8 ms·

Highly enjoyed Bad Blood and recommend it to anyone interested in some fine investigative journalism. I think the most disappointing thing about this whole sag

Highly enjoyed Bad Blood and recommend it to anyone interested in some fine investigative journalism. I think the most disappointing thing about this whole saga is that (in theory) the Theranos technology was supposed to be a major healthcare game changer. It could have revolutionized testing, and would surely have saved countless lives. But instead... here we are.

jonathanjaeger 8y ago
Well, in fairness, the technology wasn't there or possible (given current understanding of microfluidics), so it couldn't have revolutionized testing even if it was run more honestly. It could have harmed fewer people though if it never existed.
kranner 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the thesis of Bad Blood just that Theranos simply had no groundbreaking new technology? (and of course that Holmes and Balwani lied and bullied their way into an insane valuation for blood-testing tech that didn't exist and was propped up by third-party commercial testing machines)
- sharkweek 8y ago
  Hmm... I guess you could boil it down to that, but the specific details outlined in the book make for a fascinating read imo
- tptacek 8y ago
  They couldn't even do the basic stuff they fell back on after their groundbreaking machine failed to materialize, but they lied about it anyways and hacked COTS blood testing machines to accept fingerstick samples instead of the veinous draws they were designed to test --- which didn't work, and generated false results. They spent as much effort trying to contain stories and intimidate whistleblowers as they did on test accuracy. That'd be how I'd sum the book up. It is a page-turner; extremely well-written.
  - tomclive 8y ago
    Yep, it's a good book and reads like a thriller. I read it as a fable against 'Fear of missing out' and 'Fake it 'til you make it' culture. I like the idea of a simple universal test and can see how the executives who bought it into fell for the fantasy.
- asveikau 8y ago
  I'm not a doctor or psychiatrist, but a lot of what is written about Holmes in that book reminded me of what I have read elsewhere about narcissism. For me a lot of the takeaway from the book was that while these behaviors might pass for tolerable adaptions in the context of a taxi app or a social network, when you're doing medical devices the destruction becomes quite literal.
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    As a pathologist working on a diagnostics project, I feel the tiniest bit bad for the Theranos team, only because I've seen first hand how the system ignores anyone trying to start up in this space, and only really responds to money. The frustration of trying to work in this space could easily crank up the gain on a subset of any given person's tendencies in such a way as to create a fatal flaw. To some extent I'm grateful I got to watch them blow up. For shame, but there for the grace of God go I.
    - retsibsi 8y ago
      That frustration is understandable if you have a great product (or at least a truly realistic big idea) and struggle to get traction with clients and investors. But if John Carreyrou's account is accurate, Theranos was in the opposite situation. Their 'idea' was just an unrealistic goal, and their product barely existed, even at the time they were rolling it out for use on actual patients. The one thing they were good at was persuading investors and clients to give them money.
      - killjoywashere 8y ago
        Despite published papers to the contrary, a lot of people think I only have an unrealistic goal. And I'm here to tell you the product barely exists as a single prototype. Four years ago, the idea existed only in my mind. I started the work 7 years ago. I'm no Theranos apologist. Based on the conversation, I'm ordering the book to see if there's really any more detail. But keep an open mind. Assume people are no worse than you.
bloodhounder 8y ago
Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. ...except when it involves investor's money. Some takeaways after reading Bad Blood: 1. Listen to people. 2. If you're 19 with a great idea and investors willing to support it, ask for help. 3. Cumulative moral lapses will become a slippery slope. 4. If you're building something to sell to the medical industry, for goodness sake get some medical professionals in there. 5. Don't learn your leadership techniques from a Steve Jobs biography. 6. Don't sleep with someone and make them president of the company (or vice-versa). 7. Strive for diverse opinions instead of some yes men (and groupthink). 8. Fabricating results that can impact human lives will bring on the free press, the FDA, the SEC, and the FBI like a sack of bricks.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Yeah, I'd much prefer: Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Especially investor's money, because that's what it's there for. Except when it comes to lives and health of other people. Make no compromises there, no sacrifices.
  - consumer451 8y ago
    > Except when it comes to lives and health of other people. Make no compromises there, no sacrifices. I have not read the book, but based on the author’s interviews I have to agree with the idea that fake it ‘till you make it should never be applied to the medical space. When Theranos went live in Walgreens they crossed a line where limitless ambition should never be an excuse for vaporware. If accountability is at all an American standard, then Holmes should be prevented from ever being an executive in the health space. People’s lives were endangered. There is no excuse. Blood tests are not some b2b SaaS customer dev experiment.
