5 ms·

I'm in two minds about this kerfuffle. On the one hand, you have a mediagenic, celebrity CEO with little relevant qualifications or experience (and a penchant

I'm in two minds about this kerfuffle. On the one hand, you have a mediagenic, celebrity CEO with little relevant qualifications or experience (and a penchant for posing for photographs in Steve Jobs-style turtlenecks) who raised millions at a stratospheric valuation on the promise of revolutionising healthcare and disrupting the lab testing industry, while making lofty claims about "scientific advancement", but has ultimately failed to deliver on that promise, while appearing to erect a facade designed to conceal the fact that the service they're offering isn't all that different from the incumbents', and deflecting questions about the technology they (claim to) have developed. The suggestion that they broke federal rules by fudging proficiency-testing is the icing on the cake. On the other hand, the suggestion that they broke the rules is merely an allegation. On the topic of the company's progress towards it's stated goals, science is hard and a ten-plus-year time horizon doesn't appear unreasonable for achieving the objective Theranos is aiming for. Plus, they have successfully rolled out the HSV1 test. It's seems reasonable to expect that more will follow. I am instinctively skeptical of founders who seem to focus more on cultivating their media profile than on getting their heads down and actually delivering. There are people whose overriding motivation is maximising media exposure but who completely lack the ability to deliver what they promise. Sometimes their behaviour is down to naiveté, over-confidence, self-delusion or a deep-rooted desire for celebrity, fame or recognition (such people seem to wear the CEO "brand" in the same way that others wear Dolce & Gabbana or Prada). Othertimes, they're simply con-artists, looking to fleece gullible customers or investors. Given that Theranos has gained FDA approval for the HSV1 test, and the suggestion that they broke federal rules is unproven, I think Holmes deserves the benefit of the doubt. Her principal crime appears to be that she was a bit naive in making overly optimistic promises and embracing the celebrity CEO role, which has made her a target for schadenfreude.

msravi 11y ago
> Her principal crime appears to be that she was a bit naive in making overly optimistic promises and embracing the celebrity CEO role, which has made her a target for schadenfreude. And the fraud committed in gaming proficiency-testing - does she deserve the benefit of doubt in that too? Is it ok that many people at some point got back erroneous results from their lab tests because of equipment that she knew gave erroneous results?
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  Strictly speaking, that's an unproven allegation so, on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", yes, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, it turns out that the allegations are true, then I would hope to see people serving time in jail.
learc83 11y ago
>Plus, they have successfully rolled out the HSV1 test. It's seems reasonable to expect that more will follow. The biggest criticism of their overall method that I've seen, is that blood from the finger is too likely to be contaminated to give good results for many of the tests they are performing. Testing for the presence foreign virus (or virus antibodies) may be different in this regard than testing the level of naturally occurring chemicals.
aptimpropriety 11y ago
The other thing that comes to mind is that they are a business fundamentally reliant upon distribution. Of course they should be building out a footprint, and marketing their services in sync with their technological development. It seems like one may have gotten ahead of the other, but in any other business this would be perfectly typical. The only industry for which this doesn't apply is software, where distribution is pretty simple. For example, talk to anyone in the cold supply chain business - frozen or refrigerated goods. There is a huge chicken/egg problem with product awareness and product access. Most software companies will retract upgrades when they're not stable. Are the stakes different here? At first glace, yes, but upon second glance, if your magical test is replaced with a normal blood test in a Theranos booth, you're probably Ok. In that case, Theranos is just a sales/marketing company - which is a viable business too.

msravi 11y ago

> Her principal crime appears to be that she was a bit naive in making overly optimistic promises and embracing the celebrity CEO role, which has made her a target for schadenfreude. And the fraud committed in gaming proficiency-testing - does she deserve the benefit of doubt in that too? Is it ok that many people at some point got back erroneous results from their lab tests because of equipment that she knew gave erroneous results?

jackgavigan 11y ago
Strictly speaking, that's an unproven allegation so, on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", yes, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, it turns out that the allegations are true, then I would hope to see people serving time in jail.

learc83 11y ago

>Plus, they have successfully rolled out the HSV1 test. It's seems reasonable to expect that more will follow. The biggest criticism of their overall method that I've seen, is that blood from the finger is too likely to be contaminated to give good results for many of the tests they are performing. Testing for the presence foreign virus (or virus antibodies) may be different in this regard than testing the level of naturally occurring chemicals.

aptimpropriety 11y ago

The other thing that comes to mind is that they are a business fundamentally reliant upon distribution. Of course they should be building out a footprint, and marketing their services in sync with their technological development. It seems like one may have gotten ahead of the other, but in any other business this would be perfectly typical. The only industry for which this doesn't apply is software, where distribution is pretty simple. For example, talk to anyone in the cold supply chain business - frozen or refrigerated goods. There is a huge chicken/egg problem with product awareness and product access. Most software companies will retract upgrades when they're not stable. Are the stakes different here? At first glace, yes, but upon second glance, if your magical test is replaced with a normal blood test in a Theranos booth, you're probably Ok. In that case, Theranos is just a sales/marketing company - which is a viable business too.