5 ms·

I remember I was very excited about leaving Microsoft for Theranos when they were on the rise (before WSJ publications). I thought it would be a great opportuni

I remember I was very excited about leaving Microsoft for Theranos when they were on the rise (before WSJ publications). I thought it would be a great opportunity to apply my expertise (machine learning) to their application. But then I researched them and saw war criminal (Kissinger) on their board and total lack of people with domain/business expertise in the area. I decided not to join. Always do your research on potential startups before jumping on board.

kstrauser 4y ago
At the time, that must’ve seemed like an offer from heaven. I’m most disappointed that their amazing promise was basically a lie. It’d be a dream come true to get paid to work on a real project as world-changing as a legitimate Theranos would’ve been.
- rllearneratwork 4y ago
  exactly, imagine them being legit and building ML pipelines there with their data.
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    I’d be all over that. Well, maybe not doing that specific thing, but if I could use my skills in a real company like that? In a heartbeat.
- jmcgough 4y ago
  It's interesting to think of a world where their approach was scientifically possible and they faked it until they actually made it. We'd still be talking about how scrappy and brilliant she is, and all this other stuff would be treated as minor details.
  - biotinker 4y ago
    As someone with a bioinformatics degree and who worked in industry doing liquid biopsy for cancer diagnostics for half a decade, much of what they claimed they could do is possible- just, not with the technology of Theranos' day, and not with the volumes of blood they claimed to be able to use. Example: for a decade now it's been possible to take a standard blood draw from a stage 4 cancer patient, sequence all DNA circulating in the plasma, distinguish the cancer DNA from non-cancer, and use the cancer sequences to inform treatment. In 2022, this is readily available to most stage 4 American cancer patients. The obvious logical future extension of this, is draw blood from any person, and see if they have any stage of cancer. This is something that is being actively worked on, and is currently in the experimental/cutting edge state; expect to see it become somewhat common/affordable in perhaps another 4 years. Theranos claimed to be able to do the above, a decade ago, and with an order of magnitude less biological input material than current technology requires. One reason they garnered so much attention, is that people generally familiar with the field knew that much of what they claimed, were things that were possible but were 15-30 years out based on the trajectory of technology at the time. So it was plausible that a genuine breakthrough had occurred that massively accelerated that timeline. Sadly, as we all now know, that was not the case.
    - kstrauser 4y ago
      Thanks for that extra context!
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      The mindset around tests that you just suggested, and clearly Holmes had, is based on a serious misconception about statistics and testing. Every test has false positives and false negatives. A lot of tests are very bad in this regard, with things like 25% false negative rates on one test and 50% false positive rates on another. When you administer those tests to someone who is a likely candidate for a disease, and combine them with a few other tests, you get useful information. If you just scattershot the tests to everyone, you are going to get a lot of mis-diagnoses. COVID has de-sensitized us to the idea of over-testing for the hell of it (in the case of COVID, this is because society is okay with a few false positives being told to quarantine and the test had the sensitivity turned way up so that false negatives were nearly impossible), but it is still a really good way to get really bad information. It is the real-life version of "p-hacking" that occurs in some academic settings. For a test to be useful, you need a hypothesis before you administer a test.
anewpersonality 4y ago
Where did you end up?
- rllearneratwork 4y ago
  Apple
  - anewpersonality 4y ago
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    High correlation of your choices to CEOs with black turtlenecks & acclaimed showmanship /jk
    - esotericimpl 4y ago
  - dvt 4y ago
    - kstrauser 4y ago
      It's not "virtue signaling" when you're actually walking the walk. The person you're replying to didn't want to work for Kissinger et al, so they turned down what looked like a good job.
      - dvt 4y ago
        It absolutely is when (a) bragging on the internet about it, and (b) accepting another job which is equally evil. Probably even moreso when still living in the US, which has taken advantage of Kissinger's aggressive geopolitical strategies (and part of the reason why the US is such a wealthy and dominant superpower). But no one wants to have serious conversations, they just want the upvote for the moral points of not joining Theranos while joining Apple (yawn).
misiti3780 4y ago
He clearly is a war criminal, but most of the US elite doesnt act like it. I'm sure he gets invite to every weekly cocktail party in between NYC <> DC still.
- abrax3141 4y ago
  He’s on NPR at this very moment opining on another political criminal who will never face consequences.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  "Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević." - Anthony Bourdain
paxys 4y ago
Easy to say in hindsight, but every company has random influential people (some a lot worse than Kissinger) on the board, and a lot of them turn out very successful.
- rllearneratwork 4y ago
  yes. But on the other hand we are spoiled with choice in tech. So take advantage of that.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  In this case, they apparently said it in foresight -- probably more foresight than most of us would have, though.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > In this case, they apparently said it in foresight Eh, I would tend to believe that the slam against Henry Kissinger is mostly hindsight. The foresight part was the rest of the sentence: >>> and total lack of people with domain/business expertise in the area
  - paxys 4y ago
    Might have worked out in their case, sure, but it is still very much confirmation bias. People who decided not to join hot startups like Google and Facebook because they didn't agree with the list of investors or the board composition aren't exactly going to be posting about it here.