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      > If accountability is at all an American standard That's your problem right there. I see no evidence (from the perspectives of politics, business, religion or any other angle I can think of) that Americans actually care even a tiny bit about accountability. They're perfectly happy to say they do, but when push comes to shove its a thin sheen over tribalism ("My opponents are obviously not being held to account").
Fnoord 8y ago
I recently read this book as well, and can highly recommend it. Bad Blood is investigative journalism at its finest. (It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually get a film adaptation... but those are always worse if you read the book.) The reporter, John Carreyrou, also caught backfire from Theranos. Especially his sources whom he did try to protect but were stalked by private investigators & lawyers. Given that Theranos didn't have a product it is only good news that they're finally dissolving. Holmes and Balwani ruled with tyranny and compartmentalisation which created a toxic work environment, but that does not mean all the employees were ignorant or stupid or into the scam; many of the employees were highly skilled and intelligent. Those who did know they didn't have a product (or that it was some dirty hack based on a different product) were manipulated by Holmes and Balwani. I saw someone mention psychopath. I'm unsure what exactly these two people are. Sociopath, psychopath, narcissist, whatever it is; it isn't pretty. When I read the book I was regularly reminded by Brian Krebs' "Sources: Security Firm Norse Corp. Imploding" [1]. They also had no real product and used compartmentalisation. Also well written (though way briefer). [1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/01/sources-security-firm-norse-corp-imploding/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/01/sources-security-firm-no...
- cpeterso 8y ago
  > It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually get a film adaptation A film adaptation, staying Jennifer Lawrence as Elizabeth Holmes, is already planned: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/
  - gaius 8y ago
    Very surprised she would take on such a reviled role, she hasn’t historically played villains has she? I think that movie was planned at a time that Holmes was still believed to be tragic and delusional rather than a cold-blooded conwoman with no redeeming features.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      Its not about hero or villain, its that she has a repertoire of strong female (main) characters. Katniss Everdeen is a hero for District 13, but an enemy and villain for the rest due to the survival of the fittest nature of that world.
foobaw 8y ago
I read Bad Blood and was curious what she sounded like. https://youtu.be/rGfaJZAdfNE?t=99 https://youtu.be/rGfaJZAdfNE?t=99 The book definitely gets it right.
- rwc 8y ago
  It's an affectation. A weird one at that.
- RmDen 8y ago
  This comment........Holmes is wasting her natural talent. Instead of running this fraudulent company, she ought to be voicing a young Darth Vader in the next two Star Wars movies.
  - howard941 8y ago
    Indeed. Check out the link for the intriguing audio, stay for the comments.
erentz 8y ago
> think the most disappointing thing about this whole saga is that (in theory) the Theranos technology was supposed to be a major healthcare game changer. It could have revolutionized testing, and would surely have saved countless lives. This reads like such a weird statement. It never existed. It could’ve never have revolutionized testing because it was entirely imagined and not based on reality. It’s like watching Star Trek thinking tricorders are real then being disappointed when told they’re a fiction.
- mifreewil 8y ago
  So, I’m one of Theranos’ biggest critic, since I’ve had a weird fascination with the company since someone on HN pointed out the bizarreness of its BoD back in 2013. I think if Theranos hadn’t gone all-in on its fraud it still could have had an impact. One area was that it was actually pushing to change laws (I know it did this in Arizona) to give individual control over blood testing instead of requiring people to go through doctors and corporations. Another area was price transparency. Much like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (https://surgerycenterok.com https://surgerycenterok.com), it was listing all the prices for its tests right there on its website. These 2 things alone would be a major advancement in the US. Forget the mini blood tubes.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - crottypeter 8y ago
    I thought the individual having control (and choosing to use Theranos) was a bad thing, no? When you're buying one blood test you won't be able to tell what it missed. If you're a medical practitioner, ordering hundreds of blood tests per month (or something) you can afford to duplicate the test when you change testing provider and realise that they aren't doing a very good job!
    - dexterdog 8y ago
      Except that most practitioners are bound to use a single lab and then run as many tests as they have to do cover regulations and insurance. Then to boot you have no idea what they'll cost until you get the bill later.
vmchale 8y ago
> I think the most disappointing thing about this whole saga is that (in theory) the Theranos technology was supposed to be a major healthcare game changer. It could have revolutionized testing, and would surely have saved countless lives. Never really on the table.
beavisthegenius 8y ago
Elizabeth Holmes committed fraud. She's a criminal.

