Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Theranos Withdraws Two Years of Blood Test Results (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the 'house-of-cards' dept.

Reader Major Blud writes: Theranos, the company valued at $9 billion that promised to revolutionize the way blood testing is done, has just announced that it has withdrawn all of the test done using its Edison machine performed in 2014 and 2015. The company recently come under fire from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the inaccuracy and unreliability of the machine, and threatened to revoke the company's license as well as ban CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes, and its president and COO, Sunny Balwani, from blood testing.

100 comments

  1. Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't surprise me if this unicorn gets grounded down to a nag in the near future.

    1. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More evidence that the geniuses in silicon valley know exactly what they are doing and clearly have earned their vast wealth because they are so f-in smart

    2. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      According to the Bible: "A fool and his money soon departs."

    3. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These "valuation" scams are the new bubble that might burst this fall. Provides fresh blood for us here in the gutter.

      Man! Wait till the derivatives markets start goin' belly up! We are in for a good show!

    4. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not so much a failure of Silicon Valley as it is pressure from the greedy venture capitalists and other stakeholders for insane growth rates paired with the gullibility and lack of knowledge of the American public.

    5. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0

      Man! Wait till the derivatives markets start goin' belly up! We are in for a good show!

      If Trump wins the election, expect the stock market to crash. If Clinton wins the election, expect the stock market to soar. Based on available information, I'm expecting the stock market to soar.

    6. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? So far Clinton has taken more money from Wall Street than Trump. Not a rocket science that things would turn out better for them on the other side than with Trump. The real question is will I be worse off with calamity of a Trump reign or a Clinton who thinks it is great to rob American wallets with the hand of the government and the hand of industry instead of choosing just one like a good Democrat or Republican.

    7. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation, please. I don't think the Bible says this.

    8. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The economy generally does better under a Democratic administration than a Republican administration. For example, eight years of George W. almost plunged the country into another Great Depression. Nearly eight years of Obama has brought the country out of a very deep hole. That has nothing to do with campaign contributions to individual candidates.

    9. Re:Only $9B valuation... by halivar · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a saying from Dr. John Bridges in 1587. But the gist of it is consistent with the teachings of Proverbs, which primarily advocates for scrupulous and discerning use of both words and money.

    10. Re:Only $9B valuation... by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      According to the Bible: "A fool and his money soon departs."

      Citation, please. I don't think the Bible says this.

      I think the actual text is "A fool and his money will soon party."

      --
      Dark Reflection
    11. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And B Clinton was the only prez in the last ~40 years to lower the debt. Most republican prez have doubled the debt during their time in office:

      Reagan - $1T to $3T
      Bush Sr - $3T to $6T
      Bush Jr - $5T to $10T

    12. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      You're correct. It's not Biblical — and predates Shakespeare (the other bible).

      http://www.knowyourphrase.com/phrase-meanings/fool-and-his-money-are-soon-parted.html

    13. Re:Only $9B valuation... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Citation, please. I don't think the Bible says this.

      It is right after the verse that says "God helps those who help themselves", which was selected in a poll of Christians as their favorite quote from the Bible.

    14. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economy generally does better under a Democratic administration than a Republican administration.

      Yes, but this is a moving target.

      In the 1990s, the Republican counter-proposal to Clinton's Universal Health Care plan was insurance mandates.

      In the 2010s, the Democratic Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare") is an insurance mandate.

      And, this isn't the first time these labels have shifted around; search for "Dixiecrat" on Google.

    15. Re:Only $9B valuation... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      According to the Bible: "A fool and his money soon departs."

      Is it not "A fool and his money are soon parted". Your way implies the fool and his money leave together.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Your way implies the fool and his money leave together.

      Well, duh. The fool and his money have to leave together before they can be parted later.

    17. Re:Only $9B valuation... by frog_strat · · Score: 1

      How would we know ? We don't have the Bible. We have 1500+ Greek texts that are very divergent. And the pre-Christian Hebrew Old Testament is likely lost to history. Currently we make guess as to which texts were likely in line with original thinking and which weren't, in order to construct a Bible.

