3 ms·

"This is a case where the "app" is a blood test critical to people's lives, determining drug dosages, treatment courses and outcomes, etc. A failure here can re

by pj_mukh 11y ago

"This is a case where the "app" is a blood test critical to people's lives, determining drug dosages, treatment courses and outcomes, etc. A failure here can really f*$k up someone's life or kill them, not just inconvenience them because the app failed to load and order their dinner." There is a whole government agency dedicated to making sure this doesn't happen. The 'app' analogy doesn't work. They have the power to shut all of a companies services. My only point was, let the FDA do its thing. I don't want a company to die just because there is an article written about it multiple times a day (seriously, monitor the frontpage of HN for this). There is no way to tell between actual journalism and clickbait. I'm sure you would agree, at this point these articles are doing nothing but fulfilling a sense of schadenfreude in us. The government and the FDA are on it. I HOPE at this point that we are all right and the government takes the company down and shuts it down. If it turns out they didn't do anything illegal and just runs out of money in a couple of years, would that be fair?

toss1 11y ago
OK, so we do have a federal agency to monitor this stuff. We also have police. Does this mean that we should not be annoyed when criminals do their crimes, or not be annoyed that we need to be vigilant and protect ourselves against criminals? Of course not -- these federal monitoring agencies/police are a necessary burden, and they only marginally prevent crime -- the crimes still happen, and the agencies/police only come in after to investigate and punish. Meanwhile, people's lives are harmed or ended -- by the criminals -- who act with impunity until caught and punished. Now, are Holmes and the rest of Theranos' mgt criminals? Of course none of us actually know, we have only a preponderance of second-hand evidence from the press and from government actions. If you are saying that we shouldn't trust any of this, that Theranos is really a bunch of upstanding citizens being brought down by a malicious government and press, then say so. Otherwise, if there is a reason to put some trust in the actions of the govt and the press, then we shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised at the anger, schadenfreude, and impatience to have them taken down. IMO, based on the public info, Theranos has become a criminally fraudulent enterprise, and my biggest emotions are anger that they got away with it for so long and impatience at wanting to see them taken down sooner (of course, if it turned out to be a malicious govt and press, then I'd be defending Theranos even more strongly than I now despise them, as a malicious govt and press are an even bigger betrayal of our trust). Re: If they didn't actually do anything illegal and just ran out of money? NO, simply spending down the funds until they are exhausted on a known dead-end project is not fair. At this point, they've had and years of time with unrestricted access to hundreds of millions of dollars for R&D. They will have either 1) a known path forward with a method that can be engineered into a usable solution, or 2) the knowledge that there is no such path in sight or that they are obstructed by physical limits, or 3) neither of these. If 1), they should already be engineering it towards success (and not testing it in the field with unqualified techs). If 2), they should politely shut down and return unspent funds. If 3), then they have and incompetent R&D effort and should also return the unspent funds. Simply continuing to spend down the funds in condition 2 or 3 is at the very least dishonest/fraudlent to the investors (or other entrepreneurs who might access those investment funds), since it is now known that there is no realistic chance for success.
pj_mukh 11y ago
Also, as far as I can tell, the "criminal proceedings" were self-reported by Theranos as a request for documentation by the SEC. The anger I'm sensing in this thread is one to a convicted defrauding case. Which it isn't yet. For now, Holmes is promising to overhaul the company to comply. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and let things play out. If they run out of money, you're right, I'd be pissed. If they have a criminal conviction, I'll gladly join the chorus of anger. Until then, these articles are just beating a dead horse.

by pj_mukh 11y ago

toss1 11y ago

OK, so we do have a federal agency to monitor this stuff. We also have police. Does this mean that we should not be annoyed when criminals do their crimes, or not be annoyed that we need to be vigilant and protect ourselves against criminals? Of course not -- these federal monitoring agencies/police are a necessary burden, and they only marginally prevent crime -- the crimes still happen, and the agencies/police only come in after to investigate and punish. Meanwhile, people's lives are harmed or ended -- by the criminals -- who act with impunity until caught and punished. Now, are Holmes and the rest of Theranos' mgt criminals? Of course none of us actually know, we have only a preponderance of second-hand evidence from the press and from government actions. If you are saying that we shouldn't trust any of this, that Theranos is really a bunch of upstanding citizens being brought down by a malicious government and press, then say so. Otherwise, if there is a reason to put some trust in the actions of the govt and the press, then we shouldn't be the slightest bit surprised at the anger, schadenfreude, and impatience to have them taken down. IMO, based on the public info, Theranos has become a criminally fraudulent enterprise, and my biggest emotions are anger that they got away with it for so long and impatience at wanting to see them taken down sooner (of course, if it turned out to be a malicious govt and press, then I'd be defending Theranos even more strongly than I now despise them, as a malicious govt and press are an even bigger betrayal of our trust). Re: If they didn't actually do anything illegal and just ran out of money? NO, simply spending down the funds until they are exhausted on a known dead-end project is not fair. At this point, they've had and years of time with unrestricted access to hundreds of millions of dollars for R&D. They will have either 1) a known path forward with a method that can be engineered into a usable solution, or 2) the knowledge that there is no such path in sight or that they are obstructed by physical limits, or 3) neither of these. If 1), they should already be engineering it towards success (and not testing it in the field with unqualified techs). If 2), they should politely shut down and return unspent funds. If 3), then they have and incompetent R&D effort and should also return the unspent funds. Simply continuing to spend down the funds in condition 2 or 3 is at the very least dishonest/fraudlent to the investors (or other entrepreneurs who might access those investment funds), since it is now known that there is no realistic chance for success.

pj_mukh 11y ago

Also, as far as I can tell, the "criminal proceedings" were self-reported by Theranos as a request for documentation by the SEC. The anger I'm sensing in this thread is one to a convicted defrauding case. Which it isn't yet. For now, Holmes is promising to overhaul the company to comply. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and let things play out. If they run out of money, you're right, I'd be pissed. If they have a criminal conviction, I'll gladly join the chorus of anger. Until then, these articles are just beating a dead horse.