4 ms·

A former Theranos employee's account of life inside the company

77 points by jetrink 8y ago

TaylorGood 8y ago
Just wow: Q: I heard a rumor that Elizabeth Holmes’ deep voice is fake, as in a part of the performance, like not blinking, any truth to that? A: Yep, true. Early on someone gave her advice that if she deepened her voice the male dominated business scene would take her more seriously.
- Angostura 8y ago
  The same advice was given to, and taken by Margaret Thatcher
- watwut 8y ago
  That actually works in meetings or other group situations when people seem ignore my points - deeper voice works better. Not sure why doing it would be shocking. It is tiring to do it all the time through. Men chage their voices based on social situations too. It works also with students when you are teaching. I am pretty sure she also carefully selected cloths and hair style to project the right image and thought in advance about what she is going to say. It is the same thing. That is what all charizmatic leaders, whether good or bad, do all the time.
  - TaylorGood 8y ago
    Yes, agreed. However, this full-time is very extreme.
- arto 8y ago
  Also, from a few days ago: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180612-the-reasons-why-womens-voices-are-deeper-today http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180612-the-reasons-why-wo...
- txsh 8y ago
  Not any less authentic than Elon Musk’s hairline. Nobody seems to have a problem with men spraying on hair from a can. Why shouldn’t a woman alter her voice?
- Jack000 8y ago
  is it actually possible to do this? I can't just deepen my voice on command, can some people do it naturally?
  - amarkov 8y ago
    Not necessarily naturally, but it's reasonably easy to learn - it's ultimately the same underlying mechanism as singing different notes.
danso 8y ago
Pretty good writeup, as it sheds light on what it was like to work at and tolerate (for a few years) such a poisonous company. Even with all the shady things observed, and the fact that Holmes's ideas and goals were a big sham, the author seems to have been engaged enough in the science to think -- at the time -- that the goals were legit.
- lookACamel 8y ago
  Actually it sounds like early one he decided it wasn't legit. He says he only stayed with Theranos because he literally couldn't find a position elsewhere.
  - danso 8y ago
    His complaints are heavily focused on how the company had a shit culture and terrible scientific practices. But he doesn't describe it, from the inside, as being the total scam that it looks like from the outside: > If they had used some of the more sensitive methods or invented a new method they probably could have made some, but not all assays work. > Part of the problem was that they surrounded themselves with people who told them what they wanted to hear. Ultimately, even if they hired the right people from the get go, and those people pushed for other methods they didn't like, they would have been marginalized, pushed out and replaced by people who were "yes" people.
amb23 8y ago
The biggest takeaway here: surround yourself with the right people. I find it hard to believe Holmes wanted to outright commit fraud with Theranos. Instead, some combination of startup “disruption” tactics and a crew of unqualified yes men led to a toxic company culture that cultivated lying and, eventually, criminal fraud. On the first point: There’s a very real culture in Silicon Valley where it’s expected that everyone lies, at least a little bit. Startups will massage their numbers in VC pitch decks, or launch “Wizard of Oz” products that aren’t based on new tech. If you’re on a client-facing team, you’re expected to learn which white lies to tell. Most startups get away with this without a problem, and Theranos probably expected to as well when they came out of stealth mode and debuted their testing equipment. But this process doesn’t work in biotech when it affects real consumer health outcomes; there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health. The tech industry could use a better ethical backbone overall. On surrounding yourself with the right people: The anecdote about the manager who lied about results, was given promotions and accolades, and then promptly quit when it became time to become accountable, was telling to me. First, there was a lack of checks and balances in place to prevent these lies—how was Holmes supposed to know the manager was lying? The board had little technical or scientific background, and it’s not clear that the company set up processes to ensure research was sound. And the most likely reason why? They probably just trusted people and didn’t expect that these problems could happen. The only way to ensure you’re not blindsided by issues like these is to make sure those around you are capable, experienced, and have been through this before. Company culture is everything. As bad as Theranos is, the tech industry is rife with fraudulent practices and bad apples. I’d hope Holmes’ criminal charges make executives pause and think about setting up processes to allow for honesty and accountability. Unfortunately, though, the mainstream narrative has been to paint Holmes as an unsophisticated crook instead of looking at the systematic problems of the company as a whole, and that means people will keep on keeping on with the practices that led to Theranos’ downfall.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  > there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health. This is what people don't realize when they try and say the FDA is a bureaucratic nightmare. Every process in place is designed to make sure that the drugs that hit the US market work. Look at what happened with Thalidomide. The FDA didn't allow it to hit the US market due to strict requirements about what tests and processes the drug companies were required to follow. Europe had a massive problem, while the US didn't. What most people don't realize or know, is that the FDA will readily expedite promising drugs and/or products if results are promising and the data is valid. Companies, if they have strong data from Phase I or II trials, can be bumped to the top of the review queue or be granted interim permission to sell their drugs before Phase III trials are complete. I personally think the FDA is a great example of a well designed bureaucracy. The value it adds to the public is insurmountable, while not being unreasonable.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

77 points by jetrink 8y ago

Just wow: Q: I heard a rumor that Elizabeth Holmes’ deep voice is fake, as in a part of the performance, like not blinking, any truth to that? A: Yep, true. Early on someone gave her advice that if she deepened her voice the male dominated business scene would take her more seriously.

