3 ms·
From the Carreyrou piece on Tyler Schultz (https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-companyand-his-family-1479335963 https://www.wsj.com/ar
by cepth 8y ago
From the Carreyrou piece on Tyler Schultz (https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-companyand-his-family-1479335963 https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-th...), it seems like Schultz was already complaining to Holmes about the ridiculous validation data they were submitting in April 2014, specifically sending in data from tests not performed on the machines used for consumer testing, and instead performing the proficiency testing on Siemens machines.
I think this alone would probably be illegal?
This is not to mention all the other shady stuff that Theranos did in pitching investors. E.g., falsely claiming that they had machines being used in the field with the US Army, and that Johns Hopkins had validated results from their finger prick blood tests. This would also seem to be outright securities fraud?
Carreyrou may have exposed Theranos, but the sheer amount of illegality at the company seemed to have been going on for years.
- xevb3k 8y agoI mean lying to investors is certainly illegal. But usually the investors can’t do anything about it, or perhaps more accurately don’t want to after the fact. It’s not like suing the company gives them a desirable outcome. In fact it probably makes them look slightly more risky to companies looking for investment. Usually they just write off the investment and move on. Just like Rupert Murdoch did (sold it back to Theranos for 1USD). Either that or they look for someone else to pump more money in or cash them out. I feel like that was the subtext of a lot of the conversations with board members/investors in the book. There was nothing they could do, except make the play look as good as possible and hope more money gets poured in and it either works eventually, or they get to cash out... so.. why acknowledge any of the issues?