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

Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 119 posts

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#31

Post by eitally »

seivan wrote: post #12
7Figures2Commas wrote: post #4

Since there's so much interest in unicorn valuations today, and Theranos is a prominent unicorn, anyone wondering about the potential implications of all this news on Theranos' valuation might find it useful to look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a publicly-traded company (ticker: VRX). It is facing a number of issues, a few of which have led some to speculate that it could become pharma's version of Enron[1]. In July,…

Would you short it x10?

I would totally short it. Speaking as a husband whose wife's company was bought then killed by Valeant....

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#32

Post by BiologyRules »

I interviewed at Theranos a year ago, and found the employees to be smart and dedicated.

However, the company was the most secretive I've interviewed at and the employees complained about being overworked. The fact the founder sold C++ compilers to Chinese universities when g++ is open-source sounded odd.

But I still had hope in them even after they passed on me -- a Silicon Valley company actually making a difference in the people's health. I WANT TO BELIEVE.

If this turns out to be smokes and mirrors, I'd be very saddened. Theranos' failure would confirm what everyone interested in biotech knows but wishes wasn't true: that advancements in this field do not move at the speed of the digital economy.

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#33

Post by Crito »

kevinskii wrote: post #30
Crito wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search for Theranos (and related terms) in HN history with the search bar at the bottom of the page. A lot of high profile posters making very embarrassing defences of Theranos. Lots of thinly veiled accusations of ageism, sexism, ludditism, etc. I fear few will learn any lasting lessons from this saga.

There were also others who were making pointed and substantive critiques of Theranos on HN many months before any of these stories broke. Edit: Some examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8182026

This is true. There were in fact people voicing their suspicion that Theranos was all a crock of shit in the very first discussions on Theranos on HN.

Warning signs were there. People were voicing specific technical concerns, as well as less specific concerns over the technical expertise of those involved. For the most part, these critics were brushed off. HN's voting system did not promote their comments; rather it promoted the apologetics.

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#34

Post by ameyamk »

I just wonder instead of going back and forth and create more controversy - why don't they just show which tests are working right now - and which don't. Demonstrating with data is the best defense they can put forth.

its ok - if only small portion of tests are valid at this point but if they show progress with data - this validates they are on the right track.

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#35

Post by notacoward »

kevinskii wrote: post #30
Crito wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search for Theranos (and related terms) in HN history with the search bar at the bottom of the page. A lot of high profile posters making very embarrassing defences of Theranos. Lots of thinly veiled accusations of ageism, sexism, ludditism, etc. I fear few will learn any lasting lessons from this saga.

There were also others who were making pointed and substantive critiques of Theranos on HN many months before any of these stories broke. Edit: Some examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8182026

Random thought: maybe "gratuitous positivity" is as damaging as "gratuitous negativity" and should be treated the same way. Only seems fair, doesn't it?

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#36

Post by dredmorbius »

notacoward wrote: post #35
kevinskii wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were also others who were making pointed and substantive critiques of Theranos on HN many months before any of these stories broke. Edit: Some examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8182026

Random thought: maybe "gratuitous positivity" is as damaging as "gratuitous negativity" and should be treated the same way. Only seems fair, doesn't it?

There's an alternative philosophy to consider, stoicism:

http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/why-stoicism-is-one-of-th...

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#37

Post by majani »

pen2l wrote: post #29
Netbeing wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all VCs are equally (in)competent. I've always felt that one of the root causes of the ~2000 dot-com bubble was a proliferation of incompetent VCs chasing the glut of investment capital. Things seem roughly the same these days, or maybe even worse, since the eventual-rationality of the public markets can't come into play if there's no IPO.

The first VC who backed Theranos is a pretty smart guy. Was first in his class at Stanford, has an otherwise pretty nice portfolio of companies he has funded

First in a Stanford class can still turn out to be an incompetent VC who doesn't do due diligence

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#38

Post by milesskorpen »

7Figures2Commas wrote: post #4

Since there's so much interest in unicorn valuations today, and Theranos is a prominent unicorn, anyone wondering about the potential implications of all this news on Theranos' valuation might find it useful to look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a publicly-traded company (ticker: VRX). It is facing a number of issues, a few of which have led some to speculate that it could become pharma's version of Enron[1]. In July,…

Accounting rules changed after Enron; it's a lot harder to do what they did. The biggest recent drop was after a very negative piece from someone who publishes negative pieces while short-selling. I don't have much information, but I'm not all that convinced Valeant has real fraud issues.

Also, Theranos and Valeant seem like entirely different businesses.

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#39

Post by khaki54 »

BiologyRules wrote: post #32

I interviewed at Theranos a year ago, and found the employees to be smart and dedicated. However, the company was the most secretive I've interviewed at and the employees complained about being overworked. The fact the founder sold C++ compilers to Chinese universities when g++ is open-source sounded odd. But I still had hope in them even after they passed on me -- a Silicon Valley company actually making a differenc…

One reason they are so secretive is because they are trying to maintain many of their technical advances as trade secrets rather than patent them.

Re: Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

#40

Post by downandout »

notacoward wrote: post #5

This company is looking less and less like they're struggling to develop new technology, more and more like a deliberate sham. Given that so much of their support thus far has been due solely to the Cult of Disruption, I can't help but wonder if news like this might make at least a few investors consider a return to good old-fashioned due diligence before placing their bets.

My take on it is that Elizabeth Holmes set out to make this idea a reality, but has been unable to do so. Sadly, all signs point to her trying to buy time via smoke and mirrors. If she has misled investors in the same way she has misled the media, given that she has raised $400 million, she's looking at decades in federal prison.

I see this whole thing ending in tragedy, whether that just means the loss of $400 million that could have gone to other startups, a full-scale criminal prosecution, or some other dramatic end. Whatever happens, a happy ending no longer seems to be in the cards.

Post reply on HN