kstrauser 4y ago

At the time, that must’ve seemed like an offer from heaven. I’m most disappointed that their amazing promise was basically a lie. It’d be a dream come true to get paid to work on a real project as world-changing as a legitimate Theranos would’ve been.

rllearneratwork 4y ago
exactly, imagine them being legit and building ML pipelines there with their data.
- kstrauser 4y ago
  I’d be all over that. Well, maybe not doing that specific thing, but if I could use my skills in a real company like that? In a heartbeat.
jmcgough 4y ago
It's interesting to think of a world where their approach was scientifically possible and they faked it until they actually made it. We'd still be talking about how scrappy and brilliant she is, and all this other stuff would be treated as minor details.
- biotinker 4y ago
  As someone with a bioinformatics degree and who worked in industry doing liquid biopsy for cancer diagnostics for half a decade, much of what they claimed they could do is possible- just, not with the technology of Theranos' day, and not with the volumes of blood they claimed to be able to use. Example: for a decade now it's been possible to take a standard blood draw from a stage 4 cancer patient, sequence all DNA circulating in the plasma, distinguish the cancer DNA from non-cancer, and use the cancer sequences to inform treatment. In 2022, this is readily available to most stage 4 American cancer patients. The obvious logical future extension of this, is draw blood from any person, and see if they have any stage of cancer. This is something that is being actively worked on, and is currently in the experimental/cutting edge state; expect to see it become somewhat common/affordable in perhaps another 4 years. Theranos claimed to be able to do the above, a decade ago, and with an order of magnitude less biological input material than current technology requires. One reason they garnered so much attention, is that people generally familiar with the field knew that much of what they claimed, were things that were possible but were 15-30 years out based on the trajectory of technology at the time. So it was plausible that a genuine breakthrough had occurred that massively accelerated that timeline. Sadly, as we all now know, that was not the case.
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    Thanks for that extra context!
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    The mindset around tests that you just suggested, and clearly Holmes had, is based on a serious misconception about statistics and testing. Every test has false positives and false negatives. A lot of tests are very bad in this regard, with things like 25% false negative rates on one test and 50% false positive rates on another. When you administer those tests to someone who is a likely candidate for a disease, and combine them with a few other tests, you get useful information. If you just scattershot the tests to everyone, you are going to get a lot of mis-diagnoses. COVID has de-sensitized us to the idea of over-testing for the hell of it (in the case of COVID, this is because society is okay with a few false positives being told to quarantine and the test had the sensitivity turned way up so that false negatives were nearly impossible), but it is still a really good way to get really bad information. It is the real-life version of "p-hacking" that occurs in some academic settings. For a test to be useful, you need a hypothesis before you administer a test.

anewpersonality 4y ago

Where did you end up?

rllearneratwork 4y ago
Apple
- anewpersonality 4y ago
- srvmshr 4y ago
  High correlation of your choices to CEOs with black turtlenecks & acclaimed showmanship /jk
  - esotericimpl 4y ago
- dvt 4y ago
  - kstrauser 4y ago
    It's not "virtue signaling" when you're actually walking the walk. The person you're replying to didn't want to work for Kissinger et al, so they turned down what looked like a good job.
    - dvt 4y ago
      It absolutely is when (a) bragging on the internet about it, and (b) accepting another job which is equally evil. Probably even moreso when still living in the US, which has taken advantage of Kissinger's aggressive geopolitical strategies (and part of the reason why the US is such a wealthy and dominant superpower). But no one wants to have serious conversations, they just want the upvote for the moral points of not joining Theranos while joining Apple (yawn).

misiti3780 4y ago

He clearly is a war criminal, but most of the US elite doesnt act like it. I'm sure he gets invite to every weekly cocktail party in between NYC <> DC still.

abrax3141 4y ago
He’s on NPR at this very moment opining on another political criminal who will never face consequences.
mhh__ 4y ago
"Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević." - Anthony Bourdain

paxys 4y ago

Easy to say in hindsight, but every company has random influential people (some a lot worse than Kissinger) on the board, and a lot of them turn out very successful.

rllearneratwork 4y ago
yes. But on the other hand we are spoiled with choice in tech. So take advantage of that.
bee_rider 4y ago
In this case, they apparently said it in foresight -- probably more foresight than most of us would have, though.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > In this case, they apparently said it in foresight Eh, I would tend to believe that the slam against Henry Kissinger is mostly hindsight. The foresight part was the rest of the sentence: >>> and total lack of people with domain/business expertise in the area
- paxys 4y ago
  Might have worked out in their case, sure, but it is still very much confirmation bias. People who decided not to join hot startups like Google and Facebook because they didn't agree with the list of investors or the board composition aren't exactly going to be posting about it here.