jonathanjaeger 8y ago

Well, in fairness, the technology wasn't there or possible (given current understanding of microfluidics), so it couldn't have revolutionized testing even if it was run more honestly. It could have harmed fewer people though if it never existed.

kranner 8y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the thesis of Bad Blood just that Theranos simply had no groundbreaking new technology? (and of course that Holmes and Balwani lied and bullied their way into an insane valuation for blood-testing tech that didn't exist and was propped up by third-party commercial testing machines)

sharkweek 8y ago
Hmm... I guess you could boil it down to that, but the specific details outlined in the book make for a fascinating read imo
tptacek 8y ago
They couldn't even do the basic stuff they fell back on after their groundbreaking machine failed to materialize, but they lied about it anyways and hacked COTS blood testing machines to accept fingerstick samples instead of the veinous draws they were designed to test --- which didn't work, and generated false results. They spent as much effort trying to contain stories and intimidate whistleblowers as they did on test accuracy. That'd be how I'd sum the book up. It is a page-turner; extremely well-written.
- tomclive 8y ago
  Yep, it's a good book and reads like a thriller. I read it as a fable against 'Fear of missing out' and 'Fake it 'til you make it' culture. I like the idea of a simple universal test and can see how the executives who bought it into fell for the fantasy.
asveikau 8y ago
I'm not a doctor or psychiatrist, but a lot of what is written about Holmes in that book reminded me of what I have read elsewhere about narcissism. For me a lot of the takeaway from the book was that while these behaviors might pass for tolerable adaptions in the context of a taxi app or a social network, when you're doing medical devices the destruction becomes quite literal.
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  As a pathologist working on a diagnostics project, I feel the tiniest bit bad for the Theranos team, only because I've seen first hand how the system ignores anyone trying to start up in this space, and only really responds to money. The frustration of trying to work in this space could easily crank up the gain on a subset of any given person's tendencies in such a way as to create a fatal flaw. To some extent I'm grateful I got to watch them blow up. For shame, but there for the grace of God go I.
  - retsibsi 8y ago
    That frustration is understandable if you have a great product (or at least a truly realistic big idea) and struggle to get traction with clients and investors. But if John Carreyrou's account is accurate, Theranos was in the opposite situation. Their 'idea' was just an unrealistic goal, and their product barely existed, even at the time they were rolling it out for use on actual patients. The one thing they were good at was persuading investors and clients to give them money.
    - killjoywashere 8y ago
      Despite published papers to the contrary, a lot of people think I only have an unrealistic goal. And I'm here to tell you the product barely exists as a single prototype. Four years ago, the idea existed only in my mind. I started the work 7 years ago. I'm no Theranos apologist. Based on the conversation, I'm ordering the book to see if there's really any more detail. But keep an open mind. Assume people are no worse than you.

bloodhounder 8y ago

Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. ...except when it involves investor's money. Some takeaways after reading Bad Blood: 1. Listen to people. 2. If you're 19 with a great idea and investors willing to support it, ask for help. 3. Cumulative moral lapses will become a slippery slope. 4. If you're building something to sell to the medical industry, for goodness sake get some medical professionals in there. 5. Don't learn your leadership techniques from a Steve Jobs biography. 6. Don't sleep with someone and make them president of the company (or vice-versa). 7. Strive for diverse opinions instead of some yes men (and groupthink). 8. Fabricating results that can impact human lives will bring on the free press, the FDA, the SEC, and the FBI like a sack of bricks.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Yeah, I'd much prefer: Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Especially investor's money, because that's what it's there for. Except when it comes to lives and health of other people. Make no compromises there, no sacrifices.
- consumer451 8y ago
  > Except when it comes to lives and health of other people. Make no compromises there, no sacrifices. I have not read the book, but based on the author’s interviews I have to agree with the idea that fake it ‘till you make it should never be applied to the medical space. When Theranos went live in Walgreens they crossed a line where limitless ambition should never be an excuse for vaporware. If accountability is at all an American standard, then Holmes should be prevented from ever being an executive in the health space. People’s lives were endangered. There is no excuse. Blood tests are not some b2b SaaS customer dev experiment.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    > If accountability is at all an American standard That's your problem right there. I see no evidence (from the perspectives of politics, business, religion or any other angle I can think of) that Americans actually care even a tiny bit about accountability. They're perfectly happy to say they do, but when push comes to shove its a thin sheen over tribalism ("My opponents are obviously not being held to account").

