
In Defense of Theranos - doppp
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/21/in-defense-of-theranos/
======
ucaetano
_Theranos supported a misleading story around their tech. True, but startups
by definition should evangelize a future vision._

What did I just read? That a medical services company should purposefully lie
about their treatment or diagnosis to obtain higher valuations?

This isn't a tech startup, it's a medical services company. The bar is, and
has to be, much higher.

"Fake it 'till you make it" does not, and should not, work in healthcare, and
that's the Theranos story.

------
KaiserPro
_" Theranos’ biggest “mistake” was running two businesses at once."_

No, it was being shit at what it was supposedly meant to be good at. People
don't go back to Uber because it offers a good vision, they go back because
its easer/cheaper/more convenient.

Charging money for blood tests that are hilariously inaccurate, and then
allowing them to be used as the basis for life changing decisions is precisely
_why_ these industries are regulated.

This is so that "moron in a hurry" or "the man on the clapham omnibus" doesn't
get killed because he(or she, or their health professional after some extra
profit) chose the wrong service to do blood tests.

Basically what is being advocated is the pursuit of money at the expense of
human life.

On a purely capitalistic level, Theranos didn't work. It's weak and therefore
should be mercilessly exploited till it dies.

------
jasode
_> , but the reality is that the strongest criticisms of Theranos have more to
do with business structure than their blood tests._

No. The strongest criticism has been characterizing Ms Holmes as a fraud and
Theranos as a sham business that took 400 million of investor money for
vaporware. I don't know if they deserve such harsh characterization but those
are the accusations that have been leveled at it.

 _> I’d rather have Theranos and those like her out in the world solving these
problems._

On the contrary, if Ms Holmes turns out to be more showman than scientist, it
may prevent other investors from investing in future _legitimate_ biotech
companies. If Theranos goes down in flames, we hope that it doesn't unfairly
taint other fledgling business with real products that need capital to bring
them to market.

 _> They also reduce the price of testing dramatically and present the results
in a prettier, easier to read format.[...] If all Theranos ever did was make
that industry more convenient, faster, and prettier using standard tools,
isn’t that impressive enough on its own?_

The author is mixing up the _romanticized idea_ of a desirable end state with
the _actual execution_ by Theranos. All media outlets are totally on board
with the _idea_. (Who doesn't want cheap and accurate blood tests?) The WSJ
and others criticize the _execution_.

There are serious questions about ethics at Theranos. Both ethics in science
and ethics in business. The author does not address that at all. Time will
tell if this criticism is unwarranted and Ms. Holmes will ultimately prove her
doubters to be wrong.

------
empressplay
I want to post an insightful response to this, but all I can seem to muster is
"what a load of horseshit".

~~~
semi-extrinsic
It's amusing how the article compares Theranos to Moderna (who are working on
a new class of RNA therapies), and then states that "focus" is the main
difference. Nevermind the fact that Moderna is trying to solve a real problem
(make new cures for rare diseases), while Theranos is trying (and failing) to
build a product that only solves the problem of the founder's bloodtest
phobia.

------
Grue3
>running a commercial blood testing lab, similar to Quest Diagnostics and
LabCorp, and a ground-breaking R&D company at the same time.

So, they had blood-testing labs but what was so ground-breaking about their
tech? Especially if according to WSJ report none of it was actually working as
intended?

------
klausa
>Uber does to the taxi industry what Theranos does to diagnostics—it makes it
more convenient and less expensive while providing a much nicer user
experience.

I think it's a very fitting comparison.

Uber is also a company that's notorious for ignoring the laws that concern
them.

~~~
juliangoldsmith
The difference is that Uber provides a service that actually works.

------
pilatesfordogs
How did they get so far in the press? I mean they had some of the biggest
names in journalism salivating all over them.

How did it get so out of hand?

------
univalent
Is this satire?

------
pjc50
I misread "Theranos" as "Therac" in the headline, which would have been even
more outrageous.

