4 ms·

I don't understand the schadenfreude and hostility toward Theranos (and the founder). From everything I've seen there's very little actual information publicly

I don't understand the schadenfreude and hostility toward Theranos (and the founder). From everything I've seen there's very little actual information publicly available either way about what's going on (aside from some weak pop tech journalism). I'd imagine this negative media attention is stressful for them - like it is for any startup. Should minimally wait for something substantial to see if there was any actual wrongdoing - there's not much here so far.

largehotcoffee 11y ago
Should minimally wait for something substantial, see if there was any actual wrongdoing Pretty sure that's exactly what this is.
- fossuser 11y ago
  Hardly - there's nothing in this other than not being in compliance with an unknown thing. Could be serious, but might just be some paper work.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    Read the letter. The conditions at the lab pose "immediate jeopardy" to health and safety. They go on to define immediate jeopardy as conditions that have caused, or are likely to soon cause, injury or death. It's not just a paperwork issue.
    - fossuser 11y ago
      Government paperwork is often like this - it's hard to know what the actual condition is and what it's actually about.
  - gherkin0 11y ago
    > not being in compliance with an unknown thing. This is that "unknown" thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_Laboratory_Improvement_Amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_Laboratory_Improvemen... > Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1988 are United States federal regulatory standards that apply to all clinical laboratory testing performed on humans in the United States
CPLX 11y ago
A bubble company like this is an event of staggering inefficiency, it sends huge amounts of very valuable resources (money, but also things like people's careers, creativity, press attention) into a situation where they are ultimately squandered. Asset bubbles can be like wars, they can waste the promise of an entire generation, never to be recovered. Nobody wants to see a collapse for collapse's sake, but there is quite a bit of social good in avoiding or deflating an asset bubble, be it in residential mortgages, late stage technology companies, or a 20 year old college student who was allowed to lose tens of millions of dollars of people's pension money just because she happened to be born in the right neighborhood.
- fossuser 11y ago
  Not unreasonable, but Clinkle and Color were both huge wastes of money and so far were more legitimately worthless than Theranos has been shown to be. The reaction seems more negative than I would expect with the information currently available - it's like the community wants to see them fail. Maybe they are being unethical or it will turn out they don't actually have a real product, but it seems kind of early to lay on the kind of hostility people have been. A small part of me wonders if it's because there's a female founder.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    1) Clinkle and Color are the butt of many many recurring jokes and a perennial punchline for people in startup land. 2) Neither of those companies had anything even a little bit close to a ten year run and a $9bn valuation. It's one maybe two entire orders of magnitude bigger as a flame out.
- ageofwant 11y ago
  I certainly don't disagree with your analysis, but surely most of the blame should be placed on the shoulders of those that controlled the pension money ?
  - CPLX 11y ago
    We, rightly, have a concept of "fiduciary duty" deeply embedded in our common law and in the practice of investing. That applies to all the people entrusted with the assets in question, from the pension fund manager to the VC firm to the firm receiving the investment. There's a difference between a bad or risky bet that doesn't pan out and violations of that duty like misrepresentation and self-dealing. The blame should go to those who breached that duty. It seems that at minimum they engaged in misleading statements about the degree of progress they had made with their technology. That's certainly unethical and possibly fraudulent.
gamblor956 11y ago
From everything I've seen there's very little actual information publicly available either way about what's going on (aside from some weak pop tech journalism). Not sure why you're being deliberately obtuse about what Theranos' failings are. Their alleged disruptive technology has never been shown to work. Their lab where they use other companies' technologies is in such a state of disarray that Medicare has publicly stated that they may be endangering patients' lives (i.e., through cross-contamination of samples, inaccurate labeling, etc.). Multiple former employees have talked about Theranos' failings, and multiple government agencies have audited/inspected Theranos and found it severely deficient. I'd imagine this negative media attention is stressful for them - like it is for any startup. Good. They should be stressed out. They've taken almost $90 million dollars and all they've accomplished is putting people's lives at risk so they can play startup. Should minimally wait for something substantial to see if there was any actual wrongdoing - there's not much here so far. There isn't just actual wrongdoing--some of the allegations rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing. Felonies, not misdemeanors. It's very possible that the founder ends up in jail when all of this is done.

