Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Banned From Owning a Lab (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: The Wall Street Journal reports U.S. regulators have devised to ban the owners and operators of Theranos from running a lab for two years. That includes CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes, as confirmed by a press release issued tonight. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revoked the lab's Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certificate and imposed a civil money penalty for an unspecified amount. The ban does not take effect for 60 days, however Theranos says it will not do any testing at the Newark, CA lab CMS investigated, and instead will serve customers from its lab in Arizona. Elizabeth Holmes wrote: "We accept full responsibility for the issues at our laboratory in Newark, California, and have already worked to undertake comprehensive remedial actions. Those actions include shutting down and subsequently rebuilding the Newark lab from the ground up, rebuilding quality systems, adding highly experienced leadership, personnel and experts, and implementing enhanced quality and training procedures. While we are disappointed by CMS' decision, we take these matters very seriously and are committed to fully resolving all outstanding issues with CMS and to demonstrating our dedication to the highest standards of quality and compliance."

Comments

Hah! I can own as many labs as I want!

[Anonymous Coward]

Take THAT, Elizabeth Holmes

Re:Hah! I can own as many labs as I want!

[tripleevenfall]

And your results would be just as accurate as hers.

Re:Hah! I can own as many labs as I want!

[Gr8Apes]

And your results would be just as accurate as hers.

Actually my results would be more meaningful, as I'd outsource to a reputable lab at quantity discounts.

Re:Hah! I can own as many labs as I want!

[Hartree]

There are limits.

Most towns have ordinances that you can only own so many labs before you're violating animal hoarding statutes.

But look on the bright side. At least you wouldn't be called a crazy cat lady.

Re:Hah! I can own as many labs as I want!

[rtb61]

I wanted to see what that kind of corrupt person would look like and I found this image, https://www.flickr.com/photos/.... So how's that backup plan going now ;D.

Normally I'm pro regulation

[EzInKy]

But this is a problem I believe the markets and courts actually could handle.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[vadim_t]

The vast majority of people, even the really smart ones working for the justice system aren't expert biologists able to evaluate the quality of a lab's work. Neither would they be granted enough access to actually run a proper evaluation, even if they did have the knowledge.

And what's the benefit to allowing a lab that produces incorrect results to keep operating?

We need both. Regulation ensures that every lab performs correctly, and the free market ensures the labs compete against each other on the price and services they offer. With both those things in place and working properly we can ensure you can't go wrong by choosing a lab, and just have to concentrate on finding one that does what you need at an acceptable price and speed.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[advocate_one]

Regulation ensures that every lab performs correctly

Not just regulation, but an inspection and certification regime as well. Random, unannounced inspections work best of all...

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

How? For those who don't know, Theranos is mainly in the business of performing blood tests on behalf of the government, hospitals, pharmacy companies, employers and suchlike. The people who actually stand to lose from faulty test results are by and large the people whose blood is being tested, but these are not the people who pay for the tests directly, nor are they the people who choose which lab should perform the analysis. Since there is no financial connection between the actors and the desired outcome, the free market can in this case never work and hence regulation is required.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[K. S. Kyosuke]

So we don't need to ever protect consumers from dangerous food either - if it kills you, you simply won't buy it the next time!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who advocate things like this always say that the free market will ensure that companies that kill their consumers will see a drop in profit (nobody seems to get punished regardless of negligence, like a profit dip is punishment enough). Anyway, what I always wonder is what makes those advocates so sure that it will *never* be them that eats the contaminated food or is killed because of a vehicle flaw (newsflash, it doesn't need to be your vehicle, just one that you're near) or get their water supply contaminated by industry, whatever. They always seem to be completely immune to anything.

The only answer that I can come up with is that they think they are rich enough to buy their way out of anything.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[dcw3]

So we don't need to ever protect consumers from dangerous food either - if it kills you, you simply won't buy it the next time!

Whatever kills you makes you stronger...oh, wait.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[dywolf]

Only if your name is Apocalypse.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JoeMerchant]

While the traditional "Hi, I'm here to inspect your lab (surprise!!!)" approach does have some merit, in this case I think that more effective regulation could come from sending test samples to multiple competing labs and checking for agreement. Some of these test samples could be "announced" but, of course more effective regulation would come from "stealth" samples that look like regular daily work. This is the kind of result that should be collected, investigated to explain discrepancies, and published for the public to know so the "free market" might actually have some meaningful information to make its selections with.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JoeMerchant]

Oh, they're far more sophisticated than killing you outright - today they addict you to foods that give you health problems, health problems that "industry" can treat, not cure, for a price.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[ceoyoyo]

Except they didn't? Theranos operated fraudulently for some time, requiring a lot of tests to be redone. They also seem to have lied to investors, customers and the public about what they were and could do, creating a serious distortion of a free market, where accurate information is available to all.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[tnk1]

I mostly agree, but it should be pointed out that unless those entities are trying on purpose to exclude, misreport, or disqualify the people whose blood is being tested, they are just as interested in getting back legitimate results as those being tested. Yes, there is probably an insulation factor, especially if it is a bureaucracy involved, and that means that the feedback from those sources could be delayed or muted.

It's my opinion that you probably could have the free market fulfill this function, but the path to getting there would be very trial and error, much like natural selection. And that would mean that some individuals could have some pretty horrific outcomes while the selection process worked out a method of effective self-regulation. That's generally the best argument for top down regulation, although we can have some horrific outcomes even with regulation, so it would be interesting to be able to compare both paths to see if the government regulation counterintuitively actually caused greater problems over a longer period of time, despite seeming to be taming the worst excesses of a market solution.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[tripleevenfall]

It already has worked. For example, Walgreens recently dumped the pilot they were doing with Theranos.

A company that had considered working with them has to maintain its legitimacy. Your company's reputation is a market force.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[tnk1]

You have a point, although it should be pointed out that natural selection, which is ultimately what the so-called "free market" really is, can create some very complex self-regulation which is very adaptive.

The problem, as many would be happy to tell you, is that such selection does often happen at the expense of individuals. So we get regulation to try and prevent those outcomes.

Of course, we know that even regulation doesn't save everyone, and it can have its own problems which are inherent to interventionist regulation.

So the question is probably phrased better as being whether, over the long term, we're better off with government regulation or the market being allowed to sort it out. It may well be possible that the market would have a better long term solution, but there is almost certainly going to be a cost to that. And yes, that cost could come at the expense of its very own proponents.