    18. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Bill got lucky. After a couple of years, he threw up his hands and said, "I give up! Deficits as far as the eye can see!"

      The Internet boom was completely unexpected, and brought in money so fast neither Congress nor the states could keep up.

      But they eventually adjusted, like in 2 years.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just look at Obama. $10T to $19T sure doing a good job there.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    20. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Just look at Obama. $10T to $19T sure doing a good job there

      Should have been larger. The stimulus was way too small for a robust recovery.

    21. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to lower debt the way Clinton did. Just raise taxes and push the funding of major projects out a few years. Has the nice side effect of making your successor look bad when the inevitable recession hits, which it did toward the end of Clinton's term.

    22. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this is a moving target.

      Bill Clinton co-opted the Republican playbook by adopting welfare reform, making it a Democratic issue. Barak Obama co-opted the Republican playbook on taxes, foreign policy and healthcare, making those Democratic issues. The Republican Party has nothing to run on in 2016.

    23. Re:Only $9B valuation... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The economy generally does better under a Democratic administration than a Republican administration.

      For many decades now, we elect fun Democrats in good times, and stern Republicans to fix things in bad times. Obama's second term was a huge departure from that, so maybe it's no longer predictive.

      Nearly eight years of Obama has brought the country out of a very deep hole

      Or, "despite Obama's best attempts to destroy the economy, after 7 long years we're finally struggling free". Whichever opinion you have, the president doesn't vote on the budget, and rarely has any real effect on the economy. Presidents sometimes have the influence to change the income tax rules, and sometimes affect trade negotiations, but both of those take years before we see any impact. Mostly it's "sound and fury signifying nothing".

      Our problems this century have nothing to do with R or D, but with the fact that everyone in Washington seems to care only about their big donors, and everything else is deception. Clinton will be the queen of "more of the sane", Trump will be a random policy generator. Pick your poison.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Only $9B valuation... by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah. And it's not like Obama inherited a multi-trillion dollar unwinnable war on terror and a housing market collapse from the ass monkey who held the office before him.

      Oh wait, it's exactly like that.

    25. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's true, but we do have a pre christian greek old testament, and pretty good agreement between texts according to their age... not perfect, but "very divergent" is overstating it a little... of course when theology is involved it's all subjective, people are going to pick apart the significance of every word...

    26. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Pick your poison.

      Clinton. As a moderate conservative, I can't support Trump.

    27. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 0

      I think the source is certainly from the Bible, namely from the Psalms. Certainly an English poet would turn the phrase at the end into something more elegant:

      [Psalms 48:7f] They that trust in their own strength, and glory in the multitude of their riches, [8] No brother can redeem, nor shall man redeem: he shall not give to God his ransom, [9] Nor the price of the redemption of his soul: and shall labour for ever, [10] And shall still live unto the end.

      [Psalms 48:11] He shall not see destruction, when he shall see the wise dying: the senseless and the fool shall perish together: And they shall leave their riches to strangers:

    28. Re:Only $9B valuation... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      That definitely sounds like something Jesus would say.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    29. Re:Only $9B valuation... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      In hindsight, no.

      The nations that spent like you suggest are currently having a much slower recoveries.

      Granting the data is very noisy and cases are not equal. Not enough nations spent like the USA to draw a definitive conclusion. SOP for economics. Everybody sees the same data and comes to their usual conclusion.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Only $9B valuation... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Clinton owned the first .com bubble and collapse. As much as politicians can own economics.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    31. Re:Only $9B valuation... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Clinton. Holding my nose. But gridlock must continue.

      Could change if it looked like they would also get the Senate. Then Vermin Supreme.

      In the edge case that they would also get the house, It's Trump.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Granting the data is very noisy and cases are not equal.

      The data is quite clear between the US (stimulus) versus Europe (austerity).

