6 ms·

Everything I've heard about this company is just weird. A biotech company started by a 19 year old Stanford dropout. She didn't even finish her second year in c

by learc83 11y ago

Everything I've heard about this company is just weird. A biotech company started by a 19 year old Stanford dropout. She didn't even finish her second year in college, so she never made it past the intro courses. I can understand a 19 year old starting a software company, but this is more like a 19 year old starting a semiconductor fab. Someone just gave a her millions of dollars and a decade to run what was basically an r&d lab with almost no relevant experience? Then the company's board is composed of 2 former Secretaries of State, a former Secretary of Defense, 2 former Senators, a retired admiral, and a retired general. They only have one currently licensed physician (who also happens to be one of the former Senators), and no current CEOs [1]. [1]. http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/theranos-board-leadership/ http://fortune.com/2015/10/15/theranos-board-leadership/

adenadel 11y ago
To be fair about having only one currently licensed physician, they do have Bill Foege on the board and he is a world renowned physician credited with coming up with the strategy that eradicated small pox. Just because he is retired doesn't mean he isn't still sharp. The man is brilliant and very thoughtful. The makeup of the board is pretty strange though.
- jane_is_here 11y ago
  He is an epidemiologist. I would have expected haematologists, chemical pathologists, cytopathologists, clinical biochemists, histopathologists and other relevant specialists on the board. At the moment, there is just a trophy, retired epidemiologist.
  - encoderer 11y ago
    And a brain surgeon. But it's still strange.
argonaut 11y ago
You don't know what her coursework was a Stanford. She may well have skipped the intro classes. I don't think the makeup of the board is that weird. Yes, it may mean they're shady and are trying to leverage political connections as much as they can. But even if they had a great product, dealing with regulators would still be a huge problem/pain for them, and they would still ideally want a board with lots of politically influential people. There are many reasons to be wary of Theranos. I don't think the board makeup and Holmes being a dropout are among them.
- learc83 11y ago
  >I don't think the makeup of the board is that weird. There's not a single person on the board who is an expert in anything close to their core technology. I can understand wanting some politically influential people, but only politically influential people. How is that not weird? > You don't know what her coursework was a Stanford. She may well have skipped the intro classes. I'm fairly certain Stanford some curriculum requirements. Even if they didn't, no matter how smart you are, you can't just hop in and start taking upper level Chemical Engineering classes because you took AP Chem in high school. There's too much prerequisite knowledge that you just won't have.
  - argonaut 11y ago
    You do realize that boards of companies are not involved at all in the day to day operations of companies? Boards are useful for 1) meta governance (e.g. hiring CEOs, setting CEO compensation) - presumably Elizabeth Holmes has control, at least moral authority as founder if not voting control, so this is somewhat moot; and 2) connections. And you definitely can start taking upper level chemical engineering classes. It's very common in college to ask to pass out of a requirement by taking the final. I passed out of the required intro computer science course in college (and not with AP Computer Science), for example.
    - learc83 11y ago
      >You do realize that boards of companies are not involved at all in the day to day operations of companies? Pretty much everyone thinks this board is weird. There have been multiple articles written on how odd it is, and most companies tend to have multiple domain experts on the board. You won't find many companies outside of the defense industry with 7/11 board members who are retired political and military leaders. For an example of a normal board of directors just look at a competing company's board--quest diagnostics--and notice the number of MDs, PhDs, financial experts, and CEOs of other companies, and the lack of former cabinet secretaries, senators, and retired generals. http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-govboard http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-... >And you definitely can start taking upper level chemical engineering classes. You can't walk into Stanford and start taking junior and senior level chemical engineering classes as a freshmen, you would have a complete lack of prerequisite knowledge. >It's very common in college to ask to pass out of a requirement by taking the final. It is not very common, in fact it's pretty rare these days to find a department that will allow this. Even if they did allow this, there are stacks of prerequisite chemistry, math, physics, and general engineering classes before a student can even touch classes in the chemical engineering department (other than special classes like freshmen seminars).
