7 ms·
> "We have decided to close our clinical labs" ...or, perhaps more accurately, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has banned Elizabeth Holmes from r
by objclxt 10y ago
> "We have decided to close our clinical labs"
...or, perhaps more accurately, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has banned Elizabeth Holmes from running any kind of blood testing laboratory[1]. It seems a little odd to write a letter making it sound like you're just pivoting when in fact your chief executive is not permitted to carry out the kind of business they were previously carrying out.
[1]:http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-regulator-bans-theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-from-operating-labs-for-two-years-1467956064 http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-regulator-bans-theranos-ceo-...
- Bud 10y agoIt's more than "a little odd". It's a blatant lie.
- lingben 10y agoyes but to be fair blatantly lying has been their business model from the very beginning
- eli 10y agoThey could still stay open and not accept Medicaid/Medicare payments. It would just be terrible for business.
- chipperyman573 10y agoNo, it is factually accurate. Instead of firing the CEO, they decided to pivot. Regardless if it was the decision they would have made with no restrictions placed on the company, it is the decision they made, all external factors included.
- Bud 10y agoNo. Deciding is when you have a choice. They didn't have a choice. This is a lie.
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoYes, they did. They had a choice to fire Holmes and keep on with the blood testing what have you, and didn't. It is factually accurate and not defending them nor spin to say that. I'm sure it was considered. This outcome was not a certainty. I think the feds wanted that choice, to be honest. It's a smart play: we don't like Elizabeth Holmes or the work you're doing, but we maybe sorta kinda want to see you succeed because it's a pretty good idea if you'd get your shit together, so pick one and fix it.
- garrettgrimsley 10y ago>They had a choice to fire Holmes According to http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-exclusive http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-ther... >Holmes, meanwhile, isn’t going anywhere. As the C.E.O. and chairwoman of Theranos, only she can elect to replace herself.
- jsmthrowaway 10y agoHmm. Surely under the circumstances, assuming she's somewhat rational and aware of fiduciary duty, she'd entertain the idea with her board. Can always bring her back. Then again...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wpietri 10y agoTechnically true but I think it's practically false. Theranos isn't in the black and won't be any time soon. They need the indulgence of investors to continue. My guess is a large fraction of current stockholders preferred this outcome.
- choicewords 10y agoHonestly, it hard to see why. She does have name recognition, but it's like Martin "I'll jack up the price of your drug and laugh about it"-type notoriety
- Overtonwindow 10y agoShe's owns it all. They can't fire her. She has controlling shares of everything.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- the_cat_kittles 10y agovery trumpian
- mchahn 10y agoWhile I totally agree, pure politics is probably not appropriate here.
- dimino 10y agoSometimes you guys are after blood, what do you want them to say? "We're the worst, we'll never try at anything anymore, sorry for existing." Would that make you happy?
- btmorex 10y agoFrom an ethical standpoint, I think they should've just wound down the company. If there are parts of the business that still have value, sell them. Otherwise, give employees decent severance and try to help them find new jobs. Return any remaining money to investors.
- firebones 10y agoNah, it would have been this: "Our foray into nanotainer tech was too early for the market. However, we've established that there is a market for disruptive tech in the stodgy lab biz. In terms of leadership, we're moving on from Ms. Holmes who saw this from the start, and she's agreed that the best for the stakeholders is to step aside due to the misunderstanding around her tech, but the company itself will persevere in breaking the stranglehold Big Lab has on healthcare costs, while Ms Holmes moves to an role in charge of disruptive R&D use of nanotainer and other disruptive tech in the lab/testing biz."
- wiz21c 10y agoDamn that's full buzzword compliant. You should work for Monsanto (a sustainable agriculture company) :-)
- Thrillington 10y agoYou mean Bayer, a "we pretty much just make asprin, don't worry about it" company.
- firebones 10y agoThis reminds me once again to re-watch "Thank You For Smoking".
- oneloop 10y agoAre you suggesting that Holmes is distorting the truth???
- _andromeda_ 10y agoHa ha! I see what you did there.
- pbreit 10y agoWhy were they even doing labs already anyway? If they can actually make the technology work, they can relatively easily print money. Focus on that.
- DanBC 10y agoThey had a combination of non-working technology, and semi-working labs. They were using the labs partly to hide that their tech didn't work, and to tide them over until they could make it work.
- ceterum_censeo 10y agoThey had to run their own labs in order to take advantage of the laboratory developed test (LDT) regulatory framework. Selling their devices for others to use would have required FDA clearance. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/ucm407296.htm http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedur...
- pbreit 10y agoThey could go to Europe or elsewhere like many do.
- ceterum_censeo 10y agoThe EU strategy can solve regulatory problems seen in the US, but it introduces other problems to be solved: funding can become more difficult (although the normal rules wouldn't seem to apply to this group), import/export and taxes become complicated, management from a distance is hard, etc. Keeping in mind that Theranos was trying for a US government contract, their US focus makes sense and the LDT pathway was a good idea. It's a shame that their corporate culture and management were wholly inadequate.
- wiz21c 10y agoI love that. In a shop I often go, they sometimes say they "had to remove/recall some food because of probable presence of salmonella". The truth being that the government food security agency forced them to do so because they did find some salmonella, after controlling them on the quality of their operations. That's what "communication experts" are for, I guess.
- dpark 10y ago> In a shop I often go, they sometimes say they "had to remove/recall some food because of probable presence of salmonella". The truth being that the government food security agency forced them to do so because they did find some salmonella, after controlling them on the quality of their operations. This is a place that has poor quality control to the point that the government has forced them to do multiple recalls for salmonella and you still go there often?