      Why America's economy has recovered while Europe remains stuck near recession is largely a factor of two forces: Europe by and large chose the path of fiscal austerity while America chose stimulus, and America also has control over its own currency, while member states under the euro currency do not. Most economic analyses of the last four years begin and end there, concluding that the dual force of fiscal contraction and monetary skittishness has unreasonably slowed Europe's recovery and cost its economy dearly. Oxfam International estimates austerity across European governments could leave twenty-five million of its citizens in poverty by 2025.

      http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/two-speed-recovery-us-vs-eu

    33. Re:Only $9B valuation... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "And B Clinton was the only prez in the last ~40 years to lower the debt. "

      deficit != debt

      The "deficit" shrunk during Clinton's tenure, but the national debt kept piling up. There was never any "budget surplus". When you look at the government "historical tables", you will see data on "Receipts" and "Outlays" and there were a couple of years where Receipts > Outlays. If you subtract out the SS surplus however, there was still a deficit and hence the national debt was steadily increasing. Government has been taking money from the Social Security program for the last 30+ years. They take the $$$ and leave an IOU behind, but ridiculously enough, this is not recorded as part of the deficit/debt.

      IIRC, Clinton and Gingrich were both claiming credit for the imaginary "surplus". The "surplus" part was a lie, but given the fact that it's Congress that controls spending legislation, was it Clinton or the House Republicans that deserve credit for reducing the deficit in those years?

    34. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Clinton owned the first .com bubble and collapse. As much as politicians can own economics.

      I put the blame on Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, the common denominator for all the bubbles in recent times.

    35. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      True, but I think you may have things reversed. People tend to vote Republican when things are good and Democrat when things are bad. Given the cyclical nature of the market, you almost have to expect a down turn when a Republican is elected on a high note, and some progress made if a Democrat is elected while things are down. It's far more likely that the economy is the cause for the president than that the president is the cause of the economy.

      Of course the economy isn't always on a 4-year schedule and I think other factors, such as incumbency, scandal, etc., can inject turbulence into the presidential election cycle.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    36. Re:Only $9B valuation... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      When you say "The economy", you probably mean GDP.

      GDP = C + I + G + ( x - i)

      Notice that GDP includes government spending(G) but does not take into account any government borrowing.

      Government spending increased by a whopping 18% in a single year 2008-2009, more than doubling the federal deficit, and the deficits have remained enormous throughout Obama's tenure. Amassing a pile of government debt certainly inflates the GDP numbers, but it doesn't mean that the real economy(people & businesses engaged in productive activity) is doing any better.

      Cranking up government borrowing to pad the GDP numbers and pretending it's a "recovery" is like running up the balance on all of your credit cards and pretending that you got a raise.

    37. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Government spending increased by a whopping 18% in a single year 2008-2009, more than doubling the federal deficit, and the deficits have remained enormous throughout Obama's tenure.

      If you think that's scary, check out 2030 when all the baby boomers are retired, retirees outnumbers workers, and two-thirds of the federal budget goes to Medicare/Social Security. Taxes and/or debt will have to go way up to pay for everything else.

      Cranking up government borrowing to pad the GDP numbers and pretending it's a "recovery" is like running up the balance on all of your credit cards and pretending that you got a raise.

      You're confusing personal debt with sovereign debt. They're not the same thing. If you treat government spending like a family budget, the economy will got into a depression. Something that happened periodically during the 19th century before the Fed came into existence.

    38. Re:Only $9B valuation... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Europe's 'austerity' was more stimulus than America. Much more. Never trust words when used by a politician.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Only $9B valuation... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We're in another two right now (.com 2 and chinese assets). Greenspan had nothing to do with ether.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Europe's 'austerity' was more stimulus than America. Much more.

      Greece would disagree with you.

      Never trust words when used by a politician.

      I read The Wall Street Journal for my financial information.

    41. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      We're in another two right now (.com 2 and chinese assets).

      So what if the Silicon Valley unicorns are shrinking from 20 per month to a few because venture capitalists are being more conservative in throwing their money around? That's not a dot com bust in the making.

      As for Chinese assets, the Chinese and the rest of the world are suffering for that. The impact on the US has been minimal to date.