In and of itself, that doesn't actually discredit anything. There are those who believe that outlawing guns is the best thing to do to prevent most mass murders, and that would seem to be almost a no-brainer. However, that very same person might find themselves in a position where they were hurt or even killed in a situation they would not have if they had ready access to a gun. Most gun-control advocates would probably argue that just because that person in that one situation died for lack of a gun doesn't mean that the lack of guns is a bad idea overall.

There are two types of people who suggest a course of action that they know may come back and bite them in the ass personally: the stupid and the courageous. We assume that it is stupid to let the dog eat dog process of market forces create regulation for us, and perhaps it really is stupid and we can do a better job by intervention.

That said, I don't think those forces have ever really been allowed to operate to their full extent, for a sufficient amount of time, outside of fictional accounts. We have measured some of the costs of unregulated situations, but I'd argue that they have to play out over longer periods of time than we've ever actually allowed, for them to produce any tangible benefits.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

or Goku

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[HornWumpus]

You realize that 'chocolate' is not an actual addiction? It's just a figure of speech.

I can quit anytime I want...

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

So we don't need to ever protect consumers from dangerous food either - if it kills you, you simply won't buy it the next time!

Exactly. The magical "invisible hand" of the "free market" at work!

This is the blind spot most libertarians have: they never stop to think that they might be the ones getting fucked, it'll always be the other guy. It'll never be YOUR wife or YOUR child who dies from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance.

It'll always be some other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Free Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so they'll be safe, right?

But it won't be your wife or your kid, no way. And if it IS your kid or your wife, well shucks, you can just take them to court for damages, right? Because that's the magical Libertarian answer to any problem that occurs: don't try to prevent a problem from occurring through regulation or legislation, just sue someone after something bad happens!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

But this is a problem I believe the markets and courts actually could handle.

Yeah, don't try to prevent a problem or the deaths that might occur from it, just let the survivors sue in court after they've lost their child or spouse!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

‘... unless those entities are trying on purpose to exclude, misreport, or disqualify the people whose blood is being tested, they are just as interested in getting back legitimate results as those being tested.’
You'd think that, but this turns out not to be true in many cases. Entities often only think they're interested, but in reality are not, sometimes they really don't care, and sometimes the fact that the test has been done allows them to shift the consequences of a fault to their insurance.
A particularly interesting example is employers blood-testing their employees, e.g. for drugs. This practice is absolutely useless, the only thing the company wants is a small percentage of positives so they can give a handful out of their thousands of employees the sack or a stern talking to. It doesn't really matter to the company who those employees are, but it does matter a lot to the employees in question.
But even a hospital doesn't feel the pain of a faulty test as much as the patient. As long as most tests aren't faulty, or most faulty tests don't lead to immediate death, the faulty test that does lead to death is to the hospital a seemingly unavoidable statistic. They might not even be able to tell they should be switching test providers. So the hospital can call on its insurance and its budgeted ‘disaster money’, but the patient maybe gets the wrong treatment, maybe even dies. Again, a huge asymmetry.
Another example: doping tests. An organiser of a sports event might want to catch out people using doping, maybe because of a legal requirement or for its public image. But as long as the people who use doping stay quiet, the organiser cannot actually easily tell if the one or two people kicked out of the race are actually the sportsmen who used doping. So in some sense it doesn't really care, but an affected sportsman might see his career ruined.
None of these scenarios require any purposeful bad behaviour on part of the entity requiring the blood test, and I think this holds true generally in a large bracket of possible scenarios. Those who ordered the test can usually safely assume it works correctly, those whom the test affects run the risks.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[whoever57]

It already has worked. For example, Walgreens recently dumped the pilot they were doing with Theranos.

The free market wasn't responsible for that. Walgreens only dumped Theranos because of the government laws and regulations. It was a regulatory investigation of Theranos that discovered the issues.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Spazztastic]

> Random, unannounced inspections work best of all...

The FDA does this regularly, especially if you have had any audit findings. Major and Critical findings almost always result in a random follow up audit.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah, just like tobacco. Damn shame all that hurt comin' down on honest hardworkin' folk like the Gores, and look at what it done to 'em, had to give up tobacco farmin' and go into politics and eco-scare-mongering.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Nevo]

Many labs routinely participate in accreditation audits. The accrediting agency sends a box of samples to the lab, the lab runs tests on the samples, and sends results back to the accreditation agency. If your results don't match expected results, things start happening.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[crawling_chaos]

Indeed. And if that random audit goes badly you might just get a followup from the nice ladies and gentlemen in the yellow jackets. In fact, if a few more CEOs were perp walked by OCI, compliance might go a whole lot easier.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[crawling_chaos]

I am going to suggest that you start buying your mushrooms at the store instead of hunting them up yourself.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[xanthos]

"That said, I don't think those forces have ever really been allowed to operate to their full extent, for a sufficient amount of time, outside of fictional accounts"

Is the word "monopoly" fictional? That is the end result of non-regulated market forces. Next time you read about a blockbuster M&A just substitute "increased market share" with "reduced competition". And with reduced competition comes less pressure to innovate and improve.

My guess is that Theranos will stop marketing itself as a technologically innovative company. Instead it will try to get funding to compete as a service provider at the national level in hopes of leveraging its name recognition into enough market share to be acquired. The end game of many an entrepreneurial MBA.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

and hence regulation is required

and hence regulation is the problem. Employers only provide those services because they are forced to, and the buffer between the cost and the consumer is the failure of regulation. Patching this problem with more regulation is the knee-jerk solution that creates ...wait for it ...even more complex problems ...that you can fix with even more regulation!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[ShanghaiBill]

if a few more CEOs were perp walked by OCI, compliance might go a whole lot easier.

Indeed. Perp walking is a wonderful deterrent, because it destroys lives and careers, while requiring no legally admissible evidence or due process, much less an actual conviction in a court of law. One of the wonderful things about America is that we can destroy people with extra-judicial punishment at the sole discretion of police and prosecutors, while still considering ourselves superior to other countries because, at least on paper, there is a presumption of innocence.

Did you know that you can buy the United States Constitution printed on toilet paper?

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[nitehawk214]

She ran a scam against the people and the government. So she should be able to just walk away with her millions, the free market will take care of it?

