9 ms·
The more I read about theranos the more apparent it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with it's core goals, leadership and technology. One easily i
by dcgudeman 11y ago
The more I read about theranos the more apparent it is that there is something fundamentally wrong with it's core goals, leadership and technology. One easily identifiable red flag is the composition of its board. It's nearly all ex-military and government officials not veteran entrepreneurs and technologists. Just to name a few: George Shultz (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn and Bill Frist (former U.S. Senators), James Mattis (General, USMC, retired) and Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired) Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), William Perry (former Secretary of Defense)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos#Governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos#Governance
- kelvin0 11y agoWhat if the company had been wildly successful, would you still view it's board composition in the same light? I agree with you, these are some pretty powerful 'non-scientific' people and it should raise some questions.
- danem 11y agoWhat kind of questions exactly? It seems to me that having such powerful, influential, former members of government on your board would be highly valuable in navigating the difficult regulatory environment companies in this industry face.
- dcgudeman 11y agoWhy do you have Henry Kissinger on your board and not a veteran medical device or medical test industry expert. Henry Kissinger might have tons of foreign policy experience but this is a completely different field.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- benologist 11y agoNot having such expertise on their board doesn't mean they don't have that expertise within their company.
- vidarh 11y agoIf you could get Henry Kissinger on your board and don't have moral issues with him, why wouldn't you? I absolutely understand where you are coming from, but in that respect Kissinger is definitively an exception, because while he may not have the medical credentials, he has tremendous value just because he is someone who is so well known that he can be a door-opener "anywhere". He's also run a consulting company that's specialising in identifying partners and acting as door-opener for the last 34 years. In other words: He's not on that board for his expertise in their field, but for his expertise and contacts related to getting in to talk to the right people.
- ska 11y agoIt is undoubtedly helpful to have people on your board who understand the regulatory mechanisms and industry (leaving aside how well the Theranos board actually does this) Composition of a board is tricky though. In a case like this you would hope to have equal, if not dominant, representation of people who are strong on the science. Anything else is a bit of a red flag.
- theseatoms 11y agoBill Frist is a medical doctor and has focused on healthcare policy throughout his career, for whatever that's worth.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoAs has been amply demonstrated by Frist and Ben Carson, being an MD does not necessarily prevent being an idiot as well.
- numair 11y agoUmm, the good doctor's wealth comes from HCA, a chain of for-profit hospitals that once held the record for the largest fraud settlement in US history. Frist clearly has excellent PR, because very few people ever mention this. http://www.forbes.com/2000/12/15/1215disaster.html http://www.forbes.com/2000/12/15/1215disaster.html
- entee 11y agoFrist makes sense on the board in that he definitely knows who to call at the FDA and would get his call answered. As unsavory as it is, lobbying experience is valuable in tightly regulated industries. I have no idea if he's a good doc, or the ethics of HCA, but from a purely pragmatic perspective, of all the names his makes the most sense on that board.
- aceperry 11y agoFrist made some ethically questionable statements with respect to a brain damaged woman who was removed from life support. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/politics/schiavo-autopsy-renewsdebate-on-gop-actions.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/politics/schiavo-autopsy-r...
- hkmurakami 11y ago>Frist clearly has excellent PR, because very few people ever mention this. Reminiscent of Peter Thiel and Clarium Capital (no fraud there, but tremendous losses). No one ever talks about it.
- cb18 11y agoHere's some further reading on the matter making similar observations. http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-elizabeth-holmes-reality-distortion-field/ http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-elizabeth-holmes-reality-disto... http://www.unz.com/isteve/theranos-maybe-old-white-men-dont-actually-hate-young-blondes/ http://www.unz.com/isteve/theranos-maybe-old-white-men-dont-...
- tryitnow 11y agoNot really. Sailor makes the case that there's a strong dose of affirmative action involved. His blog posts don't really contribute much to the discussion other than adding that slight "politically incorrect" slant. His posts just pull from all the other sources people have already mentioned.
