In case you care about the Theranos stuff still
-
There's a new tell-all book out about all the bullshit that company did, and Wired has a pretty good review of it here:
This Hacker News thread also has some people in it who have read the book and give out some juicy tidbits:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17121822
(For example, apparently when demoing their new miracle machine during investor due-diligence, they'd literally distract the audience move the blood to an off-the-shelf Siemens machine backstage, and do the test there. WTF.)
-
Apparently they got $700 million from investors. You'd think people throwing those amounts of money at companies would make some effort to be in touch with it other than that one public demonstration. Like, talk to the employees and ask them how things are going.
After eight years at the company, Laghari felt she was at an ethical crossroads. To still be working out the kinks in the product was one thing when you were in R&D mode and testing blood volunteered by employees and their family members, but going live in Walgreens stores meant exposing the general population to what was essentially a big unauthorized research experiment. That was something she couldn’t live with.
That part confuses me. I thought any sort of medical device had to go through a lot of government testing and get approval?
-
@anonymous234 said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
That part confuses me. I thought any sort of medical device had to go through a lot of government testing and get approval?
There is a difference of course in that this device itself might not even come close to the patient if it takes a blood sample that is presented to the device by an "operator".
Then there's also the kind of tests it does. In Europe you apparently have directive 98/79/EC for In Vitro Diagnostic devices which specifies in Annex II that a number of specific diagnostics are under extra scrutiny, like e.g. detecting (rare) blood groups. Everything else though (e.g. allergy testing) would fall under the usual requirements for an electrical appliance and nothing more.
So if this device supposedly only tests for e.g. dietary minerals or blood sugar levels (didn't read the article yet), it might have skirted around regulations.
-
"Holmes had abandoned her plan of putting the Theranos devices in Walgreens stores and operating them remotely, to avoid problems with the FDA"
Medical device law is fantastically complex. Everything from scalpels to condoms to microscopes is technically a medical device, but only sometimes. A microscope you look at rocks with isn't a medical device.
I think in this case it's a question of where the 'medicine' happens. Anything involving a doctor is much easier to get approved, because highly trained human in the loop. Anything not involving a doctor is very hard to get approved. Back office blood test services? The insurance companies/hospitals will do due diligence on accuracy/speed/cost and that's good enough. A kiosk in walgreens any tom dick and harry can put their in? highly regulated.
-
@aygeeplus said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
A kiosk in walgreens any tom dick and harry can put their
Harry Dick in?
-
@anonymous234 said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
That part confuses me. I thought any sort of medical device had to go through a lot of government testing and get approval?
I'm confused about that too. I mean wouldn't Theranos have to fess-up that they were really using an off-the-shelf Siemens machine as part of that deal? Because Walgreens is going to sooner or later ask, "oh hey we need the FDA docs approving this testing machine", and the only working machines they had came from other companies. That would have given away the whole plot.
(And note that if you keep reading the article, they ended up modding the Siemens machine to accept their "blood microcapsule" things, which also had the effect of making it way less accurate and voiding its FDA approval. Absolute garbage company, like all Silicon Valley companies.)
-
@aygeeplus said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
I think in this case it's a question of where the 'medicine' happens. Anything involving a doctor is much easier to get approved, because highly trained human in the loop. Anything not involving a doctor is very hard to get approved. Back office blood test services? The insurance companies/hospitals will do due diligence on accuracy/speed/cost and that's good enough.
Well, if that's true, that means in addition to to getting a massive fine for lying to investors they should get an even bigger fine for providing inaccurate medical services.
-
Book added to the queue
-
@anonymous234 Oh don't worry. I'm sure Trump's tough-as-nails Justice Department will fine all the executives a devastating $7.99. Then take them out golfing.
-
@anonymous234 should like ethically? yes. should like under the law? maybeeeeee?
blood tests a doctor orders can come from anywhere the doctor likes, almost. I think. the theory being the doctor can see if they look right before telling the patient boo.
which they have to do anyway. Medical tests can be thrown off by a lot of things.
-
@aygeeplus said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
blood tests a doctor orders can come from anywhere the doctor likes, almost. I think. the theory being the doctor can see if they look right before telling the patient boo.
The doctor usually just asks which lab your insurance uses, in my experience. Around here there are two main ones, Quest and Labcorp.
-
@blakeyrat said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@anonymous234 Oh don't worry. I'm sure Trump's tough-as-nails Justice Department will fine all the executives a devastating $7.99. Then take them out golfing.
ah, the magic of the beliefs of someone who has no idea what they're talking about
-
@pie_flavor said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@blakeyrat said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@anonymous234 Oh don't worry. I'm sure Trump's tough-as-nails Justice Department will fine all the executives a devastating $7.99. Then take them out golfing.
ah, the magic of the beliefs of someone who has no idea what they're talking about
Yeah. Obviously the golf will happen first.
