bank account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Someone out there needs to attack healthcare. All the attacking that needs to be done is political/social, not technical. Want to attack healthcare? Strip middlemen out so that the money flows to providers and researchers (Single payer + pouring additional money into the NIH/NSF, with the results being public domain). All of these YC startups I see "hacking" healthcare (Dr Chrono, HealthSherpa, etc) are just bandai…
Single Payer would be great if you can trust the uh, payer. But our government is delightfully corrupt, so I'm sure a lot of people with more rare medical conditions would end up with worse treatment than they can get now.
The news release issued when the Walgreens deal was announced said consumers “will be able to access less invasive and more affordable clinician-directed lab testing, from a blood sample as small as a few drops, or 1/1,000 the size of a typical blood draw.” As part of the deal, Walgreens has invested at least $50 million into Theranos, according to people familiar with the matter. It really blows my mind that Therano…
The news release issued when the Walgreens deal was announced said consumers “will be able to access less invasive and more affordable clinician-directed lab testing, from a blood sample as small as a few drops, or 1/1,000 the size of a typical blood draw.” As part of the deal, Walgreens has invested at least $50 million into Theranos, according to people familiar with the matter. It really blows my mind that Therano…
Never trust anyone whose schtick is that they're too busy to have a private life.
Agreed. Did Holmes say that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For example, in the field of oncology there's very little money put into cheap accurate early screening. And an almost obsessive pour of money into trying to understand mid-to-late stage cancers. Even James Watson has criticized this. I'm in no way an expert, but isn't part of that related to increasing evidence that early detection of a tumor isn't necessarily a benefit? I recall reading many tumors stop or grow s…
It depends on the type of cancer. For instance, a surprisingly large portion of the population likely has thyroid cancer and doesn't know it, and many have it and it isn't treated. It's a very slow-growing cancer usually, and just not worth bothering with until the tumor gets large enough to cause real problems due to its size (then they usually just cut out part of your thyroid, leaving the other part to continue wo…
A larger portion of the population has prostate cancer. You probably have it right now.
My mom likes to tell a story from one of her classes at medical school. The teacher had a bunch of slides of prostate material; you had to identify which prostate was cancerous. There were so many questions ("this one looks cancerous. Is this it?") from the class that he was forced to announce "look, there's a bit of cancer in everyone's prostate. Find the one with an obvious problem".
It's slow, but it will get you if nothing else does first. :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
two things struck me as a little odd. One, the private costs are off the chart with regard to our peers, but the government spending is just "more than average". but more than average is presented as being just as bad as the outlier we are in the first case. Two, medicare is responsible for the most expensive health years of a person's life. The time when our bodies just start to fall apart and require a lot of speci…
I think the argument is that US government financed health care that only pays for maybe half the population is already more expensive then paying for 100% of the population in other countries. So it's a stretch to imagine that having the US government take on many more patients would lower costs.
Sure, given your current system, it won't. So change your current system.