https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349
It doesn't feel that much more skeptical than typical HN threads about new companies. And skepticism/confusion was going to be more prevalent given how few HN users (relatively speaking) are in the health field.
Funny enough, if you scroll down far enough, you run into a comment that sounds like it came from a prophet. Or someone experienced in the field:
> The company is all hot air. They have a board full of retired military figure heads that have no experience in medical devices or retail services. Additionally, they do not have any products to show. Look at their patents. They are all very general and broad. There has been NO FDA CLEARANCE for anything they are doing, which raises legal questions. Speaking of legal, search for lawsuits they are involved in. Their core technology is not even theirs. They stole it from someone else.
That the board was heavy DC/military was well-known, or at least public. But I don't think it was well known that Theranos was heavily reliant on using other technology.
Sadly, that Theranos critique came from a one-use throwaway account. So likely an insider (or jealous competitor)?
Do you think Theranos just didn't realize anything was wrong because the board didn't tell them?
Its about teaching how to evaluate what your company needs and what your board can provide. It's about vision and evaluation rather than correctness.
The reason why is that the blood from a finger prick is a random mixture of veinous and arterial blood with a variable amount of cell debris and contamination from what is on the skin. Not even Kissinger (sorry I mean Lucifer) could give you an accurate diagnosis based on finger prick.
(I agree with your sentiment, just pointed out this to remind people that these prizes are not given by God)
Those are attitudes, and I think the matter is more epistemological - about what valid conclusions we can draw based on the known details.
For example, if we have incomplete information and we can't draw clear conclusions from it, rather than thinking of what sort of attitude we should take towards it (or optimistic vs cynical) -- what we think is likely the case -- our first step should be to admit the incomplete information and be agnostic about what's actually the truth of the matter.
If there are particular reasons for thinking one option (eg fraud) is likely then you can list first reasons and the facts that support them. Doing so doesn't and shouldn't have to involve an attitude like realism or cynicism.
In some ways, the "let a thousand flowers bloom" effect that the Internet has on journalism has made this worse. The more options a PR person has for getting stories out, the less power any individual reporter has.
I didn't really hear much about it until the WSJ blowup, but my perception was that Theranos wasn't in whatever scene that other startups are in when they get coverage from TechCrunch, etc. I know Tim Draper was an early VC backer (his daughter was childhood friends with Elizabeth Holmes), but did other Silicon VC know much about Theranos?
I know Theranos did end up getting TechCrunch-west-coast-style coverage (I mean, before WSJ blew it up). But I'm pretty sure that its very first press splashes were with the Wall Street Journal in Sept. 2013 [1] and then the New Yorker in Dec. 2014 [2].
The WSJ article was very interesting. Not just because it's ironic, given that a WSJ investigative reporter would be taking Theranos down. But because of the setup. It was weekend interview feature assigned to a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial board member. And, unlike the New Yorker piece, was almost entirely a puff piece. Interestingly enough, though, the author describes the experience of having blood drawn via the fingerstick/nanotainer setup (i.e. the tech Theranos was aiming for).
Having your first public splash in the WSJ Weekend Magazine seems like a very East Coast thing. Amusingly, when Theranos was burning down, it was revealed that Rupert Murdoch had a $125 million stake in Theranos [3]. Which probably explains the WSJ puff piece, since Murdoch owns the WSJ.
This is all to say that Theranos's early years as a startup seems to have been much different culturally than the usual Bay Area startup. I wonder how Theranos would've fared or been different if it had operated like a highly-funded SV startup (Color, Clinkle, or any other high-funded startup that didn't die out) with the same hype and attention.
[0] https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/972501945813381122
[2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-simpler
[3] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/03/24/rupert-m...
How many samples did they get before the lid got blew?
I think a few notable VCs actually spoke out critically of theranos, can't recall which, but it is saying something if a VC goes on record publicly criticizing a high profile starrtup
This scam was the reason for the board structure and the rather interesting way Theranos went about developing their “technology”.
They were stopped because DoD regulations state that medical products used by the military have to be cleared/approved by FDA (or in the process of a clinical trial). And Theranos was not on FDA’s “good” list at the time, having only sent one product through the clearance process out of the dozens they were selling.
Brushing this off as "East Coast" lets us avoid examining our complicity. And our vulnerability. We could look at uBeam, for example, which is backed by a number of West Coast luminaries, including Evans's own A16Z. An engineer has an extensive set of posts on how dubious it is: https://liesandstartuppr.blogspot.com/
Theranos is different in terms of scale and visibility, for sure. And I do agree that they found a richer class of sucker elsewhere. But I don't think they're culturally any different than a bunch of other overfunded, never-could-have-worked, charismatic-founder failures around here.