largehotcoffee 11y ago

Should minimally wait for something substantial, see if there was any actual wrongdoing Pretty sure that's exactly what this is.

fossuser 11y ago
Hardly - there's nothing in this other than not being in compliance with an unknown thing. Could be serious, but might just be some paper work.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  Read the letter. The conditions at the lab pose "immediate jeopardy" to health and safety. They go on to define immediate jeopardy as conditions that have caused, or are likely to soon cause, injury or death. It's not just a paperwork issue.
  - fossuser 11y ago
    Government paperwork is often like this - it's hard to know what the actual condition is and what it's actually about.
- gherkin0 11y ago
  > not being in compliance with an unknown thing. This is that "unknown" thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_Laboratory_Improvement_Amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_Laboratory_Improvemen... > Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1988 are United States federal regulatory standards that apply to all clinical laboratory testing performed on humans in the United States

CPLX 11y ago

A bubble company like this is an event of staggering inefficiency, it sends huge amounts of very valuable resources (money, but also things like people's careers, creativity, press attention) into a situation where they are ultimately squandered. Asset bubbles can be like wars, they can waste the promise of an entire generation, never to be recovered. Nobody wants to see a collapse for collapse's sake, but there is quite a bit of social good in avoiding or deflating an asset bubble, be it in residential mortgages, late stage technology companies, or a 20 year old college student who was allowed to lose tens of millions of dollars of people's pension money just because she happened to be born in the right neighborhood.

fossuser 11y ago
Not unreasonable, but Clinkle and Color were both huge wastes of money and so far were more legitimately worthless than Theranos has been shown to be. The reaction seems more negative than I would expect with the information currently available - it's like the community wants to see them fail. Maybe they are being unethical or it will turn out they don't actually have a real product, but it seems kind of early to lay on the kind of hostility people have been. A small part of me wonders if it's because there's a female founder.
- CPLX 11y ago
  1) Clinkle and Color are the butt of many many recurring jokes and a perennial punchline for people in startup land. 2) Neither of those companies had anything even a little bit close to a ten year run and a $9bn valuation. It's one maybe two entire orders of magnitude bigger as a flame out.
ageofwant 11y ago
I certainly don't disagree with your analysis, but surely most of the blame should be placed on the shoulders of those that controlled the pension money ?
- CPLX 11y ago
  We, rightly, have a concept of "fiduciary duty" deeply embedded in our common law and in the practice of investing. That applies to all the people entrusted with the assets in question, from the pension fund manager to the VC firm to the firm receiving the investment. There's a difference between a bad or risky bet that doesn't pan out and violations of that duty like misrepresentation and self-dealing. The blame should go to those who breached that duty. It seems that at minimum they engaged in misleading statements about the degree of progress they had made with their technology. That's certainly unethical and possibly fraudulent.

gamblor956 11y ago

From everything I've seen there's very little actual information publicly available either way about what's going on (aside from some weak pop tech journalism). Not sure why you're being deliberately obtuse about what Theranos' failings are. Their alleged disruptive technology has never been shown to work. Their lab where they use other companies' technologies is in such a state of disarray that Medicare has publicly stated that they may be endangering patients' lives (i.e., through cross-contamination of samples, inaccurate labeling, etc.). Multiple former employees have talked about Theranos' failings, and multiple government agencies have audited/inspected Theranos and found it severely deficient. I'd imagine this negative media attention is stressful for them - like it is for any startup. Good. They should be stressed out. They've taken almost $90 million dollars and all they've accomplished is putting people's lives at risk so they can play startup. Should minimally wait for something substantial to see if there was any actual wrongdoing - there's not much here so far. There isn't just actual wrongdoing--some of the allegations rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing. Felonies, not misdemeanors. It's very possible that the founder ends up in jail when all of this is done.