5 ms·

His name is Tyler Shultz. He is the main reason we know know what Theranos was doing. He had his life destroyed, he knew it would happen, what Theranos would

His name is Tyler Shultz. He is the main reason we know know what Theranos was doing. He had his life destroyed, he knew it would happen, what Theranos would do to him, and he did the right thing all the same. Tyler Shultz is a hero. Never let someone tell you that you don't matter. Try hard to do what is right. We need more people like him, be one of them too. Be like Tyler Shultz. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/explosive-new-details-emerge-in-lawsuit-against-theranos https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/explosive-new-detail... Edit: Pic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944392/Theranos-whistleblower-revealed-George-Shultz-s-grandson-Tyler-exposed-flaws-Elizabeth-Holmes-technology.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944392/Theranos-whi...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
roymurdock 9y ago
He has started his own company Flux Biosciences in 2017 after learning some important lessons... "With Theranos I learned that entrepreneurs have to sell their vision," he said. "But you have to have some line between having a vision and seeing something that’s just not there." "[Flux Biosciences] is developing point-of-care medical tests on blood, urine or saliva. Right now the company is working on a test for testosterone in saliva which could give a consumer health information but wouldn't serve as a diagnostic test that would affect medical care, as Theranos' tests aimed to." https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2017/10/03/after-blowing-the-whistle-on-theranos-tyler-shultz-is-going-back-into-diagnostic-testing/2/#656bc540fd5f https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2017/10/03/after-b...
- Balgair 9y ago
  It seems that there is justice in this world, then. By going public Tyler Schultz very likely saved lives. I can only wish him the best in his new endeavors. For certain, anyone doing business with him knows his handshake is worth something real.
pinewurst 9y ago
I had a similar thought when this story appeared this morning. https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-companyand-his-family-1479335963 https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-th...
- danso 9y ago
  As snapshotted by archive.is http://archive.is/wO4B0 http://archive.is/wO4B0
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rajacombinator 9y ago
Kudos to Tyler. (Maybe...) However, we'll never know what Theranos was really doing because people are too dumb to read beyond the headlines, and no one can gain from telling the truth. Shame too, because the real story is much more interesting, as always. The company's board was a who's who of old power of the milind-complex/illuminati ascended from on low. People such as Riley Bechtel, William Perry, James Mattis, Sam Nunn, Bill Frist, David Boies. They even took George Shultz and Henry Kissinger out of cryostasis for this one. None of these people had any medical or biotech background. I suspect Theranos was an elaborate money laundering plot for illicit war profits from the start. (Perhaps from whatever region of the world the mysterious 'Sunny' Balwani hails from?) Holmes made a great cover story slash scapegoat to distract attention from the real players. And I'm sorry but the Tyler Shultz story doesn't pass the smell test either. Grandson of uber old power family who joins the company in some sort of new hire capacity for 8 months brings multi billion dollar company to its knees and causes embarrassing blowup for half of Washington, DC? Would you do this and disgrace your famous grandfather? Maybe getting caught was part of their plan. Depending on the investor structure it sure would be a convenient way to vaporize one side of the books with no questions asked.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