Fuck that.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[ShanghaiBill]

Employers only provide those services because they are forced to

In Maoist China, each factory ran their own school for the children of their employees. So if you changed jobs, your children had to transfer to a different school. It is obvious that having employers provide education is stupid, but it should be just as obvious that having employers provide medical insurance is just as stupid. Employers have little individual control over costs, and are impotent to fix the systemic inefficiencies in our healthcare system. By pushing these costs onto companies, we make American industry less competitive, leading to trade deficits and job loses. Medical insurance should be the responsibility of either the individual or the government. Your employer should have no involvement in your medical care.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[crawling_chaos]

I wonder how you react when it's a poor black man getting walk instead of a Job Creator, Peace Be Upon Them? At one point in its history, the FDA routinely jailed CEOs for violations by their firms. After all, that's why they make the big bucks, right? They have so much more to risk than an average worker!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[ranton]

"That said, I don't think those forces have ever really been allowed to operate to their full extent, for a sufficient amount of time, outside of fictional accounts"

Is the word "monopoly" fictional? That is the end result of non-regulated market forces.

I'm not sure if there have ever been monopolies that existed without government forces helping out. The Dutch East India Company is probably the largest monopoly, for its day at least, and even it relied heavily on funding from multiple countries. It was the original "Too Big to Fail" corporation. Crony capitalism was also heavily involved in the formation of the large US corporations which eventually needed to be busted up over the past 150 years.

Perhaps if you allow crony capitalism to exist within your definition of a non-regulated market you are correct. But if not, I don't think we really have ever seen market forces play out in the way Adam Smith intended when he wrote his seminal work.

(FYI, even if we did see truly non-regulated markets I still think monopoly would be the result, I just don't think this has been sufficiently proven to be stated as fact)

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[ranton]

It already has worked. For example, Walgreens recently dumped the pilot they were doing with Theranos.

The free market wasn't responsible for that. Walgreens only dumped Theranos because of the government laws and regulations. It was a regulatory investigation of Theranos that discovered the issues.

My guess is the original poster meant that this government enforced punishment was unnecessary, not the regulations which found the misconduct. If that was the intent then I do agree with it. This does seem punitive and not that necessary. Now that the improper conduct was discovered I think the free market was able to prevent the behavior by simply no longer doing business with Theranos.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Darinbob]

This isn't new regulation. This is a part of enforcing regulations.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

argh. Don't want to undo moderation, but you are making an assumption -- and that is that there is no connection between punitive measures and Walgreens pulling out.

I tend to disagree, Walgreens would have looked at the overall picture. Ascribing the move solely to the current level of publicity and public image concerns ignores that these things do not operate in a vacuum. Would the current level of publicity have been reached if there were no punitive measures for violating the regulations? I really doubt it, but either way we cannot actually know to what extent the entire framework of regulatory and legal consequences influence the decisions. Certainly it is implausible that something closely connected (consequences) would have no effect, the argument is really about the extent and magnitude.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[ShanghaiBill]

I wonder how you react when it's a poor black man getting walk instead of a Job Creator, Peace Be Upon Them?

The solution to injustice is justice, not more injustice for other groups. Perp walks and other extra-judicial punishments, are wrong, and should be universally condemned, regardless of the ethnicity of the victims.

At one point in its history, the FDA routinely jailed CEOs for violations by their firms.

Absolute hogwash. The FDA has never had the authority to jail anyone.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[tnk1]

Monopolies are not fictional, but what we have seen with them may not be the entire story. That's why I am very much tying the time frame of evolution to what would be needed to allow the free market to work properly. You can't simply look at something like a Gilded Age vertical or horizontally integrated monopoly and suggest that what happened can necessarily remain in existence forever.

When people see a monopoly, they think that it is the end result of capitalism, but how many monopolies have actually existed without the collusion of government in maintaining that scenario? IP laws, tariffs, protectionism, full employment efforts, central planning, union busting, closed union shops and others are situations that tend to prop up mega-corporations rather than break them down. For every anti-trust act you have, you have a multinational corporation that almost relies on a web of intellectual property laws, subsidies, pork barrel projects, and barriers to entry based on labyrinthine government requirements.

We tend to think of some things like the FDA and other regulators as being a good thing, and certainly they have good intentions.

However, there is a cost to that. The process to get new drugs to people is very, very expensive and time consuming. It may well generate higher quality in what does come out of the system, and prevent quacks and charlatans from running totally amok, but there is a reason there is such a thing as so-called "Big Pharma". You need a lot of money and resources to get a drug out these days. It may be a better drug, with fewer deaths due to under-tested product, but the ultimate result is generating a whole segment of a business simply for the purpose of navigating government paperwork. And I am not even talking about stronger requirements on studies and experiments.

I work with the government in many jobs I have taken, and it is one thing to implement a solid security program or a testing regime, and it is yet another thing entirely to fill out the forms and navigate the process of proving that to the regulators or the government. That's a barrier to entry, and that allows pharmaceutical companies who have those resources to thrive while smaller more nimble companies must struggle, and often decide that being a target of acquisition is much more viable than trying to compete as an independent.

But now look at the music industry. In the past they had a lot more control because bootlegging something very physical like an LP or trying to set up a radio station of your own is expensive.

Today, people can make music, post that music, share that music and have it be of more or less professional quality, all without the need for a publisher. The publishers, however, are using IP laws to maintain the grip that they used to be able to exert with a lot less effort. Publishers might have been able to coalesce into a monopoly in the past, but today, they have lost the power to control music pervasively. None of that happened via government regulation, and a lot of it happened in spite of IP laws.

So I think it is at least a reasonable, albeit untested, assertion that it is possible that without an outside intervention propping them up, monopolies will tend to fall apart either due to technological advance or stagnation. After all, we see this happen in history to governments all the time, and they are nothing if not monopolies themselves.

However, to even envision a system where a strong monopoly actually crumbles under its own weight, we really have to end concepts like corporate welfare, government protectionism, and yes, possibly even some of the "beneficial" regulation as well. The only way an actual monopoly should be able to exist indefinitely in that situation is to actually deliver the best value. Things like IP laws and certain other regulation create barriers to entry for people who might work to erode a monopoly naturally.

Look, I'm not trying to sell some perfect scenario like Marx and the "end of history". It is clear th

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Smith clearly pointed out the inequalities, cartels, and monopolies that would arise if you just let market forces play out in his seminal work. Have you ever actually read it?

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[dog77]

Most libertarians believe in liability and rule of law. So in a libertarian utopia, it is not just the free market that punishes a wrong doer.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Most libertarians believe in liability and rule of law.

