...or, perhaps more accurately, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has banned Elizabeth Holmes from running any kind of blood testing laboratory[1]. It seems a little odd to write a letter making it sound like you're just pivoting when in fact your chief executive is not permitted to carry out the kind of business they were previously carrying out.
[1]:http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-regulator-bans-theranos-ceo-...
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedur...
"We're the worst, we'll never try at anything anymore, sorry for existing."
Would that make you happy?
"Our foray into nanotainer tech was too early for the market. However, we've established that there is a market for disruptive tech in the stodgy lab biz. In terms of leadership, we're moving on from Ms. Holmes who saw this from the start, and she's agreed that the best for the stakeholders is to step aside due to the misunderstanding around her tech, but the company itself will persevere in breaking the stranglehold Big Lab has on healthcare costs, while Ms Holmes moves to an role in charge of disruptive R&D use of nanotainer and other disruptive tech in the lab/testing biz."
You should work for Monsanto (a sustainable agriculture company) :-)
or to mirror the original statement "We have been forced to close our clinical labs."
It's not that they need to grovel, it's that the phrase "we decided" is not an accurate representation of the situation.
"We decided to" devoid of any qualifiers makes it sound like it was a decision made with full autonomy, and not a decision made because you were backed into a corner.
But to the extent that it does, it should be based on an accurate representation of reality and not misdirection.
Theranos fradulently conducted their business on a wide scale over a long period. Literally nothing they've said in public since the revelations (which just keep getting worse) have ever truthfully addressed the matter.
But regardless of the scale of wrongdoing, the bare minimum expected of both companies and individuals when they've done wrong is:
- An acknowledgment and admission of the wrongdoing, without equivocation or deflection. No "it was wrong but..." or any such thing. Own the wrongdoing, it's the least you can do to respect the people who you've done wrong by.
- Demonstration of self-awareness and introspection as to what led to the wrongdoing. Again, without equivocation or deflection. Neither corporation nor individual can be trusted not to commit the same wrong if they can't openly demonstrate why they did it.
- A plan to both prevent reoccurrence of the wrongdoing and, if applicable, a plan to make whole those who were harmed in the original wrongdoing. This doesn't need to be monetary, but may be (especially when businesses are involved).
These are the bare minimum prerequisites before anyone can be granted even the tiniest shred of credibility back.
This statement (like all other statements by Theranos) demonstrates literally no component of the above, so yeah, we'll keep (rightfully) raking them over the coals until they do.
Contrast that with this, where instead of owning literally any responsibility for the farce that their product was, she continues to go on this same distortion tactic: Never say anything that's actually a lie, just say a whole lot of things that aren't the truth.
The only thing she seems to have learned is a lot of regulation that her company ran into, and how to work around it.
You have not heard from Elisabeth Holmes because of this, you've heard from the CEO of Theranos, whose name is Elisabeth Holmes. I don't know what she has/hasn't learned, but the audience for this was not HN, and she's not giving her personal experience in this letter.
Writing for yourself is completely different than writing for a company, but you know that. Come on, we can do better.
This outcome was not a certainty. I think the feds wanted that choice, to be honest. It's a smart play: we don't like Elizabeth Holmes or the work you're doing, but we maybe sorta kinda want to see you succeed because it's a pretty good idea if you'd get your shit together, so pick one and fix it.
According to
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-ther...
>Holmes, meanwhile, isn’t going anywhere. As the C.E.O. and chairwoman of Theranos, only she can elect to replace herself.
What is an investor saying if they choose to fire a CEO? Fundamentally they are saying that they misjudged the CEO... they're a poor judge of character.
* CEO gets sued: bending the rules seems to be totally ok. Just another risk factor.
* Company spending years in R&D: Science takes time.
* CEO runs out of money: There's always an element of risk. Was an interesting play but didn't pan out, NEXT!
Here's the best possible exit for a failing science based startup:
* Acquisition with large dollar value in the press release based on "reaching certain technical milestones".
But anyway... I think in Theranos' case the investors are still... invested.
There's still a lot of money coming in from China, maybe they think someone in China will buy them for a huge chunk of change regardless? (does happen, and acquisition and investment often don't reflect how good the basic technology is).
Maybe there's already a private market in Theranos shares, giving them some liquidity?
Maybe they still genuinely think it's a good idea. Honestly, neither you nor I would have invested in them. But they already DID!
That's what "communication experts" are for, I guess.
This is a place that has poor quality control to the point that the government has forced them to do multiple recalls for salmonella and you still go there often?