BadassFractal 9y ago
I liked the bit where they tried to use the "women in tech are oppressed" narrative to cover her ass: > Tim Draper, the founding partner of Draper Associates and Draper Fisher Jurvetson, appeared on television on Tuesday—not for the first time—to defend Holmes and Theranos. In an interview on Closing Bell, the world’s most loyal V.C. said Holmes has been “totally attacked,” and that she is “a great example of maybe why the women are so frustrated.” Same narrative that was invoked in defense of Ellen Pao in her game of thrones with billionaires. There are people who are fighting for a noble cause, and then there are parasites that use it for their selfish gain.
- scarmig 9y ago
  It's not too surprising. As soon as any kind of principle, good or bad, starts to have some kind of power when it's invoked, bad actors will swarm around it to use it for their own ends.
  - babesh 9y ago
    It isn't just bad actors. Its our fawning nature. I think that many people were reluctant to question Theranos precisely because she was a female entrepreneur. Nowadays, you have many, many successful female tech entrepreneurs: stitch, bumble, ipsy, etc... and hopefully we are past the fawning phase and can apply critical thinking.
    - BadassFractal 9y ago
      Exactly. In an industry as sensitive as ours, criticizing Holmes could easily get you labeled as a sexist. Especially on mediums where nuance is hardly achievable, such as Twitter. People's confirmation bias is a real problem in these scenarios.
- gt_ 9y ago
  I can think of a political example, too.
- entee 9y ago
ravitation 9y ago
Wait... How did he have his life destroyed? It just says that he hasn't talked to his grandfather in awhile... He went on to start a biotech company (that seems to be doing alright) and was a Forbes 30 under 30 in 2017... I don't see how his life was destroyed...
- danso 9y ago
  It's probably more accurate to say that, at the time he became a whistleblower, he had reasonable idea to believe that it could wreck his life. From the WSJ article: http://archive.is/wO4B0#selection-955.0-958.0 http://archive.is/wO4B0#selection-955.0-958.0 > He says he was told by his parents that Ms. Holmes called the elder Mr. Shultz in the summer of 2015 to complain that their son was being unreasonable. Tyler Shultz says he also got a tip that private investigators were watching him. > In a conversation in his parents’ kitchen, they pleaded with him to agree to whatever Theranos wanted, he says. Even though his heart sank when they discussed selling their house to cover the costs of defending him against a potential Theranos lawsuit, Mr. Shultz didn’t make a deal with the company. > His parents said in a statement: “Tyler has acted exactly like the man we raised him to be, and we are extraordinarily proud of him.” "His parents said in a statement" -- I remember when reading this story when it was originally published (2016) thinking how odd it was that his parents didn't agree to be interviewed in person. Or at least were worried about speaking out of turn at that point in time.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    If you're involved in a complicated legal case, and you're not 100% sure what you're doing, no speaking to the press at all is your first preference, by a wide margin, and only speaking to the press in carefully considered, short, written statements in your second. Actually speaking to the press is for those with nothing to lose, and plenty to win -- or specialised training. This is exacerbated by the dynamic that the part of the press you'll feel most eager to speak to, is that which are making upsetting misrepresentations about you or something you care about -- ie., those who have something to gain by manipulating you to say something controversial or incriminating.
- 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