No, most of them do not appear to believe in most laws nor do most of them appear to believe in any regulation, or at least any that might interfere with their pie-in-the-sky notions of "liberty" or "freedom", which they can't define except in the most nebulous ways. Most libertarians don't even like the idea of driver's licenses, which seems like a common sense measure. But "common sense" and libertarianism often seem to be mutually exclusive.

-

So in a libertarian utopia, it is not just the free market that punishes a wrong doer.

Oh, yes, the magical libertarian utopia, which never existed and never will. Libertarianism always, ALWAYS breaks down when you try to dig down and find out little details like where property rights come from and how disputes are settled. Libertarianism is bullshit for people who can't think clearly and who don't want to contribute to society in any meaningful way. "What?? ME help pay for roads? YOU'RE OPPRESSING MUH FREEDOMS OMG!!!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Paul Carver]

No, most of them do not appear to believe in most laws

How many do and how many don't? I'm interested in the sample size you've used to calculate "most".

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

How many do and how many don't? I'm interested in the sample size you've used to calculate "most".

How many? Practically every single one I've ever heard opposes all taxes, all licenses, and almost any kind of regulation.

By now that number is in the multiple hundreds, which includes the Libertarian presidential candidates. (Those guys are hilariously cracked, they all sound like they just escaped from a mental hospital for the Criminally Ridiculous.)

Tell me, where do property rights come from in Libertarian Land?

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just pick one example:

Practically every single one I've ever heard opposes all taxes

There' a Libertarian named Gary Johnson who proposes using a flat consumption tax, along with a prebate for necessities. Read more here.

Johnson happens to be the Libertarian candidate for president this year, having been the top vote at the convention. In other words, many support his views, meaning that your mental model of uniform Libertarian anarchists is a strawman.

Libertarians do generally agree that taxes and regulation are negatives to be eliminated to the greatest extent possible while still leaving a functioning government. Many of the internal differences arise over the opinion on the scope of that government's function (just like Clinton and Sanders differ of the scope of a safety net in the Democratic party). At the Federal level many of us are close to Paelo-conservative, meaning we'd like to roll back to the spirit of the Constitution and it's model of a minimal effective central government. Johnson's platform is generally consistent with this view. Libertarians are not generally Anarchists, in much the same way that Sanders supporters are not Communists.

And just so you can add me to your extensive "statistics": I am a Libertarian and have voted consistently that way at the Federal level, and variously at the State level. However in local elections I'm actually pretty happy to "tax and spend" on projects with community benefit. That's because I believe local politicians are sufficiently accountable to their smaller local constituencies. I don't believe in sending all that money to DC and hoping we get some back.

You can ignore me as "no true Libertarian" if you want, but remember that you don't treat your own party that way, recognizing that there are a range of mostly-compatible beliefs. Consider extending us the same courtesy.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a free market based on supply, demand, and no friction would be the ideal if we as humans are truly rationals. Yet when we are not rational but irrational, policies should take this important factor into account.

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[whoever57]

Wow! Above post modded as "Troll". There must be some butt-hurt libertarians with mod points!

Re:Normally I'm pro regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

It was actually journalists who originally uncovered the whole thing. The government stepped in after that.

Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

What would she need to own a lab for? She never did any research to begin with?

Holmes is 100% pure corporate CEO/Board-member. She has connections, extraordinary bullshitting abilities, and is tied in to god knows how many VC and Silicon valley based "ventures". She doesn't need a lab, or scientists, or engineers. She hires the people who hire them.

Holmes will be back with a bio-med big-data startup within 3 years. Bookmark this post.

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

What would she need to own a lab for? She never did any research to begin with?

Holmes is 100% pure corporate CEO/Board-member. She has connections, extraordinary bullshitting abilities, and is tied in to god knows how many VC and Silicon valley based "ventures". She doesn't need a lab, or scientists, or engineers. She hires the people who hire them.

Holmes will be back with a bio-med big-data startup within 3 years. Bookmark this post.

The ban is only for 2 years.

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Holmes is persona non-grata right now. She raised the money she did through family connections; her parents were both highly placed bureaucrats who knew top level folks which is why her Board was made up of politicians and why she still retained a majority stake despite all the funding. Her first real round of money came from Tim Draper of Draper Fischer Jurveston, who is a personal friend of her parents and the scuttlebutt says helped her next round of funding too, which included people like the Larry J Ellison Trust (around $20-$30M). Her big round of $400M was a mix of private equity money and Blue Cross Blue Shield Ventures, so insurance firms hoping her cheap tests would make testing more affordable; only BCBS Ventures has any real experience investing in biotech and even them it's from an insurance angle, not from an angle of real science.

However, she will not work in biotech again. The interesting thing is that all of her investors were not typical biotech investors, and the real biotech VC funds such as Lateral Ventures, Flagship, Polaris, Domain, New Leaf, funds that have experience investing in real science that creates real medical products, they all turned her down thinking she was a fraud. Miss Holmes got lucky when she got Theranos going as there was a wave of money entering biotech from non-traditional sources, mostly tech entrepreneurs looking for new places to put their money and thinking biotech was the next hot thing. Many of these investors dumped money into ideas that sounded great because they were neat technology, but unlike in software in biotech having the best tech does not guarantee you success, you also need to pass both the regulatory and the insurance reimbursement hurdles and those hurdles require a level of design sophistication and validation most in tech aren't used to. The result was many of these typical tech investors and entrepreneurs dumped a ton of money into ideas that had no chance of success based purely on charisma of the leader and the gee-whiz factor of the technology without truly understanding what they were getting into. The easy money from 2011-2015 for biotech from non-traditional sources is gone completely now, leaving the traditional investors standing and those guys won't touch her; reputation in biotech matters way too much and they won't want her anywhere near their companies.

No, Holmes is finished in Biotech. What I suspect is she will be on the Board of Theranos while a new CEO steps in, who will find the company a giant mess and essentially either wind it down or find some buyer to make the shareholders come out ok. Most of her shareholders likely hold preferred equity to Miss Holmes' common, meaning they get to divide up the money before she does and I doubt anything will be left over. Meanwhile she'll lay low for a few years and let the next big crisis make Theranos fade from memory, then she'll end up a partner and some venture fund investing in companies and make her essentially the next Ellen Pao.

Re:Lol Business

[AntronArgaiv]

What would she need to own a lab for? She never did any research to begin with?

Holmes is 100% pure corporate CEO/Board-member. She has connections, extraordinary bullshitting abilities, and is tied in to god knows how many VC and Silicon valley based "ventures". She doesn't need a lab, or scientists, or engineers. She hires the people who hire them.

