
Theranos closes last blood-testing lab after reportedly failing an inspection - prostoalex
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/17/theranos-last-lab-inspection-test-fail/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook&sr_share=facebook
======
cixin
I'd love to have more insight into how this happened.

It seems like there's a pattern of high profile failures of highly funded
science-based startups.

From the outside the science seems faulty from the start, the management team
seems to have no strong scientific background.

Do investors really fund purely based on their force of personality? Personal
connections? Do they see a big market and then ignore the scientific DD?

I'd love to understand this better.

~~~
forgetsusername
> _I 'd love to have more insight into how this happened_

There's the one story that you can read in articles like this, which will
provide details of the rise and fall:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-
ther...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-
exclusive)

But, there's another side: it happened because you weren't allowed to question
Elizabeth Holmes. The beauty of the Internet is its natural history keeping.
If you want more insight into how this sort of thing happens, look no further
than early discussions about Theranos on these very boards. It was difficult
to be critical, and supporters implied that the naysayers were merely
"sexist". Of course, this was happening when tech industry sexism was peaking
in the news cycle, and I belive that quieted some criticism.

~~~
icebraining
_If you want more insight into how this sort of thing happens, look no further
than early discussions about Theranos on these very boards. It was difficult
to be critical, and supporters implied that the naysayers were merely
"sexist"._

Where?

Story from two years ago, before it blew up:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9440595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9440595)
\- Lots of criticism, some even calling it a scam, yet no mention of sexism
nor heavy downvotes.

The original submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349)
\- Some criticism, not downvoted nor called sexism.

Tell me, where are all those comments warning us about the impending doom at
Theranos and getting silenced by supporters calling them sexist?

~~~
forgetsusername
> _Tell me, where are all those comments warning us about the impending doom
> at Theranos and getting silenced by supporters calling them sexist?_

There have been nearly 500 Theranos articles posted here over the years. You
conclude it didn't happen after looking at two?

As someone who participated in the conversation, I know it happened. I'm not
overly concerned with combing through the articles to convince you. The OP
asked "how this happens"; if you don't think "girl power" at a time when
sexism in tech was all over the place was _one_ of the factors that led to an
unqualified 20-something overseeing a potential giant fraud, I'm not sure what
to tell you.

~~~
jamespo
I'm sure you can find some examples then

~~~
forgetsusername
I'm sure I could, as much as I'm sure I won't be bothered to.

------
RoyTyrell
This company just seems so reckless, but perhaps it's just bias since I only
hear bad things about them in the news.

While I don't like to see people lose their jobs or companies close up, I feel
like the company looks at safety as a roadblock to them being called geniuses
and making money rather than part of their processes. Usually problems like
this stem from senior management and is likely to not change unless someone
else takes over entirely.

------
atomical
Has anyone met Elizabeth Holmes? What is her leadership style?

~~~
bane
Glassdoor can provide lots of information on questions like this. From the
reviews, it would seem that her style is a classic
authoritarian/machiavellian. You're in her group or you're out, and if you're
out she'll pit you against other people instead of dealing with you directly.
The whistleblower former employee who started the ball rolling on disclosing
many of their issues has a fascinating account of what it's like to deal with
her.

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-
the...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-whistleblower-shook-the-
companyand-his-family-1479335963)

~~~
cfontes
Paywalled

------
dghughes
A comment by user DarthSlack at Ars Technica was a bit chilling it said "Just
think. Under a Trump FDA, Theranos probably would be highly successful."

~~~
dopamean
What about a Trump FDA would make Theranos successful? Also, we really cant
escape a political discussion anywhere can we?

~~~
pm90
If the director of the FDA is anti-regulation, pro-drug companies/ in their
pockets etc. they would not investigate charges of fraud which would lead to
continuance of the fraud.

The incoming administration doesn't even need to push through radical new
laws/regulation. All it needs to do is to _choose_ not to enforce them, or
delay it indefinitely (well at least until the end of their term).

~~~
dopamean
Right, but that wouldn't change the fact that Theranos' product doesn't work.
Their customers would find that out pretty quickly regardless of whether or
not a regulator got involved. Were current federal regulators behind that
discovery?

~~~
pm90
The whole point of regulations to protect consumers is to _protect_ them from
spending their money on things that don't work.

------
emodendroket
I had no idea they hadn't already shut down.

------
maverick_iceman
How likely is that Holmes goes to jail?

~~~
pm90
IANAL but it probably depends on how much she was personally aware of what
they were doing was fraudulent. Which does seem to be the case....

------
maga
Can somebody provide tl;dr of what was wrong with their tests and how come
they got this far if the tests were flat out wrong? Did they just used low
precision tests and pass them as high precision or some such?

~~~
pja
I don’t think anyone from Theranos has come out and said anything definitive
publicly.

The main criticism from outsiders all along has been that blood drawn from a
pin-prick just has too much variability for reliable blood testing. Which in
turn means that Theranos’ approach to blood testing was never going to work
for anything quantitative - it might be OK for 'is this chemical present or
not' but not for anything else.

They spent a long time using traditional blood tests alongside their pin-prick
versions (this is the service they were selling to Walgreens(?) - presumably
they used their investor cash to subsidise the service & undercut their more
traditional competitors) whilst trying to get the pin-prick to work but they
couldn’t even manage to do those correctly.

How they managed to get this far is a question of hubris and investor
gullibility. There’s also the possibility of outright fraud, but we don’t know
if that was the case at this point.

~~~
lightedman
"The main criticism from outsiders all along has been that blood drawn from a
pin-prick just has too much variability for reliable blood testing."

If this is the case, why the hell are we using it for blood sugar level
testing in diabetic patients?

~~~
vidarh
The issue is not that it can't be used for _anything_ , but that what you use
it for depends on how much of whatever you're looking for will be present in
any given volume of blood.

Sugar is present in sufficient quantities that the variation you get from one
pinprick to another isn't going to be a big deal.

Many other things will be present in small enough concentrations that even if
it is present in your blood you might not have sufficient quantities for it to
be detectable in blood from a single pin-prick.

~~~
mlashcorp
Going back to the white blood cell count. The gold standard is flow cytometry.
If there is an interferent in the sample, or if the cytometer raises any flag,
in some labs the backup plan is to do a manual count (100 cells) using
whitefield microscopy ... are you really concerned about sampling problems?

~~~
vidarh
I don't see how what you're saying relates to what I wrote.