rcurry 11y ago
Theranos, in my opinion, is a self-licking ice cream cone.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
downandout 11y ago
My guess is that in the beginning it had something to do with VC's being desperate for an attractive, brilliant, successful female founder with world-changing ideas that could be slapped on magazine covers to show everyone that yes, they do invest in women. After the first round it's much easier to raise subsequent rounds, and the whole thing may have fed on itself - investors throwing good money after bad, both to save face and to chase the glimmer of hope that they were getting somewhere with this. Elizabeth Holmes has somehow kept the money flowing for a decade from extremely credible people, which means she is far better at placating investors in the face of slow progress than perhaps anyone in recent Silicon Valley history.
- pen2l 11y ago
  That's my reading too. She's basically Color's Bill Nguyen. I wish I was as good as these guys at hustling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nguyen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nguyen
  - AndrewKemendo 11y ago
    From your own link you would have seen that Bill successfully founded and sold two companies for 800M and 80M respectively. Yet apparently none of that matters because his most recent venture was a flop. What I'd do for that track record!
- pushyriot 11y ago
  Yes. In 2003, when she started the company at 19, Draper etc invested & other well known SJWs like Henry Kissinger & George Shultz joined her board because of her gender. They both knew & give a shit that a decade later people would be talking about diversity. For 12 years, she flipped her blonde hair & the men were fooled-& the money just kept pouring in. Do you really think VCs would invest $400 million & Walgreens & Cleveland Clinic would do deals with this company, that put people's health at risk & create massive liability, without diligence because she is a woman? Maybe Theranos will fail. Obviously fraud is unacceptable. And the lack of peer review helps no one. But, the idea that she was funded because of her gender is absurd. If anything, given all the data on this topic, she was funded in spite of it- because she was trying something very difficult & potentially revolutionary--not some dumb app. I hope you'll reconsider your thinking on this. Its hard enough for women to get funded; maybe it's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt when they do.
interesting_att 11y ago
Welcome to modern medicine. Starting with the Reagan administration, oversight over medical devices has been greatly reduced. You have a lot of leeway with medical devices, even moreso than with drugs. Lots of billion dollar medical companies have leading politicians on their board. Donald Rumsfeld was on the board for Gilead Sciences. It is vital for these businesses that to be on good terms with the government, as it is the government helps define what is allowed. Some would argue that this is just a form of corruption which endangers the lives of patients worldwide.
- seehafer 11y ago
  > Starting with the Reagan administration, oversight over medical devices has been greatly reduced. You have a lot of leeway with medical devices, even moreso than with drugs. Citation needed.
- refurb 11y ago
  Donald Rumsfeld was on the board for Gilead Sciences Donald Rumsfeld was a biotech CEO before he got into politics! Why wouldn't you want him on the board of your biotech? You seem to be twisting the facts here. I would also argue that the most drastic change with the FDA wasn't during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton years and Clinton himself wasn't really leading the effort.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Rumsfeld was not a biotech CEO before he got into politics, he was a pharma CEO about 30 years after he got into politics, a few years before coming back as SecDef ~25 years after holding that job in the Ford Administration.
    - refurb 11y ago
      OK, poorly worded. He started in politics early. However, did have a long career in business as the CEO of Searle. It shouldn't be surprising that he was on the board of directors of another biotech.
- 11y ago
pjc50 11y ago
Evidently it's not what you know, but who you know.