    42. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Again. Never trust words when used by an ideologue who counters well-sourced facts with tea-party fiction. 30 seconds on Google Scholar would have revealed that there's about as much genuine debate on this point as there is on evolution vs intelligent design. The only people still denying austerity crippled the recovery are those personally profiting from that belief, those being paid by them, and the few utter dupes, like you who seem to swallow whole whatever Fox News tells you. I doubt you'd take anything that conflicted with your worldview seriously, but fwiw, here in reality based land: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/10/12/imf-austerity-is-much-worse-for-the-economy-than-we-thought/

    43. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Oh you mean the "we gonna force you to loan anyone who shows up to get a mortgage or we'll remove your FDIC backing" that the democrats rammed through during the previous presidents time in office?

      That was was winnable. The problem was that people didn't have the stomach to actually do what had to be done, and micromanaging from Washington does not help those in the field do their job. See Vietnam war, same BS. Learning a bit of history helps.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    44. Re:Only $9B valuation... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Wait...? People still believe that load of crap?

      There was so much cash looking for an investment, a bunch of crooks relaxed lending standards to capture more of that capital. It has nothing to do with the government, unless you count lack of action.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    45. Re:Only $9B valuation... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      SS is designed to avoid piling up cash. Everyone thought it was a bad idea to have big cash piles sitting around, which history has shown to be true. Big cash piles are bad policy.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    46. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You're that ignorant of how things went down, and believe it's crap? Well sure explains the state of American politics.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    47. Re:Only $9B valuation... by doccus · · Score: 1

      According to the Bible: "A fool and his money soon departs."

      Departs from where?

    48. Re:Only $9B valuation... by doccus · · Score: 1

      According to the Bible: "A fool and his money soon departs."

      Citation, please. I don't think the Bible says this.

      I think the actual text is "A fool and his money will soon party."

      Oh no... "A fool and his money *are* soon apartment"

    49. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Departs from where?

      Wallet, of course.

    50. Re:Only $9B valuation... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      educate yourself
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    51. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia? The place where facts go to die is an educational place? If you say so.

      Reminder: Wikipedia's motto is, "verifiability not facts."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    52. Re:Only $9B valuation... by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      well, now I see why your so woefully mistaken. This link is to a radio program, well researched. I linked to the wikipedia page describing it, to provide a synopsis.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    53. Re:Only $9B valuation... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that you still point to Bush as if he caused the crash when the crash was caused by Clinton. I do believe I have even corrected you on this previously.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I find it funny that that article has this little gem:

      Commentators, including former President Clinton in 2008 and the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.[14]

      since the whole crisis was caused in the first place by the banking deregulation he signed that allowed for speculation on mortgages that should never have been used as investment mechanisms in the first place.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    54. Re:Only $9B valuation... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      the crash was caused by Clinton

      The crash was caused by Caesar. It's turtles all the way down, and the rest of us pretend to have no part in it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    55. Re:Only $9B valuation... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What do you think the first .com was? Valuations are back to insanity. People don't even talk of PE ratios, they talk of P:Gross ratios or P:Burnrate ratios.

      The Chinese are trying desperately to get money out of China. All the recent Chinese investment in US and CA real estate is because of the Chinese bubble. The American real estate bubble was felt internationally. So will the Chinese real estate/stock bubble.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    56. Re:Only $9B valuation... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      What do you think the first .com was? Valuations are back to insanity. People don't even talk of PE ratios, they talk of P:Gross ratios or P:Burnrate ratios.

      A bubble is where ordinary people's money is flooding into the market after sophisticated investors have already made their money. Sophisticated investors are calling a halt on the unicorn bubble, affecting Wall Street more than Main Street. Ordinary investors have been sitting out of the stock market since the Great Recession.

  2. Revolutionary by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Yeah, she revolutionized it alright!

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  3. So, somebody will go to prison for fraud, right? by realmolo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ha ha. Just kidding. Rich people don't go to prison!

  4. But... but... they're infallible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We must keep trusting the pharmaceutical and medical industry! They never make mistakes. Anybody who questions anything they do is a 'wingnut', or a 'denier', right?