Angostura 8y ago
The same advice was given to, and taken by Margaret Thatcher
watwut 8y ago
That actually works in meetings or other group situations when people seem ignore my points - deeper voice works better. Not sure why doing it would be shocking. It is tiring to do it all the time through. Men chage their voices based on social situations too. It works also with students when you are teaching. I am pretty sure she also carefully selected cloths and hair style to project the right image and thought in advance about what she is going to say. It is the same thing. That is what all charizmatic leaders, whether good or bad, do all the time.
- TaylorGood 8y ago
  Yes, agreed. However, this full-time is very extreme.
arto 8y ago
Also, from a few days ago: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180612-the-reasons-why-womens-voices-are-deeper-today http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180612-the-reasons-why-wo...
txsh 8y ago
Not any less authentic than Elon Musk’s hairline. Nobody seems to have a problem with men spraying on hair from a can. Why shouldn’t a woman alter her voice?
Jack000 8y ago
is it actually possible to do this? I can't just deepen my voice on command, can some people do it naturally?
- amarkov 8y ago
  Not necessarily naturally, but it's reasonably easy to learn - it's ultimately the same underlying mechanism as singing different notes.

danso 8y ago

Pretty good writeup, as it sheds light on what it was like to work at and tolerate (for a few years) such a poisonous company. Even with all the shady things observed, and the fact that Holmes's ideas and goals were a big sham, the author seems to have been engaged enough in the science to think -- at the time -- that the goals were legit.

lookACamel 8y ago
Actually it sounds like early one he decided it wasn't legit. He says he only stayed with Theranos because he literally couldn't find a position elsewhere.
- danso 8y ago
  His complaints are heavily focused on how the company had a shit culture and terrible scientific practices. But he doesn't describe it, from the inside, as being the total scam that it looks like from the outside: > If they had used some of the more sensitive methods or invented a new method they probably could have made some, but not all assays work. > Part of the problem was that they surrounded themselves with people who told them what they wanted to hear. Ultimately, even if they hired the right people from the get go, and those people pushed for other methods they didn't like, they would have been marginalized, pushed out and replaced by people who were "yes" people.

amb23 8y ago

The biggest takeaway here: surround yourself with the right people. I find it hard to believe Holmes wanted to outright commit fraud with Theranos. Instead, some combination of startup “disruption” tactics and a crew of unqualified yes men led to a toxic company culture that cultivated lying and, eventually, criminal fraud. On the first point: There’s a very real culture in Silicon Valley where it’s expected that everyone lies, at least a little bit. Startups will massage their numbers in VC pitch decks, or launch “Wizard of Oz” products that aren’t based on new tech. If you’re on a client-facing team, you’re expected to learn which white lies to tell. Most startups get away with this without a problem, and Theranos probably expected to as well when they came out of stealth mode and debuted their testing equipment. But this process doesn’t work in biotech when it affects real consumer health outcomes; there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health. The tech industry could use a better ethical backbone overall. On surrounding yourself with the right people: The anecdote about the manager who lied about results, was given promotions and accolades, and then promptly quit when it became time to become accountable, was telling to me. First, there was a lack of checks and balances in place to prevent these lies—how was Holmes supposed to know the manager was lying? The board had little technical or scientific background, and it’s not clear that the company set up processes to ensure research was sound. And the most likely reason why? They probably just trusted people and didn’t expect that these problems could happen. The only way to ensure you’re not blindsided by issues like these is to make sure those around you are capable, experienced, and have been through this before. Company culture is everything. As bad as Theranos is, the tech industry is rife with fraudulent practices and bad apples. I’d hope Holmes’ criminal charges make executives pause and think about setting up processes to allow for honesty and accountability. Unfortunately, though, the mainstream narrative has been to paint Holmes as an unsophisticated crook instead of looking at the systematic problems of the company as a whole, and that means people will keep on keeping on with the practices that led to Theranos’ downfall.

lykr0n 8y ago
> there is a reason behind much FDA bureaucracy, and it’s to protect people’s health. This is what people don't realize when they try and say the FDA is a bureaucratic nightmare. Every process in place is designed to make sure that the drugs that hit the US market work. Look at what happened with Thalidomide. The FDA didn't allow it to hit the US market due to strict requirements about what tests and processes the drug companies were required to follow. Europe had a massive problem, while the US didn't. What most people don't realize or know, is that the FDA will readily expedite promising drugs and/or products if results are promising and the data is valid. Companies, if they have strong data from Phase I or II trials, can be bumped to the top of the review queue or be granted interim permission to sell their drugs before Phase III trials are complete. I personally think the FDA is a great example of a well designed bureaucracy. The value it adds to the public is insurmountable, while not being unreasonable.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]