Holmes will be back with a bio-med big-data startup within 3 years. Bookmark this post.

She's an interesting example of how far you can get with money, influence and a positive approach, in the absence of any real understanding of the details of the business you're in.

Maybe she can use the time off to finish college.

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

...The interesting thing is that all of her investors were not typical biotech investors, and the real biotech VC funds such as Lateral Ventures, Flagship, Polaris, Domain, New Leaf, funds that have experience investing in real science that creates real medical products, they all turned her down thinking she was a fraud. ...Miss Holmes got lucky when she got Theranos going as there was a wave of money entering biotech from non-traditional sources, mostly tech entrepreneurs looking for new places to put their money and thinking biotech was the next hot thing.

Can't say more, but... QFT

Re:Lol Business

[Sir_Eptishous]

Brilliant post.
Thank you.

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

or she will stand for Congress on a prob business ticket.

Re:Lol Business

[khallow]

Holmes is persona non-grata right now. [...]

However, she will not work in biotech again. [...]

No, Holmes is finished in Biotech.

Unless, of course, those assertions turn out false. Never underestimate the power of dumb money to pay someone to tell it what it wants to hear.

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, credit where credit is due.

Re:Lol Business

[nitehawk214]

or she will stand for Congress on a prob business ticket.

She will run for congress on a pro-business ticket?

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile she'll lay low for a few years and let the next big crisis make Theranos fade from memory, then she'll end up a partner and some venture fund investing in companies and make her essentially the next Ellen Pao.

So we should expect to hear her screaming about how women in tech aren't treated fairly until she drops dead?

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

She could be Hilary's VP choice

Re:Lol Business

[Anonymous Coward]

essentially the next Ellen Pao.

First she'd have to marry a gay man, cheat on him with multiple other married men who are her seniors at her workplace, then accuse her lovers of sexual harassment hoping for an enormous payout that would equal what her scamming husband owes due to a failed pyramid scheme. Just sayin'.

Aww, that's harsh

[wonkey_monkey]

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Banned From Owning a Lab

But labs are so sweet!

Maybe she could get a beagle instead.

Re:Aww, that's harsh

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Banned From Owning a Lab

But labs are so sweet!

Maybe she could get a beagle instead.

Note that the ruling does not ban her beagle from owning a lab . . .

Re:Aww, that's harsh

[Hognoxious]

Especially if it's done through a shell corporation based in the Vanuauauauauauauauatua Islands.

Re:Aww, that's harsh

[Trogre]

Er, about that CAT scan you're booked in for next week...

Re:Aww, that's harsh

[dcw3]

Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes Banned From Owning a Lab

But labs are so sweet!

Maybe she could get a beagle instead.

Note that the ruling does not ban her beagle from owning a lab . . .

Seems much like G. Gordon Liddy...When asked how he was able to maintain such a close relationship with guns despite his status as a convicted felon, Liddy replied, "Mrs. Liddy has an extensive collection of firearms, some of which she keeps on my side of the bed."

Re:Aww, that's harsh

[wonkey_monkey]

Canary Islands, surely.

Re:Aww, that's harsh

[NetNed]

Bow chicka bow wow!

Curious

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the company own the labs?

Ask yourself this question

[DNS-and-BIND]

If Hillary Clinton owned this company instead of Elizabeth Holmes, would there have been any penalty? How can we say the regulatory system works when it gets applied differently according to how powerful you are? CMS is US government bureaucracy for sure. Subject to all the same political forces as the FBI.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Opportunist]

So... Hillary should not be allowed to own mail servers for two years? Or what's your angle?

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

faggot

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask yourself this question; are you ever going to get over being butt hurt over the FBI and DOJ not agreeing with your desire for Hillary Clinton to go to jail and stop posting this shit in unrelated topics?

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

The inability to own another lab for two years is a slap on the wrist for defrauding investors and putting countless patient's lives in jeopardy.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[geekmux]

So... Hillary should not be allowed to own mail servers for two years? Or what's your angle?

Clinton mishandled Top Secret classified data and put lives at risk. Lives were lost at Benghazi, and that investigation was hardly resolved with satisfaction when the American people were distracted by her email antics. This woman was branded a "congenital liar" two decades ago and now she's running for President.

Regarding affecting lives, Holmes is hardly any different with her blood testing antics.

Enough of this slap on the wrist bullshit. You want an angle? They both should be in fucking prison.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

you are one stupid fucking retard

Re:Ask yourself this question

[JaredOfEuropa]

... and now she's running for President.

Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...

Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...

Re:Ask yourself this question

[dcw3]

Ask yourself this question; are you ever going to get over being butt hurt over the FBI and DOJ not agreeing with your desire for Hillary Clinton to go to jail and stop posting this shit in unrelated topics?

Yes, if you ever admit, as Director Comey clearly indicated, that HRC lied and carelessly mishandled classified materials. And that typically people doing so would be administratively punished, including losing their access to such data. For someone who's about to be come president (I believe it's inevitable now that Trump has proven he's a loon), that's simply not a viable position to be in.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[serviscope_minor]

For someone who's about to be come president (I believe it's inevitable now that Trump has proven he's a loon)

I thought that too, then Brexit happened. Now it's clear that people will vote for the fake anti-establishment rich boy armed with a demonstrable pack of lies, no plan and inevitable, massively self defeating consequences.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[dywolf]

Benghazi has been "resolved" 7 or 8 times, and the best they can come up with is "you're foresight should have been 20/20 just like our hindsight. and BTW, please ignore the disparity with the Bush administration's 90 odd dead at embassies".

she was branded a congenital liar, but that doesn't actually make it so.
they've simply repeated it for so long people accept it as truth.
the simple fact is she's probably the most honest politician to ever run for president, with the overwhelming majority of her statements being factual.
compared to someone like Trump who mostly speaks falsehoods...yet somehow she's the "liar". that's not to say she isn't also very aloof; but then I'd somewhat expect that of someone who has withstood baseless attacks for 40+ years. after dealing with the same BS for that long you'd probably stop caring what they say and think about you too.

this guy states it rather more eloquently:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted ( without any apparent evidence ) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. Instead, the most common opinion seemed to be that she was a self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior. In short, the prevailing anti-Hillary accusation was not that she was unrelentingly dishonest, but that she was just intolerably smug.

