5 ms·

I've never seen so much scrutiny over a company before. Everyone is screaming "death to Theranos" at every opportunity. How much of that is purely balking over

I've never seen so much scrutiny over a company before. Everyone is screaming "death to Theranos" at every opportunity. How much of that is purely balking over the high valuation? I have a feeling if they didn't raise so much money then journalists wouldn't be swarming this at all. All of the critiques I see don't seem even close to show stoppers. No public peer reviewed studies? Some lab updates to match FDA regulations? Using some "unauthorized" third party equipment? This is a new company, why should these be the doomsday callings? I have no idea if Theranos will succeed, but I can't shake the feeling that this media response is inflated due to the high valuation, and journalists are falling victim to the hype as much as the public, whereas this is a fairly normal health startup otherwise. It probably was a mistake to accept such a high valuation, so I don't think Theranos is totally innocent here. It's also strange that a paywall article made it to the front page? I wouldn't guess there's a big overlap of WSJ subscribers and HN readers (lol conspiracy).

bronson 11y ago
And how much of that is due to Theranos being a medical company? You need to play a clean game when lives are at stake.
- saalweachter 11y ago
  Derailing, that's my biggest ":-/" with the Silicon Valley start-up "move fast and break things" culture. If we as software engineers want to work on problems that matter, and not just dating apps and ad networks, we can't have a work ethic that encourages us to ignore troublesome laws and regulations and launch half-baked MVPs with a plan to maybe fix problems as they arise in future iterations. Sure, work smart, automate all the boring shit, but your automation has to be correct. Sure, focus on a MVP to get off the ground -- but make sure your product is viable, and correct across the minimum set of features. Even when we are working quickly, sparsely, we should be laying good foundations for the future. We shouldn't be lazy conmen selling poisonous snake-oil.
Bud 11y ago
Completely wrong. How far down do you have to read in this article to find Theranos' valuation? All the way. It's not there. At all. Nobody really gives a fuck about the valuation except valuation wonks. But a lot of people care a lot about this woman being a complete charlatan who is endangering public health.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> How much of that is purely balking over the high valuation?[...]this is a fairly normal health startup otherwise Absolutely not. Start-ups are supposed to fail early and fail often but when you're in the medical space you simply can't act entirely like a technology start-up. People's lives depend on many of these tests; you can't just go "well let's ignore the FDA and we'll take the slap on the wrist" like in other industries. Here they might deliver inaccurate test results that are then used to treat someone for a medical issue. That can be deadly. Yeah many people are going crazy from the valuation and secrecy but there is plenty of legitimate scrutiny here especially if you read this article (I'm assuming you didn't because of your very generic Theranos comment versus addressing the issues in the article itself which sound grossly negligent, IMHO).
- sbose78 11y ago
  True, if a startup in the medical didn't have the resources for quality control they should not have started up in the first place.
msabalau 11y ago
Let's see: Due to quality control “Those results are not worth anything,” Yet doctors were relying on them to adjust warfarin levels, where "Too much warfarin can cause fatal bleeding, while too little can leave patients vulnerable to clots and strokes, according to medical experts." But the attention is because people can't stand high valuations?
detaro 11y ago
A company offering medical services that pose "immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety" deserves scrutiny. If they knew that their results weren't good and didn't act on that information, why should they ever be trusted in the future?
- stevebmark 11y ago
  This illustrates my point. How does holding a drop of someone's blood in a lab pose "immediate" jeopardy to patients? They're in the trial phase, right? These tests are not yet being used to determine actual medical outcomes. What's wrong with trial and error in the trial phase? It's like PCI compliance. Who cares if your company doesn't pass PCI certification the first time (no one? You're given a long amount of time to fix PCI compliance issues).
manigandham 11y ago
As the other comments have stated - this isn't about valuation. This is a medical company that can, and probably has already, endangered patients' lives through its failings. There is a reason why certain industries are scrutinized so closely because of the effect they can have on people. Being in those industries, even as a startup, means you must follow the rules. Or are you fine with your doctor using some "unauthorized" random equipment the next time you need critical tests or surgery?
- daveguy 11y ago
  >Or are you fine with your doctor using some "unauthorized" random equipment the next time you need critical tests or surgery? Hm. In that case I guess we would have to ask the question -- how legitimate does the eBay site look?
kelseyfrancis 11y ago
They've literally recklessly endangered human lives. This isn't a game.
alistairSH 11y ago
This is a new company, why should these be the doomsday callings? Theranos is NOT a new company. They've been around for more than a decade. This isn't the latest and greatest dating app. This is medical tests that have a very real impact on the treatment provided to patients.
ta_9990123 11y ago
Theranos should really be shut down. But I can't help but think that if it was run by a man, HN would be all over how "onerous" regulations are and proclaiming Holmes a "visionary".