roymurdock 9y ago

He has started his own company Flux Biosciences in 2017 after learning some important lessons... "With Theranos I learned that entrepreneurs have to sell their vision," he said. "But you have to have some line between having a vision and seeing something that’s just not there." "[Flux Biosciences] is developing point-of-care medical tests on blood, urine or saliva. Right now the company is working on a test for testosterone in saliva which could give a consumer health information but wouldn't serve as a diagnostic test that would affect medical care, as Theranos' tests aimed to." https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2017/10/03/after-blowing-the-whistle-on-theranos-tyler-shultz-is-going-back-into-diagnostic-testing/2/#656bc540fd5f https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2017/10/03/after-b...

Balgair 9y ago
It seems that there is justice in this world, then. By going public Tyler Schultz very likely saved lives. I can only wish him the best in his new endeavors. For certain, anyone doing business with him knows his handshake is worth something real.

pinewurst 9y ago

I had a similar thought when this story appeared this morning. https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-companyand-his-family-1479335963 https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-th...

danso 9y ago
As snapshotted by archive.is http://archive.is/wO4B0 http://archive.is/wO4B0

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rajacombinator 9y ago

Kudos to Tyler. (Maybe...) However, we'll never know what Theranos was really doing because people are too dumb to read beyond the headlines, and no one can gain from telling the truth. Shame too, because the real story is much more interesting, as always. The company's board was a who's who of old power of the milind-complex/illuminati ascended from on low. People such as Riley Bechtel, William Perry, James Mattis, Sam Nunn, Bill Frist, David Boies. They even took George Shultz and Henry Kissinger out of cryostasis for this one. None of these people had any medical or biotech background. I suspect Theranos was an elaborate money laundering plot for illicit war profits from the start. (Perhaps from whatever region of the world the mysterious 'Sunny' Balwani hails from?) Holmes made a great cover story slash scapegoat to distract attention from the real players. And I'm sorry but the Tyler Shultz story doesn't pass the smell test either. Grandson of uber old power family who joins the company in some sort of new hire capacity for 8 months brings multi billion dollar company to its knees and causes embarrassing blowup for half of Washington, DC? Would you do this and disgrace your famous grandfather? Maybe getting caught was part of their plan. Depending on the investor structure it sure would be a convenient way to vaporize one side of the books with no questions asked.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

BadassFractal 9y ago

I liked the bit where they tried to use the "women in tech are oppressed" narrative to cover her ass: > Tim Draper, the founding partner of Draper Associates and Draper Fisher Jurvetson, appeared on television on Tuesday—not for the first time—to defend Holmes and Theranos. In an interview on Closing Bell, the world’s most loyal V.C. said Holmes has been “totally attacked,” and that she is “a great example of maybe why the women are so frustrated.” Same narrative that was invoked in defense of Ellen Pao in her game of thrones with billionaires. There are people who are fighting for a noble cause, and then there are parasites that use it for their selfish gain.

scarmig 9y ago
It's not too surprising. As soon as any kind of principle, good or bad, starts to have some kind of power when it's invoked, bad actors will swarm around it to use it for their own ends.
- babesh 9y ago
  It isn't just bad actors. Its our fawning nature. I think that many people were reluctant to question Theranos precisely because she was a female entrepreneur. Nowadays, you have many, many successful female tech entrepreneurs: stitch, bumble, ipsy, etc... and hopefully we are past the fawning phase and can apply critical thinking.
  - BadassFractal 9y ago
    Exactly. In an industry as sensitive as ours, criticizing Holmes could easily get you labeled as a sexist. Especially on mediums where nuance is hardly achievable, such as Twitter. People's confirmation bias is a real problem in these scenarios.
gt_ 9y ago
I can think of a political example, too.
entee 9y ago

ravitation 9y ago

Wait... How did he have his life destroyed? It just says that he hasn't talked to his grandfather in awhile... He went on to start a biotech company (that seems to be doing alright) and was a Forbes 30 under 30 in 2017... I don't see how his life was destroyed...

danso 9y ago
It's probably more accurate to say that, at the time he became a whistleblower, he had reasonable idea to believe that it could wreck his life. From the WSJ article: http://archive.is/wO4B0#selection-955.0-958.0 http://archive.is/wO4B0#selection-955.0-958.0 > He says he was told by his parents that Ms. Holmes called the elder Mr. Shultz in the summer of 2015 to complain that their son was being unreasonable. Tyler Shultz says he also got a tip that private investigators were watching him. > In a conversation in his parents’ kitchen, they pleaded with him to agree to whatever Theranos wanted, he says. Even though his heart sank when they discussed selling their house to cover the costs of defending him against a potential Theranos lawsuit, Mr. Shultz didn’t make a deal with the company. > His parents said in a statement: “Tyler has acted exactly like the man we raised him to be, and we are extraordinarily proud of him.” "His parents said in a statement" -- I remember when reading this story when it was originally published (2016) thinking how odd it was that his parents didn't agree to be interviewed in person. Or at least were worried about speaking out of turn at that point in time.
- mseebach 9y ago
  If you're involved in a complicated legal case, and you're not 100% sure what you're doing, no speaking to the press at all is your first preference, by a wide margin, and only speaking to the press in carefully considered, short, written statements in your second. Actually speaking to the press is for those with nothing to lose, and plenty to win -- or specialised training. This is exacerbated by the dynamic that the part of the press you'll feel most eager to speak to, is that which are making upsetting misrepresentations about you or something you care about -- ie., those who have something to gain by manipulating you to say something controversial or incriminating.
9y ago