After the Safire piece however, this all changed. Republicans, who learned from Nixon never to let a good propaganda opportunity pass if they could help it, repeated the accusations of mendacity non-stop to anyone who would broadcast or print them. And if you doubt the staying power of Safire’s piece, type the phrase “congenital liar” into a Google search along with “Hillary Clinton” and see what happens. To this day, that exact phrase is still proudly used by many on the right. This, even though Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written. And despite the fact that he stated himself that he would have to “eat crow” if she were ever cleared, Safire never apologized or even acknowledged his many errors once that happened. Because as we all know, swift-boating means never having to say you’re sorry.

in short: the butthurt is strong today.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

This! Just like the intense taxpayer-funded investigation that resulted in the merciless prosecution of all those in charge in Lebanon in 1983 after the barracks were bombed. Hitlery must be made to pay. She should not be allowed to even run in the next election, she should be watching it from her jail cell. If she didn't hate America so much, Bengazi wouldn't have happened, Iraq wouldn't be overrun with ISIS, Pakistan and Afghanistan would be at the bottom of a new nuclear ocean, 9/11 wouldn't have happened and neither would the Munich Olympics or Entebbe incidents. In fact, she's personally responsible for all the America deaths in WWI, WWII and the War Between the States.

We need the tireless efforts of the Republican party in their endless search for justice no matter what it costs or how trivial the offenses uncovered. We need to put pro-business common-sense leaders in charge so that we can Make America Great Again. Leaders who will build walls and camps and show the rest of the world what we're made of!

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the human race. You think it was different a hundred years ago? A thousand?

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

You are foresight? You are? Really?

Re:Ask yourself this question

[dcw3]

Well, here's probably the best guess based upon current polling...
http://projects.fivethirtyeigh...

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

... and now she's running for President.

Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...

Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...

Because there was no one else running on the Democrat side. Nosiree...

Re:Ask yourself this question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I'll take Trump any day over Clinton. The thing most of you seem to forget is the bat shit crazy that Trump claims he's going to do he can't because the president just doesn't have that sort of power. My worry with Clinton is the backroom stuff she's going to do to enrich herself. I'll take blithering idiot over corrupt scum bag any day of the week.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[HornWumpus]

You realize why Brexit polling was so wrong?

People that normally don't vote, did. If that happens in the presidential election all bets are off.

Obama basically won on turnout, Trump can too.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[tnk1]

Yeah, at this point it is probably her or Trump, realistically. Nevertheless, I'm not voting for either one of them.

As I've said before, Hillary is the worst of the status quo, and Trump represents the dangers inherent when you're trying to change the status quo. Neither appeals to me very much.

Although I think Hillary is most likely to win, I take little satisfaction from the mediocre level of sanity that provides. Politicians like Hillary are the reason that a joke like Trump is even a factor in this race, let alone the contender.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[clonehappy]

Hrm, if you think Hillary's web of deceit is an illusion started by a conservative writer in 1996, you need to seriously brush up on the history of the Clintons and the trail of people affected by them going all the way back to the 1970s.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[slew]

... and now she's running for President.

Considering that the alternative is Trump, you guys may want to let this one slide...

Seriously, out of what (for an outsider at least) have been the most interesting presidential nominations in ages, these two clowns emerged as the GOP and Dems candidates? What the hell...

Because there was no one else running on the Democrat side. Nosiree...

Because the Dem leadership cleared the deck for her because she is a campaign money generating machine with potential coattails. Bernie is only still around because he is an independent (who happens to be carpetbagging as a democrat to get committee assignments and to run for president)...

Re:Ask yourself this question

[ranton]

You realize why Brexit polling was so wrong?

No, the Brexit polling was not so wrong. The latest Bloomberg polling had it at 46.2% remain and 44.3 leaves, both with a 1% margin of error and 9.6% undecided. That is statistically a tie. The current gap between Clinton and Trump is six times larger than the Brexit gap (based on on that one site; other sites differ). Certainly still not insurmountable, and even the quoted site gives Trump more than a 1 in 5 chance of winning, but certainly far more certain than any Brexit polling.

Re:Ask yourself this question

[HornWumpus]

8 point swing is a lot for a poll that claims 1% error.

Are we supposed to know who these people are?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we care about some random persons permission to own a lab? Why is this meaningful?

Re:Are we supposed to know who these people are?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Hai... You must be very new. Welcome to SlashDot. We talk about technology here and how I fucked your mother.

So much for remorse

[ortholattice]

" While we are disappointed by CMS' decision,..."

If she had any sense of ethics, she would be grateful the CMS is doing its job of protecting the public from dishonest people like her. Why isn't she in jail for falsifying test results and endangering people's lives?

She's not sorry she did it, only that she got caught. Typically psychopathic behavior, Sadly she'll probably be successful someday, lying, cheating, and using people on her way up.

Re:So much for remorse

[Anonymous Coward]

" While we are disappointed by CMS' decision,..."

If she had any sense of ethics, she would be grateful the CMS is doing its job of protecting the
public from dishonest people like her. Why isn't she in jail for falsifying test results and
endangering people's lives?

She's not sorry she did it, only that she got caught. Typically psychopathic behavior,
Sadly she'll probably be successful someday, lying, cheating, and using people on her way up.

And the comment from her says it alll: "We accept responsibility..." rather than "I accept responsibility...".

Re:So much for remorse

[Anonymous Coward]

" Why isn't she in jail for falsifying test results and
endangering people's lives?

Perhaps because she's a scion of Millennial Feminism and female STEM empowerment.

Re:So much for remorse

[nitehawk214]

Either that or because her parents are super rich and she is very well connected politically.

Hell, maybe some of the politicians were in on the scam and she has them by the metaphorical balls preventing her from being prosecuted?

Re:So much for remorse

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/business/theranos-sec-justice-department-investigation.html

Theranos is under criminal investigation.

She should admit she's a fraud

[smooth wombat]

As the hits keep coming, it might benefit Ms. Holmes to openly admit she's been a fraud from day one. She's ripped off investors with false claims and has endangered people's lives with her false results.

To date, Theranos has never allowed a peer review of her process, has never submitted to government tests and has admitted they don't use their own testing procedures, instead going back to the tried and true method.

Give it up, Holmes. Your days are numbered.

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

As the hits keep coming, it might benefit Ms. Holmes to openly admit she's been a fraud from day one. She's ripped off investors with false claims and has endangered people's lives with her false results.

To date, Theranos has never allowed a peer review of her process, has never submitted to government tests and has admitted they don't use their own testing procedures, instead going back to the tried and true method.