Fnoord 8y ago

I recently read this book as well, and can highly recommend it. Bad Blood is investigative journalism at its finest. (It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually get a film adaptation... but those are always worse if you read the book.) The reporter, John Carreyrou, also caught backfire from Theranos. Especially his sources whom he did try to protect but were stalked by private investigators & lawyers. Given that Theranos didn't have a product it is only good news that they're finally dissolving. Holmes and Balwani ruled with tyranny and compartmentalisation which created a toxic work environment, but that does not mean all the employees were ignorant or stupid or into the scam; many of the employees were highly skilled and intelligent. Those who did know they didn't have a product (or that it was some dirty hack based on a different product) were manipulated by Holmes and Balwani. I saw someone mention psychopath. I'm unsure what exactly these two people are. Sociopath, psychopath, narcissist, whatever it is; it isn't pretty. When I read the book I was regularly reminded by Brian Krebs' "Sources: Security Firm Norse Corp. Imploding" [1]. They also had no real product and used compartmentalisation. Also well written (though way briefer). [1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/01/sources-security-firm-norse-corp-imploding/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/01/sources-security-firm-no...

cpeterso 8y ago
> It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually get a film adaptation A film adaptation, staying Jennifer Lawrence as Elizabeth Holmes, is already planned: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt5795144/
- gaius 8y ago
  Very surprised she would take on such a reviled role, she hasn’t historically played villains has she? I think that movie was planned at a time that Holmes was still believed to be tragic and delusional rather than a cold-blooded conwoman with no redeeming features.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Its not about hero or villain, its that she has a repertoire of strong female (main) characters. Katniss Everdeen is a hero for District 13, but an enemy and villain for the rest due to the survival of the fittest nature of that world.

foobaw 8y ago

I read Bad Blood and was curious what she sounded like. https://youtu.be/rGfaJZAdfNE?t=99 https://youtu.be/rGfaJZAdfNE?t=99 The book definitely gets it right.

rwc 8y ago
It's an affectation. A weird one at that.
RmDen 8y ago
This comment........Holmes is wasting her natural talent. Instead of running this fraudulent company, she ought to be voicing a young Darth Vader in the next two Star Wars movies.
- howard941 8y ago
  Indeed. Check out the link for the intriguing audio, stay for the comments.

erentz 8y ago

> think the most disappointing thing about this whole saga is that (in theory) the Theranos technology was supposed to be a major healthcare game changer. It could have revolutionized testing, and would surely have saved countless lives. This reads like such a weird statement. It never existed. It could’ve never have revolutionized testing because it was entirely imagined and not based on reality. It’s like watching Star Trek thinking tricorders are real then being disappointed when told they’re a fiction.

mifreewil 8y ago
So, I’m one of Theranos’ biggest critic, since I’ve had a weird fascination with the company since someone on HN pointed out the bizarreness of its BoD back in 2013. I think if Theranos hadn’t gone all-in on its fraud it still could have had an impact. One area was that it was actually pushing to change laws (I know it did this in Arizona) to give individual control over blood testing instead of requiring people to go through doctors and corporations. Another area was price transparency. Much like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (https://surgerycenterok.com https://surgerycenterok.com), it was listing all the prices for its tests right there on its website. These 2 things alone would be a major advancement in the US. Forget the mini blood tubes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- crottypeter 8y ago
  I thought the individual having control (and choosing to use Theranos) was a bad thing, no? When you're buying one blood test you won't be able to tell what it missed. If you're a medical practitioner, ordering hundreds of blood tests per month (or something) you can afford to duplicate the test when you change testing provider and realise that they aren't doing a very good job!
  - dexterdog 8y ago
    Except that most practitioners are bound to use a single lab and then run as many tests as they have to do cover regulations and insurance. Then to boot you have no idea what they'll cost until you get the bill later.

vmchale 8y ago

> I think the most disappointing thing about this whole saga is that (in theory) the Theranos technology was supposed to be a major healthcare game changer. It could have revolutionized testing, and would surely have saved countless lives. Never really on the table.

beavisthegenius 8y ago

Elizabeth Holmes committed fraud. She's a criminal.