4 ms·

A lot of comments about Theranos not being different from other start-ups and Holmes being like other CEOs. I disagree. Theranos was an out-and-out fraud from i

A lot of comments about Theranos not being different from other start-ups and Holmes being like other CEOs. I disagree. Theranos was an out-and-out fraud from its beginnings. They knew their product did not work and was unlikely to ever work yet they kept on pushing it to investors as well as firms (Walgreens, Safeway). What is so disturbing is that their defective product, when used by naïve people without medical supervision, could report both false hits as well as missed. The former causing unneeded concern and anguish, the latter, resulting is not receiving needed treatments for something that would have been detected with real blood tests. A CEO lying about some unneeded product or service, while bad, does not come close to lying about a product that can impact one's health and well-being. She and Sonny both deserve substantial fines and jail time.

godzillabrennus 8y ago
The company was not a fraud from the beginning. Tim Draper invested before a product was "ready" or FDA approved. Let's not forget that the FDA gave Theranos a CLIA waiver to sell this thing outside of laboratories. The CEO lied but the regulators failed massively here as well.
- sabizmil 8y ago
  I just finished reading Bad Blood and it details how they went to extreme measures to ensure that the FDA never saw their Edison machines like barring entry to the lab on the day of an inspection, putting security guards in front of the door, and lying when asked what was inside. While the inspector could have pushed the issue, I don't think they 'failed massively'.
  - godzillabrennus 8y ago
    The inspector didn’t inspect anything. That’s a massive failure on their part. How else can you reasonably assess the work of someone titled “inspector” when they fail to “inspect”? Especially when they approve a device they haven’t “inspected” as an “inspector”. If you see logic in calling them something other than a massive failure then I’d like to understand your thought process.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  I don't understand your point. Draper and the FDA were fooled by it, therefore it wasn't a fraud?
hjk05 8y ago
I think it’s wrong to say they knew it would never work. They tried quite hard to make it work, they just never had the breakthrough they expected and the CEO had already sold the world on. That part I find quite like many other startups where the CEO will gladly go on stage saying “we built this amazing app, that does X, and will be launching in 2 months!” And talking to the coders will have them saying “yea he didn’t decide we should do that until last week, so we havn’t actually started, we still havn’t finished The first model he pitched.” The main difference to Theranos is then that mostly the software promises are just a question of time(AI promises excluded), where they actually had a big unknown in basic feasibility.

godzillabrennus 8y ago

The company was not a fraud from the beginning. Tim Draper invested before a product was "ready" or FDA approved. Let's not forget that the FDA gave Theranos a CLIA waiver to sell this thing outside of laboratories. The CEO lied but the regulators failed massively here as well.

sabizmil 8y ago
I just finished reading Bad Blood and it details how they went to extreme measures to ensure that the FDA never saw their Edison machines like barring entry to the lab on the day of an inspection, putting security guards in front of the door, and lying when asked what was inside. While the inspector could have pushed the issue, I don't think they 'failed massively'.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  The inspector didn’t inspect anything. That’s a massive failure on their part. How else can you reasonably assess the work of someone titled “inspector” when they fail to “inspect”? Especially when they approve a device they haven’t “inspected” as an “inspector”. If you see logic in calling them something other than a massive failure then I’d like to understand your thought process.
rdiddly 8y ago
I don't understand your point. Draper and the FDA were fooled by it, therefore it wasn't a fraud?

hjk05 8y ago

I think it’s wrong to say they knew it would never work. They tried quite hard to make it work, they just never had the breakthrough they expected and the CEO had already sold the world on. That part I find quite like many other startups where the CEO will gladly go on stage saying “we built this amazing app, that does X, and will be launching in 2 months!” And talking to the coders will have them saying “yea he didn’t decide we should do that until last week, so we havn’t actually started, we still havn’t finished The first model he pitched.” The main difference to Theranos is then that mostly the software promises are just a question of time(AI promises excluded), where they actually had a big unknown in basic feasibility.