    1. Re:But... but... they're infallible! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      And as we all know when something is done for profit then it is being done to the highest possible standards.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re: But... but... they're infallible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how many feel about "climatologists" just try saying climate change isn't man made around here... Because none of them have ever got it wrong all their models pan out... Let's stuff trillions of dollars to "green" companies because they aren't greedy like oil companies ohhhh wait they Re both money hungry companies on two sides of the same coin.

  5. news flash by nimbius · · Score: 1

    dream factory profits ruined by inquisitive and scientific evaluation of highly sophisticated snake oil machine. "Clearly the government wants to abort your shariah muslim terror anchor baby abortions in fema death camps instead" exclaims exhausted man on yacht. In other news sales of disposable unlubricated single use monocles slightly higher.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. Re:So, somebody will go to prison for fraud, right by haruchai · · Score: 3, Funny

    Leona Helmsley, is that you?

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  7. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The test were run. The decisions were made based on them. The tests are meaningless at this point.

    It is like my Jr. high school saying the test I took in 8th grade Latin is withdrawn. Why bother telling me now, and what test?

    1. Re:I don't get it. by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      It tells their doctor to reconsider the diagnosis and order new tests if need be. It's not as if every single illness on earth gets resolved in two years or less.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    2. Re:I don't get it. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      For the most part, you're probably right. However, there may be some legal cases that turn on this data, and certainly someone who was potentially misdiagnosed in the past and is still alive, may want to make sure that all the data that they have on themselves is up to date. This may mean some people need to go back in and get re-tested for some things.

      Agreed that most people don't really think about a blood test they did two years ago, but there are some important exceptions to that.

  8. THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If only there were some wholesome, pure, expertly run government organization to protect us from food and drug scams.

    1. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Good idea. You could call it something simple, like the food and drug administration.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      The FDA arguably kills more than it saves, by delaying cures. Those don't show up in front of the camera as well as 1 800 bad drug zomgggggg.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by tomhath · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FDA has been after Therados for years

    4. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by mcmonkey · · Score: 2

      Citation needed.

      There may be treatments which could be saving people that are on the bench awaiting FDA approval. There are also many treatments which would harm more than they help which are being properly restricted by that same approval process.

    5. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by Triklyn · · Score: 0

      yeah, his comment was dithering to the extreme and you only agreed with his premise.

      more people are alive today than would be if there were no FDA.

      full stop.

      i think only an idiot would imagine the number of lives saved by the FDA were in any way comparable to the number of deaths caused by delays in their process.

    6. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the incentives for a government bureaucrat in those cases?

      They don't get a promotion or a raise by expediting the approval for a life-saving treatment. They *might* face backlash however if they rushed to approve a treatment which was later found to have serious negative consequences.
      Seems like their incentive is to avoid making decisions for as long as possible while they continue to collect their salaries and benefits.

    7. Re:THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW!!! by Amouth · · Score: 1

      you have no idea how close you are to reality, really oh so close

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  9. TECHNICON is the future of THERANOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elizabeth Holmes would make a great fashion model,
    When Technicon started to go belly-up, they sold out to Revlon.
    Maybe Estée Lauder would be interested in Theranos.

    1. Re:TECHNICON is the future of THERANOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no Elizabeth Holmes would not make a good fashion model at all. Go look at some of the photos of her where she isn't photoshopped. She's not model material by any means.

      You geeks have odd standards of beauty...

    2. Re:TECHNICON is the future of THERANOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair models are selected for having striking features rather tha beautiful features, the idea is that they stand out from the crowd this giving better attention to the clothing line they are representing. In this case Ms. Holmes can quality somewhat.

      The most beautiful features are often an adjusted average of a population IMO, i.e. take photo of everyone's face and superimpose them then removing the extreme deformities and then slightly tune the ratio of each feature relative to eachother.

  10. Interesting company, interesting CEO by citylivin · · Score: 2

    Just was recently reading a great profile of her as the "healthcare industries steve jobs", becuase of her secrecy and wardrobe.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...