- cb18 11y agoOk, you're free not to read it... Edit: I don't agree with your characterization of the main post, you may also consider that for someone interested in this matter, there is additional information in the comment sections of the linked posts. I'm also perplexed as to the driving factor behind your somewhat dickish, snide comment.
- dang 11y ago> Ok, you're free not to read it... > I'm also perplexed as to the driving factor behind your somewhat dickish, snide comment. Please don't add to such things.
- rzt 11y agoIn discussion on other HN threads, some commenters suggested that the board was composed that way to grease the wheels of a DoD acquisition of the company's "tech". As OP put it [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11403165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11403165]: John the more I think about Theranos the more I think this “mess” is actually deliberate. Looking at the history of Theranos and the composition of the board it appears Theranos was designed from early on as a vehicle to defrauded the US military. The plan appeared to be to use their connection and access to some rather “helpful” high brass to offload the technology for billions and then later sweep the fact that it didn’t work under the rug (this tactic has worked fabulously for the last 20 years). Avoid the FDA altogether. Who would have noticed another $10 billion misspent on some wizz-bang technology given the $100s billions lost in other frauds? When the wheels fell of this plan (some underling didn’t play along) the idea seems to be to blame the scientists and say “we were misled”. They might be evil, but they don’t appear to be stupid.
- theseatoms 11y agoLet's give the powers that be a hearty welcome to the Age of Transparency. :)
- entee 11y agoI'm a little confused, does the military acquire companies wholesale? I've never heard of that happening, that's not to say it can't but what are some examples of this kind of scheme? Instead was the plan to milk the military for a long time on R&D expenses and just pocket the cash as one goes along? If so how does that work for the VC-backed structure of the company?
- pg_is_a_butt 11y agoBill Frist... famous for taking $20,000,000 in cash from harrahs to staple the UIGEA (online poker shutdown) to the PORT act with 1 minute left in the session, which by some fuckup of logic, automatically becomes a law without a single person ever seeing it. he is scum. he deserves reckoning.
- jboydyhacker 11y agoOnly those with the title "Director" are board members. Only about 3 people are directors. None of those you mentioned are directors just advisors.
- droopybuns 11y agoI have met many later-in-their-career, senior government folks cultivating a transition into the private sector. They seem particularly vulnerable to this kind of catastrophe. It's like they have their favored peers who are also retiring & they get them connected to a firm by someone who also left and wants to help out other govies. They do 20 years in the military and then go work in private sector for companies that will sell to the government. So the board gets loaded up with civil servants rather than entrepreneurs. My perception is that their career experience doesn't arm them with the ability to identify a company with inadequate runway & execution talent. They seem to think a a well connected "who-you-know" network would have enough collective wisdom to avoid this scenario, or maybe they don't really consider that failure is possible, given the funding environment of the military.
- frozenport 11y agoHenry Kissinger is no debutante
- droopybuns 11y agoI have met many later-in-their-career, senior government folks cultivating a transition into the private sector. They seem particularly vulnerable to this kind of catastrophe. It's like they have their favored peers who are also retiring & they get them connected to a firm by someone who also left and wants to help out other govies. They do 20 years in the military and then go work in private sector for companies that will sell to the government. So the board gets loaded up with civil servants rather than entrepreneurs. My perception is that their career experience doesn't arm them with the ability to identify a company with inadequate runway & execution talent. They seem to think a a well connected "who-you-know" network would have enough collective wisdom to avoid this scenario, or maybe they don't really consider that failure is possible, given the funding environment of the military.
- mrnd 11y agono duh
- yarou 11y agoYeah, the board members all fit into "ideas guy" archetype. AKA a useless moron that doesn't contribute to the end product in any way, but still takes all the credit for it.
- peter303 11y agoEx polticians want to share in Silicon Valleys riches too. George HW Bush got lucky and made a large amount on a telecom optical cable play.
- peter303 11y agoNote that Schultz is a former MIT professor and has run large companies.
- nickoakland 11y agoBill Frist is/was actually a highly regarded heart and lung transplant surgeon.