I'd imagine this negative media attention is stressful for them - like it is for any startup. Should minimally wait for something substantial to see if there was any actual wrongdoing - there's not much here so far.
Not sure why you're being deliberately obtuse about what Theranos' failings are. Their alleged disruptive technology has never been shown to work. Their lab where they use other companies' technologies is in such a state of disarray that Medicare has publicly stated that they may be endangering patients' lives (i.e., through cross-contamination of samples, inaccurate labeling, etc.).
Multiple former employees have talked about Theranos' failings, and multiple government agencies have audited/inspected Theranos and found it severely deficient.
I'd imagine this negative media attention is stressful for them - like it is for any startup.
Good. They should be stressed out. They've taken almost $90 million dollars and all they've accomplished is putting people's lives at risk so they can play startup.
Should minimally wait for something substantial to see if there was any actual wrongdoing - there's not much here so far.
There isn't just actual wrongdoing--some of the allegations rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing. Felonies, not misdemeanors. It's very possible that the founder ends up in jail when all of this is done.
Asset bubbles can be like wars, they can waste the promise of an entire generation, never to be recovered. Nobody wants to see a collapse for collapse's sake, but there is quite a bit of social good in avoiding or deflating an asset bubble, be it in residential mortgages, late stage technology companies, or a 20 year old college student who was allowed to lose tens of millions of dollars of people's pension money just because she happened to be born in the right neighborhood.
The blame should go to those who breached that duty. It seems that at minimum they engaged in misleading statements about the degree of progress they had made with their technology. That's certainly unethical and possibly fraudulent.
Maybe they are being unethical or it will turn out they don't actually have a real product, but it seems kind of early to lay on the kind of hostility people have been. A small part of me wonders if it's because there's a female founder.
2) Neither of those companies had anything even a little bit close to a ten year run and a $9bn valuation. It's one maybe two entire orders of magnitude bigger as a flame out.
Pretty sure that's exactly what this is.
It's not just a paperwork issue.
This is that "unknown" thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_Laboratory_Improvemen...
> Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) of 1988 are United States federal regulatory standards that apply to all clinical laboratory testing performed on humans in the United States