Give it up, Holmes. Your days are numbered.

I've followed Theranos rather closely for years. I'm not sure she can admit fraud, because admitting it first means you have to believe it and I don't think she does. The sheer arrogance of the woman is astonishing, to think that she as a college dropout knew more about biochemical testing than thousands of clinical pathologists, and all she had to do was dilute samples to run them on her machine, or it turns out standard machines from Siemens as her machine wasn't even used. Then the non-stop gushing media stories about her being the next Steve Jobs; what a joke. It's no wonder her Board had nothing but politicians on it; the entire company was nothing but propaganda supporting an arrogant narcissist.

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[smooth wombat]

because admitting it first means you have to believe it and I don't think she does.

Delusional psychopaths* generally have this problem.

* I'm probably not using the correct term but you get my meaning

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[HornWumpus]

Competent marketers first have to believe their own bullshit, if only for a second.

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but normal people also have the same problem.

The first step in any typical, normal person in changing their behavior is to recognize there is a problem. Throwing the mentally ill under the bus is just a way to avoid talking about the real issues...

Normal people in the USA are intolerant to the concept that they might be wrong. I'm not claiming that everyone has to run around thinking that they are wrong at every moment, but we should at least consider other's opinions and entertain them long enough to understand the other person. And if we fail to do so, we shouldn't immediately be lumped into the group called "delusional psychopaths."

It is a disturbing trend in the USA (and probably in other countries too) that thinking about things is, on many levels, getting replaced with name calling.

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[slew]

Competent marketers first have to believe their own bullshit, if only for a second.

Disagree. Actually, competent marketers (like sales people) understand what their audience believes, yet they have to be grounded in reality**.
My experience (having worked with marketing folks in several startups and large companies) is that the moment they get sucked into their own reality distortion field (aka drink their own koolaid), they are generally lost in a cesspool of over-promise and under-deliver and damage control unless they get religion and crawl their way out.

The best marketers are actual appear to be a bit schizophrenic in that they can be both the audience and the marketer at the same time. You gotta stay away from them for your own sanity ;^)

** they know (or ask someone who should know) if things are theoretically possible before they commit and they always hedge a bit when they promise. They know that you can only sell the sizzle, if you can deliver the steak.

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

But...but... vagina.

You evil misogynist.

Re:She should admit she's a fraud

[HornWumpus]

Marketers always 'over promise'. The rest of the company has to be setup to control them. Asking them to not lie, is like asking a bird not to fly. You'd hope they would know they were lying, but to pull off a convincing lie you have to believe...like you say a little schizo.

It's ultimately why tech companies fail, more or less, when marketing takes over the CEO role. They turn into marketing companies, in some cases that reflects the reality that they are now making commodity stuff. In others it's just stupidity, premature market 'maturity'.

Yet if she had hacked into some website

[Anonymous Coward]

she'd be in prison, banned from ever using a computers.

Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[roman_mir]

Sorry, who? What is Theranos? I do not want to google it, and will not click any google links for this one either, dont care, but why isn't there a single sentence with half a description on what this Theranos is and why the fucking government messing with it?

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[UnknownSoldier]

Agree 100%. What the fuck is the CONTEXT??

Hey /. editors -- how about you get off your lazy asses for once:

  Elizabeth Holmes, CEO of Theranos (a health-technology and medical-laboratory-services company), Banned From Owning a Lab

/Oblg. <voice="Nick Burns> "See, was that so hard?"

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, who? What is Theranos? I do not want to google it, and will not click any google links for this one either, dont care, but why isn't there a single sentence with half a description on what this Theranos is and why the fucking government messing with it?

Are you living under a rock?

Since you fear Google, here's Wikipedia. It has a great summary of the company and all it's mess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos

Or if Wikipedia is not your style, here's the skinny: they claimed new tech for medical diagnostics that could accurately test over 260 different tests on a finger prick, but were entirely evasive about showing anyone the tech. They built a hype juggernaut with Miss Holmes, the founder and CEO, being claimed the Steve Jobs of biotech. They raised over $700M with the last round being $400M on a $9B valuation, making her the youngest self-made female billionaire in history. The Wall Street Journal did an investigative piece that came out in October that essentially said the entire company was a giant fraud, their technology was dangerously inaccurate putting patients at risk, and that essentially the emperor has no clothes (ironic given their headquarters is a giant crystal palace next to Stanford). Since then drama after scandal after expose has heaped upon the company as they've proven to be a huge house of cards that is slowly disintegrating. The media has followed this with rapt attention, first with the awe and wonder of children at their meteoric rise, then with the blood-thirst of circling sharks as they've publicly unraveled in the last 9 months.

Now the company is facing shareholder lawsuits, patient lawsuits, the FDA is investigating, the DOJ and SEC are investigating for securities fraud, the CEO was just banned by the Medicare from ever owning a lab, and every 2 weeks there is a new controversy emerging.

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[RealGene]

That must be a pretty nice rock you just crawled out from under.
For someone with such a low slashdot ID, you must not check in very often; just searching Slashdot for "theranos" returned 10 articles since 2013.
Holmes' spectacular rise and fall was the punchline of a joke in the season finale of HBO's Silicon Valley, so even Hollywood writers know who she is/was.

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[roman_mir]

I remember seeing something with it's name here I think, that does not matter, because obviously I did not find it relevant for me to remember. I am not finding it relevant to me now either, but that is not the point once again. It is the ridiculous way these stories are smarized, there is no context, there isn't even a link to an earlier story where the context could be derived. It is all circular and self referencing and the only reason I bothered to leave this comment is specifically because of this horrible story telling style that is so common here. I mean there is half a story that is half interesting somewhere in there, after all, it is a story of government oppression of the individual rights, but it is written in the most useless manner.

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[RealGene]

after all, it is a story of government oppression of the individual rights,

Individual rights? This is government regulation of fraudulent medical testing. Maybe you don't care if your liver function/blood sugar/HIV test might be correct, but I do.

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[Anonymous Coward]

(a health-technology and medical-laboratory-services company),

WTF is a "medical-laboratory-services company"?

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[roman_mir]

I do care, I also know that it is more important to have individual freedoms than prevent any particular company from what you call 'fraudulent medical testing'. Without individual freedoms what good is testing, whether done right or not? What good is life without freedom on this planet?

It is not up to any government to declare what is fraudulent and what is real, it's up to the market, which is the ultimate democracy - voting with your money.

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is life without freedom on this planet?

