Theranos didn’t work with the huge drug company it supposedly made money from

This company is looking less and less like they're struggling to develop new technology, more and more like a deliberate sham. Given that so much of their support thus far has been due solely to the Cult of Disruption, I can't help but wonder if news like this might make at least a few investors consider a return to good old-fashioned due diligence before placing their bets.

I interviewed at Theranos a year ago, and found the employees to be smart and dedicated.<p>However, the company was the most secretive I&#x27;ve interviewed at and the employees complained about being overworked. The fact the founder sold C++ compilers to Chinese universities when g++ is open-source sounded odd.<p>But I still had hope in them even after they passed on me -- a Silicon Valley company actually making a difference in the people&#x27;s health. I WANT TO BELIEVE.<p>If this turns out to be smokes and mirrors, I&#x27;d be very saddened. Theranos&#x27; failure would confirm what everyone interested in biotech knows but wishes wasn&#x27;t true: that advancements in this field do not move at the speed of the digital economy.

Walgreens recently halted all Theranos expansions (currently only 41 Walgreens have Theranos centers... there were plans to expand to many more): <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;23&#x2F;walgreens-halts-theranos-testing-center-expansion&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;techcrunch.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;23&#x2F;walgreens-halts-theranos-te...</a><p>And it recently came to light that Elizabeth Holmes was misleading people when she said her company voluntarily stopped using nanotainers -- it seems she was forced to stop by FDA: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;28&#x2F;business&#x2F;theranos-quality-control-was-questioned-by-fda.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;28&#x2F;business&#x2F;theranos-quality-...</a><p>Between all of this, FDA coming in for tests, and other strange things, it seems they have a lot of answering to do.<p>Or, alternatively, them being in stealth mode is the reason for all of these strange happenings and lack of better information out there.

Between this and the &quot;wireless energy over ultrasound&quot; scam I&#x27;m starting to wonder if VCs actually do any due diligence at all.

I never understood what was unique about this company. I worked for a company over a decade ago that did a clinical trail for a bacterial pneumonia micro-assay at Arup Labs in SLC. This seemed like the same thing but with a lot more fanfare. I called some folks I used to work with to check if I was missing something and they felt the same. (I&#x27;m not a biologist, I wrote the software and did the stat research).

The &quot;dress like Steve Jobs&quot; thing is starting to feel kind of messed up, am I right?<p>(I read somewhere that she claimed that she hadn&#x27;t considered that Steve Jobs used to wear black turtlenecks, that she was more inspired by Sharon Stone... which is really hard to believe)

I feel like we&#x27;ve seen this before. Young startup, visionary founder, boat loads of money, then after lots of money burned, outright lies, false claims, or at the very least vaporware.

I just wonder instead of going back and forth and create more controversy - why don&#x27;t they just show which tests are working right now - and which don&#x27;t. Demonstrating with data is the best defense they can put forth.<p>its ok - if only small portion of tests are valid at this point but if they show progress with data - this validates they are on the right track.

If their tests work, why not just show the world? Invite the press. Invite doctors. Livestream it. Whoever it takes to validate what they say. What&#x27;s the downside?

I wonder what the real story is. A lot of questions, that if true make it look bad, but if those are just random guesses with no basis in fact? Then its just a hit piece.

Is there somewhere a clear indication that the extent of the relationship with Phizer or GSK was misrepresented to reporters by someone from Theranos?

Since there&#x27;s so much interest in unicorn valuations today, and Theranos is a prominent unicorn, anyone wondering about the potential implications of all this news on Theranos&#x27; valuation might find it useful to look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals, a publicly-traded company (ticker: VRX).<p>It is facing a number of issues, a few of which have led some to speculate that it could become pharma&#x27;s version of Enron[1]. In July, VRX hit a high above $260. Today it&#x27;s trading at less than $110.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;27&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;is-valeant-pharmaceuticals-the-next-enron.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;27&#x2F;opinion&#x2F;is-valeant-pharmac...</a>

I seem to detect the familiar odor of negative PR wafting over this entire series of articles. The New Yorker has one of the most famously rigorous fact checking policies in journalism. Things rarely ever slip past them. Companies like Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp have immense amounts of revenue to lose to a new, more efficient entrant like Theranos. No surprise they would go negative to undermine a new competitor. As far as the company ferreting out journalistic mistakes and correcting them, the onus should be on the media to get the story right.

So Theranos definitely worked with Pfizer and probably worked with GSK.<p>I am not a Theranos apologist but this is lousy reporting.

hopefully this isn&#x27;t an example of a biotech startup embracing the silicon valley &#x27;fake it until you make it&#x27; mentality.

Dead unicorn list<p>1. Homejoy<p>2. Theranos<p>3. ....

&quot;Fake it till you make it.&quot;

The Emperor&#x27;s New Clothes: the Emperor is wearing nothing at all. What a sham company.