6 ms·
Here's the earliest HN submission I could find on Theranos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349 I don't r
by nerevarthelame 5y ago
Here's the earliest HN submission I could find on Theranos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349
I don't really blame folks for not calling it out as a fraud at that point, given how little information we had. There were, for what it's worth, a number of people who complained about the ambiguity of the website. But many were convinced that the illustrious board must mean good results.
Well done to medman77 who had the most direct rebuke: "The company is all hot air. They have a board full of retired military figure heads that have no experience in medical devices or retail services. Additionally, they do not have any products to show. Look at their patents. They are all very general and broad. There has been NO FDA CLEARANCE for anything they are doing, which raises legal questions. Speaking of legal, search for lawsuits they are involved in. Their core technology is not even theirs. They stole it from someone else."
- hooande 5y agothis old thread is so hn. lots of discussion about famous names on the board, mentions of threats to privacy and discussion of the website ui. medman77 did crush it with actual technical analysis, among others. now I want to go back and see what hn said about other famous companies
- lotsofpulp 5y agoI recall lots of doubt about Theranos from the beginning, especially due to the board composition.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoI also recall a lot of bullishness especially due to the board. The idea of getting in on war profiteering and inflated government contracts made a lot of mouths water.
- sk5t 5y agoThere was also a lot of scientific doubt about Theranos based on what is actually physically present in a drop of capillary blood.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoYes, I recall that too from multiple posters who claimed they had worked with blood and anyone who had experience in that space was highly suspect of the claims due to inconsistency with current knowledge of limitations. Basically, barring any miraculous discovery, it was all bullshit and Theranos did not seem to have anyone on their roster capable of delivering a miraculous discovery. But the board being extra stacked with political power was also seen as a blatant attempt to deflect from not having anything real to show in their product.
- MarcelOlsz 5y agoMy favourite[0] is the dropbox post. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
- JimDabell 5y agoI think it’s worth highlighting dang’s comment on that one – it’s not as bad as it seems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068148
- zeusk 5y agoI find it odd/funny that it was the only comment from his account since 2013
- nerdponx 5y agoI enjoyed the comment by dlisboa: > So, it's a health testing company that will keep all my blood-related health information and make it "actionable", with the backing of James Mattis, William Perry and none other than Henry Kissinger. There are more soldiers in that board there than doctors. > The only way I'd give them my blood would be to infect them with a disease. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349728
- hn_throwaway_99 5y agoActually, interesting to me is that there are a lot of comments along the lines of "Well, I can't really figure out what they do from their website, but seems to be ..." Which I think is really telling. I guess in my old age I certainly have taken on the "If it sounds like bullshit, it almost certainly is." If you're really confident and proud of what you're doing, you explain it in the simplest terms possible.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]