-
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@pie_flavor said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@blakeyrat said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@anonymous234 Oh don't worry. I'm sure Trump's tough-as-nails Justice Department will fine all the executives a devastating $7.99. Then take them out golfing.
ah, the magic of the beliefs of someone who has no idea what they're talking about
Yeah. Obviously the golf will happen first.
And the fine is they have to buy the beer.
-
@dcon said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@pie_flavor said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@blakeyrat said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@anonymous234 Oh don't worry. I'm sure Trump's tough-as-nails Justice Department will fine all the executives a devastating $7.99. Then take them out golfing.
ah, the magic of the beliefs of someone who has no idea what they're talking about
Yeah. Obviously the golf will happen first.
And the fine is they have to buy the beer.
So the $7.99 is wrong, too.
-
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@dcon said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@pie_flavor said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@blakeyrat said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@anonymous234 Oh don't worry. I'm sure Trump's tough-as-nails Justice Department will fine all the executives a devastating $7.99. Then take them out golfing.
ah, the magic of the beliefs of someone who has no idea what they're talking about
Yeah. Obviously the golf will happen first.
And the fine is they have to buy the beer.
So the $7.99 is wrong, too.
I did say
the
beer.
-
@boomzilla Coors isn't beer
-
@dcon said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
And the fine is they have to buy the beer.
They might permit substitution with another drink.
-
-
-
So she went out and found a rich guy to marry. Certainly makes sense from her standpoint. But what about the guy?
I know that the vagina is a powerful thing, but I can't imagine marrying someone who is facing serious prison time. Then I read the article and her new husband sounds like just as much of a psychopath as she is.
-
@El_Heffe What a badly written/edited/formatted article. A sequence of sentences, formatted as though each formed an independent paragraph, except in
<big><strong>
style as if it were a headline. And with an ad and a (mostly pointless, like the picture of "Siberian Huskies, but not Holmes's") photo between every single sentence. And even the actual content was full of irrelevant fluff. Even if it's true that her pet Husky wasn't potty trained, how is that relevant to her marriage, her legal trouble, or her financial situation? I assume it's not also true of her husband.
-
@HardwareGeek You must be new to Internet journalism
-
@JBert said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@HardwareGeek You must be new to Internet journalism
Sadly, no. But this is worse than most, and most would have gotten a D in my high school Journalism classes.
-
-
@El_Heffe If you think that's bad, consider how hard it is for the 3022 guys named John Holmes who aren't adult film stars.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@El_Heffe If you think that's bad, consider how hard it is for the 3022 guys named John Holmes who aren't adult film stars.
-
@dcon Isn't it only if it's unintentional?
-
@levicki said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
Hot as hard as it was John Holmes' I hear.
Try typing with both hands, or at least your dominant hand.
-
@levicki I'm implying that your typos were caused by your dominant hand being occupied with other things. Perhaps in reference to said Mr Holmes.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@El_Heffe If you think that's bad, consider how hard it is for the 3022 guys named John Holmes who aren't adult film stars.
Yeah, there is a porn star who's name is an off by one error of my name (both first and last name).
-
@blakeyrat said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@anonymous234 said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
That part confuses me. I thought any sort of medical device had to go through a lot of government testing and get approval?
I'm confused about that too. I mean wouldn't Theranos have to fess-up that they were really using an off-the-shelf Siemens machine as part of that deal? Because Walgreens is going to sooner or later ask, "oh hey we need the FDA docs approving this testing machine", and the only working machines they had came from other companies. That would have given away the whole plot.
Theranos's entire business was run on the "fake it till you make it" plan. Just keep lying to everyone and somehow everything will just magically work out. It's actually pretty amazing that it lasted as long as it did.
There's a book called "Bad Blood" by John Carreyrou that explains the whole thing. I went back and started re-reading some of it -- I had forgotten just how insane that whole scam was. Not to mention the corruption, stupidity and incompetence of everyone involved.
For example, the guy at Walgreen's who approved the deal with Theranos just believed everything he was told and didn't bother performing any due diligence until after they had spent millions of dollars remodeling their stores to accommodate the clinics that would use the Theranos machines.
The Safeway supermarket chain did the same thing. They spent millions remodeling their stores based on nothing more than talking to Elizabeth Holmes and seeing a couple of product demonstrations (that were 100% fraudulent). Apparently some people will believe anything when an attractive young women is involved.
The book starts with a short story that pretty much sums up everything you need to know about Theranos.
In 2006 Theranos hired a guy named Henry Mosley to be their CFO. He had worked at Intel and some other big tech companies for over 25 years. After 8 months on the job, he started to figure out what was going on. Talking to some of the people at Theranos, he found out that the blood testing machines were too unreliable, so all the demos they did for customers and investors were faked.