bronson 11y ago

And how much of that is due to Theranos being a medical company? You need to play a clean game when lives are at stake.

saalweachter 11y ago
Derailing, that's my biggest ":-/" with the Silicon Valley start-up "move fast and break things" culture. If we as software engineers want to work on problems that matter, and not just dating apps and ad networks, we can't have a work ethic that encourages us to ignore troublesome laws and regulations and launch half-baked MVPs with a plan to maybe fix problems as they arise in future iterations. Sure, work smart, automate all the boring shit, but your automation has to be correct. Sure, focus on a MVP to get off the ground -- but make sure your product is viable, and correct across the minimum set of features. Even when we are working quickly, sparsely, we should be laying good foundations for the future. We shouldn't be lazy conmen selling poisonous snake-oil.

Bud 11y ago

Completely wrong. How far down do you have to read in this article to find Theranos' valuation? All the way. It's not there. At all. Nobody really gives a fuck about the valuation except valuation wonks. But a lot of people care a lot about this woman being a complete charlatan who is endangering public health.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago

> How much of that is purely balking over the high valuation?[...]this is a fairly normal health startup otherwise Absolutely not. Start-ups are supposed to fail early and fail often but when you're in the medical space you simply can't act entirely like a technology start-up. People's lives depend on many of these tests; you can't just go "well let's ignore the FDA and we'll take the slap on the wrist" like in other industries. Here they might deliver inaccurate test results that are then used to treat someone for a medical issue. That can be deadly. Yeah many people are going crazy from the valuation and secrecy but there is plenty of legitimate scrutiny here especially if you read this article (I'm assuming you didn't because of your very generic Theranos comment versus addressing the issues in the article itself which sound grossly negligent, IMHO).

sbose78 11y ago
True, if a startup in the medical didn't have the resources for quality control they should not have started up in the first place.

msabalau 11y ago

Let's see: Due to quality control “Those results are not worth anything,” Yet doctors were relying on them to adjust warfarin levels, where "Too much warfarin can cause fatal bleeding, while too little can leave patients vulnerable to clots and strokes, according to medical experts." But the attention is because people can't stand high valuations?

detaro 11y ago

A company offering medical services that pose "immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety" deserves scrutiny. If they knew that their results weren't good and didn't act on that information, why should they ever be trusted in the future?

stevebmark 11y ago
This illustrates my point. How does holding a drop of someone's blood in a lab pose "immediate" jeopardy to patients? They're in the trial phase, right? These tests are not yet being used to determine actual medical outcomes. What's wrong with trial and error in the trial phase? It's like PCI compliance. Who cares if your company doesn't pass PCI certification the first time (no one? You're given a long amount of time to fix PCI compliance issues).

manigandham 11y ago

As the other comments have stated - this isn't about valuation. This is a medical company that can, and probably has already, endangered patients' lives through its failings. There is a reason why certain industries are scrutinized so closely because of the effect they can have on people. Being in those industries, even as a startup, means you must follow the rules. Or are you fine with your doctor using some "unauthorized" random equipment the next time you need critical tests or surgery?

daveguy 11y ago
>Or are you fine with your doctor using some "unauthorized" random equipment the next time you need critical tests or surgery? Hm. In that case I guess we would have to ask the question -- how legitimate does the eBay site look?

kelseyfrancis 11y ago

They've literally recklessly endangered human lives. This isn't a game.

alistairSH 11y ago

This is a new company, why should these be the doomsday callings? Theranos is NOT a new company. They've been around for more than a decade. This isn't the latest and greatest dating app. This is medical tests that have a very real impact on the treatment provided to patients.

ta_9990123 11y ago

Theranos should really be shut down. But I can't help but think that if it was run by a man, HN would be all over how "onerous" regulations are and proclaiming Holmes a "visionary".