We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#51

Post by sdiq » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:07 AM UTC

kumarvvr wrote: post #26

The most amazing thing about this whole situation is that there were experts in the field who were shouting out about the impossibility of Holmes' claims right from the beginning. The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. These incidents ought to remind us the exponentially important role media plays in our lives and how important it is that we com…

Sometime back, I remember reading about how impossible it was what they were proposing. Shocking that it had to take all these years and that huge amount for the truth to finally come out.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#52

Post by ubernostrum » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:10 AM UTC

duxup wrote: post #33

kumarvvr wrote: post #26

The most amazing thing about this whole situation is that there were experts in the field who were shouting out about the impossibility of Holmes' claims right from the beginning. The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. These incidents ought to remind us the exponentially important role media plays in our lives and how important it is that we com…

"there were experts in the field who were shouting out about the impossibility of Holmes' claims right from the beginning" Were there? I'm not doubting your claim, just wondering if anyone really spoke up. Reading about the challenges they would have had to overcome to back up their claims, there were some serious fundamental problems, and those were challenges the industry had been wrangling with when it came to tha…

The Wall Street Journal was running investigative pieces seriously questioning Theranos' capabilities in 2015. Concerns and questions had been bubbling for a while before that.

Theranos' response included an all-company meeting where they chanted "Fuck you, Carreyrou"[1] (John Carreyrou, the WSJ reporter who wrote the critical articles), and developeing a video game for employees that involved shooting him[2].

Notice that second article is only a couple months old and reports that some people there still believe the problem was not Theranos' lack of ability to do what it claimed, but that the media reported Theranos couldn't do what it claimed.

This playbook of "the problem isn't that our company is in trouble, it's that the media reported truthfully on our trouble" is still being used today by other darlings of Silicon Valley and HN.

[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-the...

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/theranos-employees-made-space...

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#53

Post by nyc111 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:13 AM UTC

There is this popular Slicon Valley mantra: "Fake it till you make it" I'm wondering if she was trying to follow this mantra but she was stuck too deeply in the fake part.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#54

Post by sohkamyung » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:24 AM UTC

a_bonobo wrote: post #47

kumarvvr wrote: post #26

The most amazing thing about this whole situation is that there were experts in the field who were shouting out about the impossibility of Holmes' claims right from the beginning. The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. These incidents ought to remind us the exponentially important role media plays in our lives and how important it is that we com…

>The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. Rupert Murdoch put 125 million dollars into Theranos, so the press itself was invested. This investment was only public after investors sued: https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/rupert-murdoch-among...

But some credit is due to Rupert Murdoch: despite pressure from Elizabeth Holmes (and his investment in it), he decided to allow the reporter, John Carreyrou, to publish his critical pieces on Theranos in the WSJ [1]:

Several people who have worked at Murdoch papers have told me that he isn’t above interceding in editorial matters, but in this case, despite his personal interest, he didn’t. A source who has known Murdoch for years explained it, “He’s a newsman — and a good story is a good story no matter what or who the story is about.”

[1] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/john-carreyrous...

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#55

Post by timavr » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:29 AM UTC

A little bit controversial, but without taking into account the way the company was run, the only big mistake was using inaccurate machines for testing and putting the people health at risk.

Everything else is pretty standard SV startup stuff.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#56

Post by busterarm » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:32 AM UTC

cepth wrote: post #30

mikekchar wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about Theranos, but I remember writing a proof in university. The TA in the class was a PhD student doing research in group theory. My proof relied on doing some manipulation of exponents and there was a point where I was doing "1 + (-1) = 0". The TA just could not understand that bit. He was absolutely sure that in some circumstances this wouldn't hold. No amount of discussion about how integers fo…

Fair enough! The book is worth the read. I think I may be being a bit unfair to the scientists. Basically, Theranos was a hot enough startup that Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani would fire, demote, or marginalize anyone who made a fuss. Lifelong academics may have never had to deal with that kind of bullying/pressure before. On the other hand, they had some pretty incredible scientific talent on staff. You would t…

Are we sure about this? My impression of this lately is that to be a lifelong academic is to constantly put up with bullying and pressure.

Such is the nature of competing in a status-economy.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#57

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:32 AM UTC

cepth wrote: post #25

tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most of what went wrong with the FDA happened after Carreyrou's first WSJ article came out, didn't it? That WSJ article basically killed the company.

The timeline/impact is a bit murkier. Carreyou had two big revelations. One was that Theranos was not running blood tests on their proprietary machines, which were supposed to do finger prick draws. The other was that Theranos had submitted fraudulent validation data to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and state regulatory bodies. They did a couple brazenly unethical and illegal things. 1) CMS subc…

Right, but doesn't the whole Tyler Schultz timeline feed right into Carreyrou's first article? Schultz was one of Carreyrou's star sources; the back quarter of the book basically documents Theranos' retaliation against Schultz.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#58

Post by cowpig » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:34 AM UTC

sohkamyung wrote: post #54

a_bonobo wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The media, though, never paid enough attention (or was possibly subverted by Theranos itself) to the naysayers. Rupert Murdoch put 125 million dollars into Theranos, so the press itself was invested. This investment was only public after investors sued: https://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/rupert-murdoch-among...

But some credit is due to Rupert Murdoch: despite pressure from Elizabeth Holmes (and his investment in it), he decided to allow the reporter, John Carreyrou, to publish his critical pieces on Theranos in the WSJ [1]: Several people who have worked at Murdoch papers have told me that he isn’t above interceding in editorial matters, but in this case, despite his personal interest, he didn’t. A source who has known Mur…

He gets credit for not doing something extremely unethical that would have been quite risky, probably stupidly so (because it would bring him into the controversy)?

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#59

Post by zeth___ » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:36 AM UTC

hawkice wrote: post #17

zeth___ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between fraud and development is a very small one. As Telsa motors will show in the next 9 months.

The difference between truth and falsehood matters quite a lot to the people buying and selling securities. Whether you think it matters or not, it definitely determines price, and does so independently of a bubble.

The second you're dealing with someone more complicated than an electron true and false are irrelevant. What matters is how true and false something is. Theranos was more false than true, but then again so it Tesla.

How Musk will be treated after Telsa implodes will tell us a lot about how sexist our culture is.

I'd personally be going for the pitchforks but I don't see many others doing the same.

Re: We Shouldn’t Be Surprised at the Theranos Fraud

#60

Post by 1024core » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 3:39 AM UTC

cowpig wrote: post #58

sohkamyung wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some credit is due to Rupert Murdoch: despite pressure from Elizabeth Holmes (and his investment in it), he decided to allow the reporter, John Carreyrou, to publish his critical pieces on Theranos in the WSJ [1]: Several people who have worked at Murdoch papers have told me that he isn’t above interceding in editorial matters, but in this case, despite his personal interest, he didn’t. A source who has known Mur…

He gets credit for not doing something extremely unethical that would have been quite risky, probably stupidly so (because it would bring him into the controversy)?

Since when has ethics ever stopped Rupert Murdoch?