Elizabeth Holmes told investors that she had signed deals with a couple dozen companies that would eventually bring in more than a billion dollars in revenue. But when Mosely asked about these contracts (he's the CFO so he should know about them) he was told that they were "still being reviewed by the legal department".
One day in a meeting, Mosley told Elizabeth Holmes that they had to stop doing product demos if they weren't real:
“We’ve been fooling investors. We can’t keep doing that.”
Elizabeth’s expression suddenly changed. Her cheerful demeanor of just moments ago vanished and gave way to a mask of hostility. It was like a switch had been flipped. She leveled a cold stare at her chief financial officer.
“Henry, you’re not a team player,” she said in an icy tone. “I think you should leave right now.”
There was no mistaking what had just happened. Elizabeth wasn’t merely asking him to get out of her office. She was telling him to leave the company immediately. Mosley had just been fired.
-
@El_Heffe said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
Apparently some people will believe anything when an attractive young women is involved.
I think that for the customers it was also (and perhaps more) about the people she had on her board of directors.
-
@levicki Successfully testing their blood flow in certain situations
-
@Karla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@HardwareGeek said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@El_Heffe If you think that's bad, consider how hard it is for the 3022 guys named John Holmes who aren't adult film stars.
Yeah, there is a porn star who's name is an off by one error of my name (both first and last name).
One of these days I'll find a pornstar whose name is anything close to Tsaukpaetra...
-
@Tsaukpaetra There's a famous Japanese adult film star whose name is kinda-sorta similar to your real name
-
@levicki said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
How Elizabeth Holmes convinced powerful men like Henry Kissinger, James Mattis, and George Shultz...
With blowjobs?
It must be, because the whole thing makes no sense. When she founded the company Holmes was a 19 year old college dropout with absolutely no background in medicine.
The perfect person to start a medical device company.
Notice that the board of directors are also a bunch of people with no background in medicine or science or engineering. I suspect that was was by design.
-
-
@dcon said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@HardwareGeek said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@El_Heffe If you think that's bad, consider how hard it is for the 3022 guys named John Holmes who aren't adult film stars.
If it makes you feel better, in that sample size, at least one probably has an HIV infection.
-
@Karla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@HardwareGeek said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
@El_Heffe If you think that's bad, consider how hard it is for the 3022 guys named John Holmes who aren't adult film stars.
Yeah, there is a porn star who's name is an off by one error of my name (both first and last name).
Each, or both?
-
-
Noice.
-
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
this week's Trial of the Century
-
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
Anyone have a back-of-the-envelope estimate of how much jail time she'll serve for those four counts? (Ignoring the 3 counts where no verdict was returned.)
-
@PotatoEngineer Potentially, up to 20 years for each count (30 with aggravating factors that don't appear to apply in this case) plus fines. Realistically, not a clue. There are a lot of factors that go into determining the sentence, and they are only guidelines; ultimately, the judge can do pretty much whatever he wants. All of the info I found comes from defense attorneys, who talk about how complex it is, how only an experienced attorney can even begin to understand the sentencing guidelines, and only mention the worst-case scenarios, because they're targeting defendants and want you to hire them to represent you.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
Realistically, not a clue.
It'll depend on the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors. But we know there wasn't a guilty plea (a trial by jury actually happened) on some of the things she was convicted of, so at least one of the main major mitigation factors doesn't apply. The other really big mitigating factor is whether this is a first offense; that'd depend on her existing criminal record (if any) and none of us know anything about that. The key aggravating factor would be the sheer size of the fraud; fortunately for her, she wasn't convicted of also defrauding patients.
I'd guess that a sensible sentence would be probably around the 10 year mark, maybe a bit over, possibly also with a lifetime ban from being a company director (because it's a fraud conviction). The fact that it's a fraud conviction will also make it very very difficult to ever borrow money legitimately again anywhere, from anyone at all. Nobody sane trusts a fraudster.
-
-
It's unclear how Balwani and Holmes will split the bill. According to court filings, Holmes only has modest assets outweighed by a $450,000 loan to pay a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. She has also accrued over $30 million in legal fees.
Yeah, that kind of restitution order is largely symbolic. Fraudsters typically don't have the financial means to repay the people they've defrauded, and it's rather difficult to acquire that kind of money while in prison (at least legally, and even illegally, they'd probably have to be the head of a rather large criminal organization (mafia, drug cartel, etc.)).
-
@boomzilla said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
And there's the prison duration: 11 years, three months. Good estimate, @dkf.
-
@dkf said in In case you care about the Theranos stuff still:
Nobody sane trusts a fraudster.
Are you saying nobody sane actively supports a politician?