
Holmes to remain at Theranos despite federal ban and gross negligence - etendue
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/holmes-to-remain-at-theranos-despite-federal-ban-and-gross-negligence/
======
colemannerd
I am not surprised. Theranos exists as a cult of personality around Holmes and
without her, it would be obvious that they provide no value over their larger,
more efficient competitors.

~~~
copperx
I was not aware of the cult of personality aspect. Is she a remarkable leader?
visionary?

~~~
bbctol
The cult of personality was the only reason for Theranos existing. Holmes is a
young, rich Stanford dropout who idolizes Steve Jobs down to the sweaters,
lives like a monk while consuming elaborate vegan smoothies, and claimed to be
upending generations of practice with the power of outside-the-box thinking.
She raised money and endorsements by being Silicon Valley's wet dream, while
the scientific establishment's concerns were ignored.

~~~
chrischen
Let's not ignore the elephant in the room. She was also held up as a
successful _female_ entrepreneur/leader. There was a lot of expectation for
her to set an example and be a role model.

~~~
apathy
That... Did not work out very well. The woman behind Spanx would be a better
role model for my daughter, methinks.

And that's considering that my daughter likes to look at blood under my
microscope.

------
dekhn
So, I guess the plan now must be to shut down all non-R&D parts of the
company, and try to maintain/sell the R&D division and its IP. I can only
imagine the level of due diligence any potential buyer will apply.

------
smaili
> Still, last week’s news raises the question of what will happen to the
> company’s other clinical laboratory in Scottsdale, Arizona, at which 90
> percent of the company’s tests are processed. So far, that lab has passed
> regulatory muster, and the company said it will remain open for now.

I find it interesting that their Arizona lab passed...would this imply they do
indeed have a legitimate product?

~~~
FussyZeus
I read at numerous points that they were using the older machines they were
supposed to be "disrupting" the industry away from to perform tests, perhaps
the Arizona lab is where they have those kept?

Either that or the Arizona regulations are just a little looser.

~~~
jlarocco
> Either that or the Arizona regulations are just a little looser.

Arizona is still in the United States, so it has the same federal regulations
;-)

Who knows, though, maybe they were just busy with the smaller lab and haven't
got to Arizona yet.

~~~
FussyZeus
That's entirely possible. My instinct would be to say that California would
have more strict regulation but we could also be dealing entirely in federal.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
"We" are. FDA is the relevant regulatory body.

------
rhino369
A pretty good example for why this founder as perment dictator corporate
structure is really short sided. Nobody can fire Holmes since she controls the
company herself.

Is Theranos cash flow positive? Or do they still rely on investments? Who
would invest now.

~~~
pc86
If she owns* it, why shouldn't she able to stay? If she didn't control the
company I would imagine any competent board would boot her, but she does, so
she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's what
she chooses to do.

* in the sense that she controls 50% + 1 of the votes

~~~
troygoode
> she has the right to stay and bring the company down in flames if that's
> what she chooses to do

Not really. Even if she owns it she has a fiduciary responsibility to her
other shareholders as an officer of the company.

Unfortunately it is quite possible that Holmes staying put IS in the best
interest of all other shareholders given how little else Theranos seems to
have going for it...

------
FussyZeus
Silly commoners, laws are for poor people!

Amazing, simply amazing. She's led a company that has either committed such
gross negligence as to not be trustworthy to operate a lemonade stand let
alone a medical company OR been openly defrauding both consumers and the
Government but remains near as makes no difference completely unaffected and
will walk away not only a millionaire, but apparently still employed.

I hope one day I reach that magical level of employment where no matter how
bad you fuck up, you still win.

~~~
adrenalinelol
Holmes is the product @ Theranos. It's evidently clear their blood testing
machine doesn't actually work. If you look at the positive (old) media
coverage of Theranos, the lion-share of it revolved around her dropping out of
Stanford, female founder, and hell I for some reason know she played an
instrument as a kid... The cult of personality was used to raise funds, not
the Edison.

~~~
FussyZeus
Well thank goodness we have a token female founder who dropped out of Stanford
and is apparently not qualified to run a Taco Bell.

Am I the only one who thinks this is far more harmful to the cause of getting
more women in tech/entrepreneurial roles than helpful? This whole thing is a
bad joke.

~~~
pavlov
What's harmful is looking at someone in this kind of position primarily as a
woman.

Compare the treatment of Holmes to that of Parker Conrad, the ousted Zenefits
CEO. Conrad is a white guy who went to prestigious New York schools and then
Harvard.

Is anyone saying that Conrad doing a bad job as a founder CEO will be harmful
to white Harvard graduates everywhere? Of course not. You only "reflect badly"
on your peer group if it's a minority.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Is anyone saying that Conrad doing a bad job as a founder CEO will be
> harmful to white Harvard graduates everywhere?

No, because people have plenty of _competing_ examples of white male Harvard
graduate CEOs of startups. So one outstanding failure (or unusual, for the
category, success, for that matter) barely moves the needle on the
expectations of the category.

> You only "reflect badly" on your peer group if it's a minority.

Well, yes, the smaller the group is in the targeted field, the more
significant each example is in terms of the visible outcomes of that group in
the field, and, also, the more a group is excluded from a field _because_ of a
bias that the group is not suited for the field, the more a failure from the
group reinforces that bias.

(I'm not saying that its not wrong, or that its not often the result of people
failing to look beyond the superficial to understand the individual factors,
because all that's true.)

~~~
emcq
When there isn't much data, you shouldn't be segmenting your population.
Instead it is common in data analysis to collapse variables to have meaningful
observations. Why would that be any different here?

------
Aelinsaar
I'm still waiting for the criminal charges.

------
_Codemonkeyism
"And the company also faces criminal probes from the Department of Justice and
the Securities and Exchange Commission over whether it misled investors and
regulators [..]"

