I think the most disappointing thing about this whole saga is that (in theory) the Theranos technology was supposed to be a major healthcare game changer. It could have revolutionized testing, and would surely have saved countless lives.
But instead... here we are.
This reads like such a weird statement. It never existed. It could’ve never have revolutionized testing because it was entirely imagined and not based on reality.
It’s like watching Star Trek thinking tricorders are real then being disappointed when told they’re a fiction.
I think if Theranos hadn’t gone all-in on its fraud it still could have had an impact. One area was that it was actually pushing to change laws (I know it did this in Arizona) to give individual control over blood testing instead of requiring people to go through doctors and corporations. Another area was price transparency. Much like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma (https://surgerycenterok.com), it was listing all the prices for its tests right there on its website. These 2 things alone would be a major advancement in the US. Forget the mini blood tubes.
The price listing was pretty cool though.
[0] http://www.labtestingmatters.org/direct-access-to-test-resul...
When you're buying one blood test you won't be able to tell what it missed. If you're a medical practitioner, ordering hundreds of blood tests per month (or something) you can afford to duplicate the test when you change testing provider and realise that they aren't doing a very good job!
A whole lot of things we have today were inspired by Star Trek and didn't exist... until they were made to exist. The fault in Theranos was that they sought to make things exist by innovation on a time table, and when the time table didn't work, covered it with fraud to make the deadline.
Honestly, fuck Elizabeth Holmes and her weird ass advisors. There was so much potential here that was squandered for the sake of her ego and paranoia.
...except when it involves investor's money.
Some takeaways after reading Bad Blood:
1. Listen to people.
2. If you're 19 with a great idea and investors willing to support it, ask for help.
3. Cumulative moral lapses will become a slippery slope.
4. If you're building something to sell to the medical industry, for goodness sake get some medical professionals in there.
5. Don't learn your leadership techniques from a Steve Jobs biography.
6. Don't sleep with someone and make them president of the company (or vice-versa).
7. Strive for diverse opinions instead of some yes men (and groupthink).
8. Fabricating results that can impact human lives will bring on the free press, the FDA, the SEC, and the FBI like a sack of bricks.
Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Especially investor's money, because that's what it's there for. Except when it comes to lives and health of other people. Make no compromises there, no sacrifices.
I have not read the book, but based on the author’s interviews I have to agree with the idea that fake it ‘till you make it should never be applied to the medical space.
When Theranos went live in Walgreens they crossed a line where limitless ambition should never be an excuse for vaporware. If accountability is at all an American standard, then Holmes should be prevented from ever being an executive in the health space. People’s lives were endangered. There is no excuse. Blood tests are not some b2b SaaS customer dev experiment.
That's your problem right there. I see no evidence (from the perspectives of politics, business, religion or any other angle I can think of) that Americans actually care even a tiny bit about accountability. They're perfectly happy to say they do, but when push comes to shove its a thin sheen over tribalism ("My opponents are obviously not being held to account").
So long as your belief is justified (even if mistaken). Some people think that they can believe hard enough to make fiction a reality. It’s not always easy to tell when this is thinking outside the box vs self-delusion.
From what I have read, this is a third case. It seems to have crossed from belief, to delusion, to deliberate fraud.
I can't believe no one has caught on to the fact you are apparently making some sort of joke based on the just-now-launched Nike ad campaign with the same exact text.
1. Don't be a psychopath.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/ceos-often-have-psychopathic-t...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/15/silicon-v...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/21/apparently-psychopaths-make-...
Don’t get into a relationship with someone twice your age just because he was successful at one point of time in his life. Especially if he’s not humble.
At Ramesh Balwani’s age, if he were really that experienced, a person learns to run a company without shouting madly at his employees.
It is a page-turner; extremely well-written.
I like the idea of a simple universal test and can see how the executives who bought it into fell for the fantasy.
I'm no Theranos apologist. Based on the conversation, I'm ordering the book to see if there's really any more detail. But keep an open mind. Assume people are no worse than you.
I don't think Theranos was intended as a scam from the start, and even when it was well into fraudulent territory, Holmes seems to have had some kind of genuine belief. (If not, I think she could have got out earlier with lots of money and less legal/reputational exposure.) But unless Carreyrou got almost everything wrong, there's no reasonable way to see the Theranos story as a tale of more-or-less well-intentioned people responding in forgivable ways to the pressures and challenges of a difficult industry, as I think you're suggesting might be the case.
It was more like a death spiral of unrealistic promises bleeding into outright lies, a cult-like working environment, bullying and legal intimidation of critics, and eventually the deliberate (or, to be extremely charitable, wilfully ignorant) use of unreliable technology to conduct medical tests on, and give inaccurate results to, unsuspecting patients.
Nothing she did was good for anyone.
I just make a serious effort every day to be less awful, and I've learned that when I try to trade my soul for huge success I get neither. But I know what it's like to go to the bad, and I know other people will do likewise.
To me, the Theranos story feels very natural and plausible. And I hope I will always be prepared to choose poverty and failure rather than try to elbow my way into a place I'm not supposed to be.
But there will always be someone who is prepared to lie, cheat or destroy just in order to beat me over here playing nice. Because they ARE no worse than me. But I don't have to give in to my worst nature…
Folks we speak with have a lot of passion for this space. We believe the Theranos story actually highlighted the size of opportunity for improvements in this industry.
(It wouldn't surprise me if we eventually get a film adaptation... but those are always worse if you read the book.)
The reporter, John Carreyrou, also caught backfire from Theranos. Especially his sources whom he did try to protect but were stalked by private investigators & lawyers.
Given that Theranos didn't have a product it is only good news that they're finally dissolving. Holmes and Balwani ruled with tyranny and compartmentalisation which created a toxic work environment, but that does not mean all the employees were ignorant or stupid or into the scam; many of the employees were highly skilled and intelligent. Those who did know they didn't have a product (or that it was some dirty hack based on a different product) were manipulated by Holmes and Balwani.
I saw someone mention psychopath. I'm unsure what exactly these two people are. Sociopath, psychopath, narcissist, whatever it is; it isn't pretty.
When I read the book I was regularly reminded by Brian Krebs' "Sources: Security Firm Norse Corp. Imploding" [1]. They also had no real product and used compartmentalisation. Also well written (though way briefer).
[1] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/01/sources-security-firm-no...
A film adaptation, staying Jennifer Lawrence as Elizabeth Holmes, is already planned:
First movie I ever saw Jennifer Lawrence in was Winter's Bone [1]. Goodness grace, she's such a heroine in that movie. No wonder she got typecast for the strong female roles.
Holmes tried to convince people she was the heroine, which is not quite the same thing
I suppose they could also make a movie about Fiorina, boldly destroying jobs and shareholder value at a rate no one had ever dreamt of...
The "Bad Blood" movie is based on the "Bad Blood" book, which is the definitive source documenting Holmes' frauds.
https://youtu.be/rGfaJZAdfNE?t=99
The book definitely gets it right.
Never really on the table.