31–40 of 93 posts
To me, one of the sad things about the Theranos debacle is that even if they DON'T have super whiz-bang nanotainer technology, the general model of having affordable, transparently priced tests where you can just walk into a Walgreen's and order them is pretty awesome in my opinion. There are other companies that offer something somewhat similar (e.g. AnyLabTestNow), but the experience still sucks - locations/times a…
No knowledge of the biotech, but this is really shady. Above-board companies simply do not look like this. 1) Refusal to use the ground-breaking technology: >Then I asked about what Theranos calls “nanotainers” or tiny vials that can give you test results with a single drop of blood. >“Oh you have to order that separately,” she informed me. “We take those intravenously if you bundle a bunch of tests together.” >[...]…
I think you're being a bit too harsh.. or at least your getting distracted by all the wrong stuff. None of this interaction really screams shady to me, just defensive actions by a company facing shitty PR. Some crap went down, and they're pulling back all their feelers and trying to maintain some degree of control. The REAL shady parts of Theranos is all their other shit with their dealings with the FDA, the question…
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in a negative PR storm, isn't it a godsend when people (especially journalists) are actually trying out your product for themselves rather than joining the bandwagon based on innuendo? Why would they be turning away people from trying the one technology they (still) hype the heck out of on their website?
And why would the communications director be getting names of patients (point 4)? Passing private medical information over to a PR agent is really shady and an abuse of trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, by and large the incumbents comply with regulations, use industry standard equipment that has been tested and approved as being accurate for its intended use, etc.
Ok so if Theranos is using the same equipment and tests, what are they doing wrong?
To me, one of the sad things about the Theranos debacle is that even if they DON'T have super whiz-bang nanotainer technology, the general model of having affordable, transparently priced tests where you can just walk into a Walgreen's and order them is pretty awesome in my opinion. There are other companies that offer something somewhat similar (e.g. AnyLabTestNow), but the experience still sucks - locations/times a…
Is this something innovative? In india, i just paid 90$ and got 14 different tests including tumor markers tested for. The blood was collected at home (and then sent to a central testing facility). Unless, it is radically new technology... I'm curious on the value proposition here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The origin story of Theranos is carved from pure Silicon Valley mythril: 19-year-old drops out of Stanford to build a massively disruptive startup and in short-order, receives hundreds of millions in funding and near-decaunicorn valuation. On top of that, the founder is a photogenic woman who dresses and speaks and acts as if she were Steve Jobs incarnate. And unlike Facebook and most other tech startups, Theranos wa…
What does this have to do with the photogenicness of the founder? What exactly did Theranos do wrong here as a company? How does she dress? It didn't even seem like a favor. Does she wear black turtlenecks and jeans? I'm really confused about your comment. Does it address what I asked at all? Can you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this have to do with the photogenicness of the founder? What exactly did Theranos do wrong here as a company? How does she dress? It didn't even seem like a favor. Does she wear black turtlenecks and jeans? I'm really confused about your comment. Does it address what I asked at all? Can you elaborate?
Those were reasons why the media and public are interested in it. Yes she does wear black turtlenecks. I'm sure the way she dresses is part of why people are so interested in the stories. It's probably largely schadenfreude, the kind the celebrities are usually subject to when they put on weight or get arrested.
Here was a company that popped up, literally out of nowhere, claiming to have a handle on microfluidic diagnostic assays...something that the major players in the industry haven't been able to get off the ground since ELISA came along in the 1960s.
The skeptics were quiet at first. I mean shit, they landed Walgreen's and Kroeger! It must work, right?
Now we discover a little more of the truth and it's a lot safer to say "put up or shut up".
To me, one of the sad things about the Theranos debacle is that even if they DON'T have super whiz-bang nanotainer technology, the general model of having affordable, transparently priced tests where you can just walk into a Walgreen's and order them is pretty awesome in my opinion. There are other companies that offer something somewhat similar (e.g. AnyLabTestNow), but the experience still sucks - locations/times a…
Is this something innovative? In india, i just paid 90$ and got 14 different tests including tumor markers tested for. The blood was collected at home (and then sent to a central testing facility). Unless, it is radically new technology... I'm curious on the value proposition here.
That said, Theranos is still on the hook because a business model innovation would probably not justify their valuation and PR compared to a tech innovation.
There has been a lot of critical attention towards theranos. I have no opinion whether it is granted or not, in general I feel critical is always good, but the volume is so high, does anyone have any insight into the intense scrutiny theranos is receiving?
It's a company with a high valuation, that's raised a lot of money and has been in the industry for 11 years (if I recall correctly) by now. Investigative journalism raised concerns that the company is a sham, which the company exacerbated by reacting in a secretive and defensive way - unorthodox approach for a company working in a field where scientific testing and results are the norm, and where breakthroughs are p…
Theranos has nothing to do with the tech industry. Recent concerns in the tech industry regarding valuations have to do with the viability of business models, not the viability of technology. No one's questioning whether Uber's technology is feasible - they're interested in things like the unit economics and other factors that impact long-term profitability.
> It would not be good for Silicon Valley if Theranos turns out to be anything close to a Ponzi scheme.
Ponzi schemes are a specific type of fraud involving unsustainable recursive financing. If there's any impropriety at Theranos, that would probably be (another type of) fraud.
In general if a company is unfairly receiving bad press claiming its product is a sham, the usual response is to counteract that by being open and transparent and allowing independent assessment to disprove such claims. Want to pop in unannounced to test our product? Sure, no problem, let us show you how wonderful things are. The fact that they keep acting all shady doesn't bode well for their efforts to claim that t…
Most of the time, the only lab work I trust Walgreens with is a cholesterol test and a flu shot... If they can actually deliver the former without some complicated extra option or cost, then it's a no-brainer that it should be the default, not some hidden option that almost no one knows about.
Definitely an advertising / customer education epic fail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're being a bit too harsh.. or at least your getting distracted by all the wrong stuff. None of this interaction really screams shady to me, just defensive actions by a company facing shitty PR. Some crap went down, and they're pulling back all their feelers and trying to maintain some degree of control. The REAL shady parts of Theranos is all their other shit with their dealings with the FDA, the question…
I agree that those other things are stronger evidence, but I think the stuff I cited is still a significant, independent strike against Theranos. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but in a negative PR storm, isn't it a godsend when people ( especially journalists) are actually trying out your product for themselves rather than joining the bandwagon based on innuendo? Why would they be turning away people from trying the…
The other points don't especially surprise me either. They seem mostly like either just a cautious response to learning she's a reporter or even standard practice. Many above-board companies who are cautious about their press presence train their employees not to talk to reporters, or to be careful around them, and to report them to the company's PR team.
Reporters don't get everything right, and some have an axe to grind and will twist details to suit their narrative. It's normal for companies to attempt to control their interaction with them.
This strikes me as a cautious response and doesn't even seem especially paranoid to me, or only a little. They have taken really bad press recently and it's not unusual for their employees to have been told by this point to be careful around reporters and to notify headquarters.
Unfortunately the piece does not include a detail that it would have been really useful to know, which is what happens if you walk in and order the one test that can be conducted with a finger prick - would they use their test or not? The difficulty ordering the test that occurred when she asked could have been affected by the fact that she had told him she was a reporter, and the employees freaked out a bit. Those were low level employees who had presumably not been trained on how to interact with the press, but knew about their company's bad situation. I would not recommend reading too much into it.
Plus the reporter almost certainly got Theranos' hackles up by communicating with them and receiving an invitation to have a test done, and then going behind their back to do it anonymously at another center. I won't say that it's unethical for him to have done that, but it's definitely an aggressive action or will seem so to Theranos.