Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

The WSJ article and the Theranos press release [1] don't agree. There's no mention of the 2-year ban in the press release. The press release indicates it's business as usual for Theranos at their Arizona lab. Supposedly only their Newark (CA) lab is being shut down.

[1] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160707006570/en/Ther...

View on HN

First bullet point in the list of sanctions in the Theranos press release you linked:

"Revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation" (emphasis mine)

Wouldn't Theranos be the owner and operator of the lab?

Can't they work around this by renting the lab?

If they rent the lab, then someone else needs to own it, run it and get it certified. I'm sure the FDA would be OK with that.

Your comment is a bit unclear, but the answer is the same.

If they rent the lab out to someone else, they're still the owner.

If they rent the lab from some third party owner, they're the operator.

Either way they're violating the terms of the ban.

The press release doesn't mention Holmes ban, that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

I don't know the laws regarding this, but the title of the article states that Holmes can't operate a lab, not that Theranos is unable to. So it sounds like they are taking her to task rather than the entire company.

It's the first point in the sidebar:

Revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation

But yes.. they really didn't care to expand on that at all... or explain how it would impact their business.

Yes, I missed that. But does this mean Holmes has to be fired to keep the Arizona lab open?

Who will fire her though, she has an absolute majority.

This does open the door to immediate shareholder lawsuits if she does not step down voluntarily.

Err.. "Revocation of the laboratory’s CLIA certificate which, as dictated by the regulations, includes a prohibition on owners and operators of the lab from owning, operating or directing a lab for at least two years from the date of revocation "

Reply on news.ycombinator.com