At least you own up to believing people should have the freedom to harm others without the pesky government getting in the way.

Re:Missing something from the so called 'summary'.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you living under a rock?

Since you fear Google, here's Wikipedia. It has a great summary of the company and all it's mess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos

Or if Wikipedia is not your style, here's the skinny: they claimed new tech for medical diagnostics that could accurately test over 260 different tests on a finger prick, but were entirely evasive about showing anyone the tech. They built a hype juggernaut with Miss Holmes, the founder and CEO, being claimed the Steve Jobs of biotech. They raised over $700M with the last round being $400M on a $9B valuation, making her the youngest self-made female billionaire in history. The Wall Street Journal did an investigative piece that came out in October that essentially said the entire company was a giant fraud, their technology was dangerously inaccurate putting patients at risk, and that essentially the emperor has no clothes (ironic given their headquarters is a giant crystal palace next to Stanford). Since then drama after scandal after expose has heaped upon the company as they've proven to be a huge house of cards that is slowly disintegrating. The media has followed this with rapt attention, first with the awe and wonder of children at their meteoric rise, then with the blood-thirst of circling sharks as they've publicly unraveled in the last 9 months.

Now the company is facing shareholder lawsuits, patient lawsuits, the FDA is investigating, the DOJ and SEC are investigating for securities fraud, the CEO was just banned by the Medicare from ever owning a lab, and every 2 weeks there is a new controversy emerging.

I wish I had mod points, as this is a succinct yet poetic summary of the situation.

Dr.Nick in charge?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...adding highly experienced leadership, personnel and experts"

Are they saying the previous leadership was inexperienced, and their operatives were clueless monkeys?
Doesn't instill confidence when peoples health is at risk.

No jail?

[Anonymous Coward]

She seems to be a fraudster and a scammer on a large scale. If this is true, she belongs in jail.

Banned from owning a lab

[rossdee]

But what about other breeds? Could she have a fox terrier or a dachshund?

NOT to Bel-Air

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it up, Holmes. Your days are numbered.

Yo, Holmes! NOT to Bel-Air!

No Sexist Comments, Yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a hot CEO (let's be fair, both male and females qualify here) adds quite a bit to shareholder value. I think the MBAs call this "Good Will."

"I" suddenly becomes "we" when things go wrong

[JoeyRox]

Interesting how it was all about her when Theranos was the best thing since slice bread but suddenly it's "we" in her statement yesterday even though she was the one specifically banned from the industry for 2 years.

Re:"I" suddenly becomes "we" when things go wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not interesting -- that's completely predictable. Par for the corporate course.

Yeah, but......

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Can she own a beagle or a terrier?

Bbbbbbut vagina..

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely this judgement is a symptom of patriarchal lab-owning rape culture?

Thats nonsense!

[Sir_Eptishous]

All she needs is an old RV and a guy like Jesse to show her the ropes.

You should be posting on StormFront

[Sir_Eptishous]

So you're ok with a guy who retweets Mussolini becoming POTUSA, and has strong appeal and support from White Nationalists?

Like Mussolini, Trump is dismissive of democratic institutions. He selfishly guards his image of a self-made outsider who will “dismantle the establishment” in the words of one of his supporters. That this includes cracking down on a free press by toughening libel laws, engaging in the ethnic cleansing of 11 million people (“illegals”), stripping away citizenship of those seen as illegitimate members of the nation (children of the “illegals”), and committing war crimes in the protection of the nation (killing the families of suspected terrorists) only enhances his stature among his supporters. The discrepancy between their love of America and these brutal and undemocratic methods does not bother them one iota. To borrow from Paxton again: “Fascism was an affair of the gut more than of the brain.” For Trump and his supporters, the struggle against “political correctness” in all its forms is more important than the fine print of the Constitution.

Re:You should be posting on StormFront

[HornWumpus]

Both choices are terrible.

I suppose you support the unindicted criminal.

Also: Salon? Seriously? Might as well link to Pravda. (USSR Pravda was less yellow than Salon, New pravda is more serious news than Salon.).

But...

[SensitiveMale]

She's still hot and rich.

Re:But...

[slew]

She's still hot and rich.

She might be still hot, but rich? According to the "experts", her common-stock stake in Theranos is worth approx $0...

Should be in Jail, forever

[Anonymous Coward]

I would not be opposed to her being charged individually with the fraud counts and jailed for each one perpetuated by her company.

I guess things like that are only done with kids and not rich people.

Holmes must be a Republican

[clonehappy]

Because quackery and junk science get passed off as the real deal every day across the globe. Was she a Trump supporter or something, or what was going on behind the scenes that convinced the establishment to come down so hard on this specific fraudster? Not that I disagree with making life hard for snake-oil salesmen, but it's so strange to me that some charlatans get so severely punished while others are quietly swept under the rug our outright supported.

Re: Holmes must be a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually, she did fund raising for Hillary. Nice try though.

Re: Holmes must be a Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

So did Donald Trump, what's your point?

When you ban outlaws from having labs

[Rinikusu]

Then only outlaws will have labs?

Miss Heisenberg, perhaps...

what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this stupid bitch still free? Her bogus testing put thousands of people's lives at risk and possibly caused deaths all in the name of fucking profit. She needs her head mounted to a spike in the middle of a prison yard.

It's A (very small) Start

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how about banning everyone on the board from interacting with the public sector for life (they're almost all politicians) and throwing them all in jail for a good chunk of whatever they have left?

Could they have used a scarier picture?

[Kargan]

Elizabeth Holmes looks like some sort of ghoul, or vampire in that picture, slavering and bloodthirsty. Yikes.

Her Response?

[wisnoskij]

So her response to being banning from owning a Lab is to state that she is building a better Lab?

power of government services

[dog77]

It concerns me that the governemnt medicare and medicade services has the power to hand out punishments; in particular when it comes to individuals. Shouldn't this be done through law enforcement and the courts?

heck ya.. Skrew her.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sexist, or massagenistic..
but, right people for the right thing..

regardless man or woman, she f**ked up and she deserves what she gets.

Imagine all the lives affected if her BS was not caught in time..

I'm also especially passionate about this individual which has derrived from the statement
"if you have to think of a "plan b" you have already lost the battle.."
Arrogance, ignorance. Forcing individuals to tolerate such BS.
Lady, it seems you have potentially fu*ked with peoples lives, and left unchecked could have caused serious harm to our society. All for you to make a point about being a successful woman in an industry..

shameful..