    Shame that her company is not living up to the hype, but it does say that they were reluctant to reveal any trade secrets about their device all along. Worth the read for some background on theranos (the company she founded when she was 19)

    --
    As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    1. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame? No. Conning people out of funding by convincing them that a machine does a thing while providing ZERO evidence that it does do the thing is a con.

      Somebody needs to go to jail.

    2. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only shame there is what she should be feeling, as the con-woman that she has been revealed to be.

    3. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by starless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it does say that they were reluctant to reveal any trade secrets about their device all along.

      No, that's what they claimed was the reason they didn't publish anything.
      Normally companies let scientists publish results in refereed publications, and file patents to protect the money-making potential.

      The lack of publications for a supposedly new technique was an enormous red flag.

    4. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame that her company is not living up to the hype, but it does say that they were reluctant to reveal any trade secrets about their device all along. Worth the read for some background on theranos (the company she founded when she was 19)

      This is a bizarre comment. All the actual evidence indicates that this woman is a scam artist. The wistfulness over this ugly truth shows how much people want alters at which to worship.

    5. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by TroII · · Score: 2

      The shame is that people were so eager to push the "successful female CEO" angle, they overlooked the fact that she was selling snake oil.

      --
      "If there was a gay Afro-Puertorican Linux distribution, I'd give it a try" ~lucm
    6. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were desperate to find a good looking successful female CEO, after Marissa Mayer failed at Yahoo.

    7. Re:Interesting company, interesting CEO by js290 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a pyramid scheme of a company. Almost like she's the pretty faced puppet to market the scheme with some back end handlers drumming up publicity.

      --
      "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  11. Gotta love disruption! by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2

    This second tech bubble is interesting, in that it's a bunch of mini-bubbles. Theranos is the result of investment in the "market disruptors" bubble. Uber is the king here, but there are a whole bunch of tech companies also (like the software-defined-everything vendors who are currently consolidating.)

    I understand that sometimes startups need to bend the truth a little bit to get investors and therefore the time they need to perfect their product or service. However, the problem is that they promoted the fact that they had the answer and all the problems were solved...and look, we're doing it with real world testing!

    Something like this actually happened during the past year in the big company I work for, so it's not just startups. A politically well-connected division of our company spent untold sums of money building out stuff for a product that they proclaimed was completely ready with all the problems solved. Turns out they weren't exactly telling the truth and it only started coming out when customers started buying and using said product. Looking from the outside in on that, I felt pretty bad that the money they were wasting could have easily paid salaries in divisions that were making useful products, but life's not a meritocracy unfortunately. When you have executive cover for your actions, like Theranos had big-name backers and unicorn status, results matter less.

    1. Re:Gotta love disruption! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't count them all out yet. 23 and me had their hands slapped and they came back.

    2. Re:Gotta love disruption! by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you can't just throw more money at profitable divisions to increase profits or even maintain momentum.

      In retrospect, that product was badly managed and failed, but it is likely that your company does need to create more products to have something to go to when the profitable products cannot carry the load anymore, whether that is sooner or later. While there are some companies who have products that will withstand the test of time, they are few and far between.

      With Theranos, the idea is good, the execution seems to have been completely fabricated. I do think that we need to do what we can to bring down the costs of testing, but such a goal is just as vulnerable to failure and fraud as any other. People who invested money may have wanted to be a little more careful, but at the same time, Theranos and Holmes are liable to be in deep shit here, and it is possible that the investors just assumed that even if it was mismanaged a little, that they wouldn't completely fake it because they would be found out fairly quickly. It turns out that, no, it certainly *is* possible for people to put themselves in a situation where they will fake something like this, even if it is relatively easy to debunk their claims.

      I will be interested to hear the retrospective of this debacle and particularly the mindset that allowed Holmes to go down this path. Pride? Fear of being outed as someone who isn't the next Steve Jobs? Minions lying to her about reality? Investors forcing her to make claims too early?