by learc83 11y ago

adenadel 11y ago

To be fair about having only one currently licensed physician, they do have Bill Foege on the board and he is a world renowned physician credited with coming up with the strategy that eradicated small pox. Just because he is retired doesn't mean he isn't still sharp. The man is brilliant and very thoughtful. The makeup of the board is pretty strange though.

jane_is_here 11y ago
He is an epidemiologist. I would have expected haematologists, chemical pathologists, cytopathologists, clinical biochemists, histopathologists and other relevant specialists on the board. At the moment, there is just a trophy, retired epidemiologist.
- encoderer 11y ago
  And a brain surgeon. But it's still strange.

argonaut 11y ago

You don't know what her coursework was a Stanford. She may well have skipped the intro classes. I don't think the makeup of the board is that weird. Yes, it may mean they're shady and are trying to leverage political connections as much as they can. But even if they had a great product, dealing with regulators would still be a huge problem/pain for them, and they would still ideally want a board with lots of politically influential people. There are many reasons to be wary of Theranos. I don't think the board makeup and Holmes being a dropout are among them.

learc83 11y ago
>I don't think the makeup of the board is that weird. There's not a single person on the board who is an expert in anything close to their core technology. I can understand wanting some politically influential people, but only politically influential people. How is that not weird? > You don't know what her coursework was a Stanford. She may well have skipped the intro classes. I'm fairly certain Stanford some curriculum requirements. Even if they didn't, no matter how smart you are, you can't just hop in and start taking upper level Chemical Engineering classes because you took AP Chem in high school. There's too much prerequisite knowledge that you just won't have.
- argonaut 11y ago
  You do realize that boards of companies are not involved at all in the day to day operations of companies? Boards are useful for 1) meta governance (e.g. hiring CEOs, setting CEO compensation) - presumably Elizabeth Holmes has control, at least moral authority as founder if not voting control, so this is somewhat moot; and 2) connections. And you definitely can start taking upper level chemical engineering classes. It's very common in college to ask to pass out of a requirement by taking the final. I passed out of the required intro computer science course in college (and not with AP Computer Science), for example.
  - learc83 11y ago
    >You do realize that boards of companies are not involved at all in the day to day operations of companies? Pretty much everyone thinks this board is weird. There have been multiple articles written on how odd it is, and most companies tend to have multiple domain experts on the board. You won't find many companies outside of the defense industry with 7/11 board members who are retired political and military leaders. For an example of a normal board of directors just look at a competing company's board--quest diagnostics--and notice the number of MDs, PhDs, financial experts, and CEOs of other companies, and the lack of former cabinet secretaries, senators, and retired generals. http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-govboard http://ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-... >And you definitely can start taking upper level chemical engineering classes. You can't walk into Stanford and start taking junior and senior level chemical engineering classes as a freshmen, you would have a complete lack of prerequisite knowledge. >It's very common in college to ask to pass out of a requirement by taking the final. It is not very common, in fact it's pretty rare these days to find a department that will allow this. Even if they did allow this, there are stacks of prerequisite chemistry, math, physics, and general engineering classes before a student can even touch classes in the chemical engineering department (other than special classes like freshmen seminars).

rcurry 11y ago

Theranos, in my opinion, is a self-licking ice cream cone.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

downandout 11y ago

My guess is that in the beginning it had something to do with VC's being desperate for an attractive, brilliant, successful female founder with world-changing ideas that could be slapped on magazine covers to show everyone that yes, they do invest in women. After the first round it's much easier to raise subsequent rounds, and the whole thing may have fed on itself - investors throwing good money after bad, both to save face and to chase the glimmer of hope that they were getting somewhere with this. Elizabeth Holmes has somehow kept the money flowing for a decade from extremely credible people, which means she is far better at placating investors in the face of slow progress than perhaps anyone in recent Silicon Valley history.

pen2l 11y ago
That's my reading too. She's basically Color's Bill Nguyen. I wish I was as good as these guys at hustling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nguyen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nguyen
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  From your own link you would have seen that Bill successfully founded and sold two companies for 800M and 80M respectively. Yet apparently none of that matters because his most recent venture was a flop. What I'd do for that track record!
pushyriot 11y ago
Yes. In 2003, when she started the company at 19, Draper etc invested & other well known SJWs like Henry Kissinger & George Shultz joined her board because of her gender. They both knew & give a shit that a decade later people would be talking about diversity. For 12 years, she flipped her blonde hair & the men were fooled-& the money just kept pouring in. Do you really think VCs would invest $400 million & Walgreens & Cleveland Clinic would do deals with this company, that put people's health at risk & create massive liability, without diligence because she is a woman? Maybe Theranos will fail. Obviously fraud is unacceptable. And the lack of peer review helps no one. But, the idea that she was funded because of her gender is absurd. If anything, given all the data on this topic, she was funded in spite of it- because she was trying something very difficult & potentially revolutionary--not some dumb app. I hope you'll reconsider your thinking on this. Its hard enough for women to get funded; maybe it's worth giving them the benefit of the doubt when they do.

interesting_att 11y ago

Welcome to modern medicine. Starting with the Reagan administration, oversight over medical devices has been greatly reduced. You have a lot of leeway with medical devices, even moreso than with drugs. Lots of billion dollar medical companies have leading politicians on their board. Donald Rumsfeld was on the board for Gilead Sciences. It is vital for these businesses that to be on good terms with the government, as it is the government helps define what is allowed. Some would argue that this is just a form of corruption which endangers the lives of patients worldwide.

seehafer 11y ago
> Starting with the Reagan administration, oversight over medical devices has been greatly reduced. You have a lot of leeway with medical devices, even moreso than with drugs. Citation needed.
refurb 11y ago
Donald Rumsfeld was on the board for Gilead Sciences Donald Rumsfeld was a biotech CEO before he got into politics! Why wouldn't you want him on the board of your biotech? You seem to be twisting the facts here. I would also argue that the most drastic change with the FDA wasn't during the Reagan years, but during the Clinton years and Clinton himself wasn't really leading the effort.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Rumsfeld was not a biotech CEO before he got into politics, he was a pharma CEO about 30 years after he got into politics, a few years before coming back as SecDef ~25 years after holding that job in the Ford Administration.
  - refurb 11y ago
    OK, poorly worded. He started in politics early. However, did have a long career in business as the CEO of Searle. It shouldn't be surprising that he was on the board of directors of another biotech.
11y ago

pjc50 11y ago

Evidently it's not what you know, but who you know.