Hacker News Reader

Comment by kranner | Hacker News Reader

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the thesis of Bad Blood just that Theranos simply had no groundbreaking new technology? (and of course that Holmes and Balwani lied and bullied their way into an insane valuation for blood-testing tech that didn't exist and was propped up by third-party commercial testing machines)

View on HN

They couldn't even do the basic stuff they fell back on after their groundbreaking machine failed to materialize, but they lied about it anyways and hacked COTS blood testing machines to accept fingerstick samples instead of the veinous draws they were designed to test --- which didn't work, and generated false results. They spent as much effort trying to contain stories and intimidate whistleblowers as they did on test accuracy. That'd be how I'd sum the book up.

It is a page-turner; extremely well-written.

Yep, it's a good book and reads like a thriller. I read it as a fable against 'Fear of missing out' and 'Fake it 'til you make it' culture.

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 not a doctor or psychiatrist, but a lot of what is written about Holmes in that book reminded me of what I have read elsewhere about narcissism. For me a lot of the takeaway from the book was that while these behaviors might pass for tolerable adaptions in the context of a taxi app or a social network, when you're doing medical devices the destruction becomes quite literal.

As a pathologist working on a diagnostics project, I feel the tiniest bit bad for the Theranos team, only because I've seen first hand how the system ignores anyone trying to start up in this space, and only really responds to money. The frustration of trying to work in this space could easily crank up the gain on a subset of any given person's tendencies in such a way as to create a fatal flaw. To some extent I'm grateful I got to watch them blow up. For shame, but there for the grace of God go I.

That frustration is understandable if you have a great product (or at least a truly realistic big idea) and struggle to get traction with clients and investors. But if John Carreyrou's account is accurate, Theranos was in the opposite situation. Their 'idea' was just an unrealistic goal, and their product barely existed, even at the time they were rolling it out for use on actual patients. The one thing they were good at was persuading investors and clients to give them money.

Despite published papers to the contrary, a lot of people think I only have an unrealistic goal. And I'm here to tell you the product barely exists as a single prototype. Four years ago, the idea existed only in my mind. I started the work 7 years ago.

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'm mildly curious what your device does. Based on reading random past comments, it sounds like it might have something to do with cancer and embryology...?

I don't think this is what you meant, but just in case: I certainly wasn't implying anything negative about you or your idea. If you think I'm being too harsh on Theranos, well, my mind was open too until I read the book. :)

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.

Don’t feel sorry for her. She basically made your job harder. Now everyone who invests in medical research will be less likely to believe in your prototype, regardless of its efficacy.

Nothing she did was good for anyone.

There's your problem. I'm AWFUL :D

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…

I’m not medical but have a great team of medical and AI folks I work with. We are also in the hematological analysis space with a startup. We are using robotics and artificial intelligence for our product and are in the medical validation phase of our solution,

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.

Hmm... I guess you could boil it down to that, but the specific details outlined in the book make for a fascinating read imo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com