TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Elizabeth Holmes is on trial for fraud, but don't forget about her VC enablers

135 点作者 xojoc超过 3 年前

16 条评论

carlosdp超过 3 年前
For the 1000th time, a total of 0 (zero) VCs that most people would associate with "silicon valley" invested in Theranos, and the board was all made up of political and business figures like Kissinger.
评论 #28955994 未加载
评论 #28955958 未加载
评论 #28956020 未加载
评论 #28956877 未加载
评论 #28956153 未加载
andi999超过 3 年前
Looks like victim blaming. While this might be justified, the article doesnt give enough substance to do so. Also I disagree that Holmes is a scapegoat here (expect if you could make a case that she is not liable for her actions).
评论 #28956028 未加载
baryphonic超过 3 年前
&gt; Clinical labs are not regulated by the FDA, but fall under a far less arduous regulation known as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, or CLIA.<p>I know a bit about the clinical laboratory environment through a close relation. In fact, that person was the first clue I had that Theranos was BS. (This was before the WSJ article or any of the whistle blowers had come forward.)<p>Clinical laboratories are so resource constrained that FDA regulation would literally kill them. And many may not realize this, but 75%+ of any diagnosis is actually done by the lab. Care teams make hypotheses and labs reject them.<p>I feel somewhat sympathetic to this article&#x27;s thesis, that these &quot;fraud&quot; laws are meant more as a bailout for rich and powerful people as a way to pin blame on a scape goat. A regular person defrauded by a bank or some other professional would have no hope of bringing their abuser to a criminal trial. But demonizing then CLIA loophole as if it is some ghastly deviation only fixed by the Powerful and Mighty FDA seems short-sighted.<p>Again, keep in mind that basically all lab scientists, all medical researchers who investigate lab procedures and all of the academics who study this and teach the next generation said Theranos was BS long before the government or press.<p>No one listened to them.
评论 #28956760 未加载
piker超过 3 年前
Stupid article.<p>&gt; Many diagnostic startup companies use this loophole to bypass the FDA’s rigorous clinical study and validation requirements which, on average, take three to seven years.<p>Then:<p>&gt; Why didn’t any of the investors simply require Theranos to submit all their tests and the hardware platform to the FDA?
dig1超过 3 年前
How many of us heard this story: company founders smell something where money can be earned, start a company, hire a bunch of people and start spreading all the bells and whistles of the tech company have, but actually, it wasn&#x27;t yet developed. I heard numerous times when founders&#x2F;CEOs of companies I worked before announced that &quot;we&quot; have something, but we (engineering) didn&#x27;t even hear for that. The problems start when those promises have to be met.<p>I can&#x27;t say I blame her for this, but I&#x27;m amazed how she managed to get funds without proper due diligence. For serious investments, VCs usually go through everything and have a good nose to smell bullsh*t. I guess (for this case) it was a good reference from influential individuals and politicians that probably (in this or that way) influenced VCs judgments.
评论 #28956836 未加载
评论 #28956960 未加载
评论 #28956515 未加载
评论 #28956751 未加载
评论 #28957571 未加载
评论 #28956363 未加载
xyzelement超过 3 年前
I have a vivid memory about the first time I found out about Theranos and Holmes. It was in the business school setting, and the point the professor was making was about how cool it is that a young woman is disturbing an old industry. Not the science, not the business, but the age and gender of the protagonist.<p>It struck me as a bit weird intellectually - DEI is important but let&#x27;s first establish that the thing being done is great, and then second take a look at who&#x27;s doing it. It seemed like this short circuited in the speaker&#x27;s mind because it was such a cool narrative. I wonder if that happened more broadly - it&#x27;s a story that you easily wish were true!
评论 #28957126 未加载
评论 #28956973 未加载
hatmatrix超过 3 年前
Walgreens did hire someone to do due diligence, and they ignored his warnings.
评论 #28956968 未加载
JCM9超过 3 年前
I remember at the time so many experts I knew in the field would say the Theranos claims were total BS and what she speaks of was tried and doesn’t work for X, Y, and Z reason. A science company board full of people without a science background was also a giant red flag. There were very much some she wasn’t fooling, but the broader media-sphere, PR engine, and high profile folks without a technical background bought the whole thing hook, like and sinker.<p>In that way it was a textbook con. Avoid those that would sniff you out and focus on those that will be gullible to your play.
评论 #28957122 未加载
评论 #28957159 未加载
评论 #28956937 未加载
achow超过 3 年前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;3NUps" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;3NUps</a>
easytiger超过 3 年前
Throwback to 2015 letter to the editor in fortune rebuffing the stories they published about Theranos<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;20&#x2F;letter-to-the-editor-theranos-responds&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;fortune.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;20&#x2F;letter-to-the-editor-theranos...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;NE7NB" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;NE7NB</a><p>Really quite something.<p>Original story: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;BpOhV" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;BpOhV</a><p>And the even more original glowing and fawning cover story they did on Holmes in 2014: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;XN6i6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.md&#x2F;XN6i6</a><p>&gt; <i>Precisely how Theranos accomplishes all these amazing feats is a trade secret. Holmes will only say–and this is more than she has ever said before–that her company uses “the same fundamental chemical methods” as existing labs do. Its advances relate to “optimizing the chemistry” and “leveraging software” to permit those conventional methods to work with tiny sample volumes.</i><p>Interesting how that reads in retrospect<p>&gt; <i>Holmes counters that because, as noted, her tests employ “the same fundamental chemical methods” as existing tests, peer-review publication of validation studies is both unnecessary and inappropriate.</i><p>Incredibly arrogant to the end fits well with her past behaviour<p>&gt; <i>Theranos, which does not buy any analyzers from third parties, is therefore in a unique position. While it would need FDA approval to sell its own analyzers to other labs, it doesn’t do that. It uses its analyzers only in its own CMS-certified lab. All its tests are therefore LDTs, effectively exempt from FDA oversight.</i>
roopawl超过 3 年前
Are we ever going to start talking about Stanford’s connection to this and related?
评论 #28956969 未加载
fergie超过 3 年前
Of course, and equally: don&#x27;t absolve her of guilt because she is a privileged white woman.
HKH2超过 3 年前
I haven&#x27;t forgotten about her domestic abuse claims. Is she still pursuing that route?
评论 #28956301 未加载
trident5000超过 3 年前
What kind of psychopath has a baby right before a trial that may send her away to prison.
评论 #28957182 未加载
alfiedotwtf超过 3 年前
Afraid to ask, but wouldn&#x27;t the VCs be victims of her fraud rather than enablers?
Grustaf超过 3 年前
Is the article trying to say that the investors somehow wanted or at least tolerated that Holmes skirted the rules and scammed patients? That would seem incredibly short sighted.<p>It&#x27;s much more likely that she misled investors, and isn&#x27;t that exactly what the lawsuit is about?<p>&gt; This dismal success rate is why venture capitalists historically have rarely invested in these companies. So why then did they collectively put $1.3 billion in Theranos?<p>&gt; Greed.<p>Well in that sense, most venture capital investment stems from &quot;greed&quot;, but surely that&#x27;s the whole point, to leverage the &quot;greed&quot; of risk loving investors into funding new ventures?