  12. Re:So, somebody will go to prison for fraud, right by roninmagus · · Score: 1

    More likely that judges throw out prison sentences without fully adjudicating the minutia of cases when faced with people who can't afford lawyers that can make a reasonable case.

  13. You're going down! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    The chips keep falling. A few more and this whole charade will be over in a most gruesome, yet delightful, manner.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  14. Hey Lizzie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow down and smell the flowers.
    Leonard Skeggs didn't see his machines get any real traction until he was in his 40"s.
    You still have time,
    http://wiki.pygmyisland.net/fitchipedia:leonard_t._skeggs_jr

    Sure, a fortune can be made in the overpriced blood chemistry business.
    But the BIG disruption will come when
      1. the technology can be inexpensively put in the hands of patients.
      2. can be reliably used in even the poorest countries.

    Remember that Skeggs wasn't after riches, he wanted to help people.
    The money was an afterthought.

    The other things I admire about him are:
      1. He kept his sanity while working 2 years in the rat room of the Cleveland Clinic doing vaginal smears on female rats.
      2. He personally used his analyzer to control algae in the pond on his farm.
      3. He got his wife to propose to him.

    most guys couldn't do even one!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoAnalyzer

    You'll do just fine.

  15. lottery by tombak · · Score: 2

    I hope in my next life I am born as a pretty Caucasian chick from a rich family who gets to go to Stanford. This way people will buy whatever bull$hit comes out of my mouth, no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

  16. Timing will be interesting for SEC investigation by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Informative

    The SEC is currently investigating the company for potentially misleading their investors in 2014. With yesterday's article we now know that Theranos was supposedly using traditional blood testing machines instead of their 'Einstein' technology for commercial testing starting in 2014. In that year Theranos was still raising money from investors and approached a $9B evaluation based on claims of efficacy for their 'Einstein' technology. Will be interesting to see what the results of the SEC's investigation will be.

  17. define "inaccuracy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What level of "inaccuracy" are we talking about here? Are the results slightly better than flipping a coin? Are they 0.1% less accurate than standard tests? If they're woefully inaccurate then by all means they should be harshly punished. But if they're only slightly less accurate than "normal" tests but substantially less cheap then they most certainly deserve their niche in the market. Whether we like to admit it or not cost is a major consideration, if 100 people will get tested with super accurate tests compared to 10,000 people with cheaper tests that are only a percent or two less accurate you are at least for most conditions going to help far more people with the less accurate tests. Put another way imagine you have $1 Million, you can use that money to design a better safety valve for offshore oil rigs that might save a dozen people per year, or you can use that money to design a better seat belt that will save ten thousand per year.

  18. Re:Only $9B valuation...where are the indictments! by ebusinessmedia1 · · Score: 1

    How do the senior executives and Board members get off without some penalties. These people may have endangered the health of many thousands (or more) people!

  19. Re:So, somebody will go to prison for fraud, right by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

    Who cares if she goes to prison as long as the fine equals everything she earned.

  20. Re: So, somebody will go to prison for fraud, righ by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good deal. Commit fraud, get away with it, you're golden. Get caught, break even.

  21. Company is full of idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    posting as AC obviously.

    Theranos has a couple pilot Walgreens locations, maybe only one or two at this point, and I had some exposure to the communications back-and-forth on the installation side of things. These people could not do basic scheduling and logistics to get the installs completed, and they seem to have limited to no technical talent when it comes to the IT side of things. Every time a date was set for a portion of the project to be done, it was missed. Every time a person was supposed to show up somewhere for something, they were late or did not show. Every time there was a technical issue of any kind they insisted on sending replacement equipment as a first step. This company throws blame as a first line of defense as well, some good folks nearly got the axe as a result of Theranos' toxic and careless practices. This company is in over its head to the point of not just drowning, but imploding under pressure.

  22. Re:So, somebody will go to prison for fraud, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only rich people who DON'T work for the government or related agencies.
    Guys for Enron and WorldCom were behind bars
    What about the BIGGEST fraud?
    FreddyMac? butt friend of Barney and other there were retired with full benefits.