News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on How Theranos Misled Me. Parent comment

Re:How Theranos Misled Me by dkbrk on Sunday December 20, 2015 @11:42PM (#10769617)
It definitely appears that they had some initial technology which looked promising but has failed to mature into a viable replacement for commercially available tests.

What I'm wondering is how well Theranos' investors did their due dilligence. It's not completely incredible that a VC might fund a company based on its team and market position even if its core technology isn't a viable product of a long-term business, but it would be somewhat surprising.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Theranos Misled Me by danieltillett on Monday December 21, 2015 @01:02AM (#10769824)
If I had to bet I would say Elizabeth had something promising at the beginning, but it just didn’t pan out and she got herself in very tight bind. It is fundamentally impossible to get results to the level of accuracy the FDA requires from a single fingerpick for most assays. It is not an issue of sensitivity, but that there is too much variability due tissue and capillary effects.

The one thing we can all agree on is it should make a good movie when the dust finally settles - the supporting cast Elizabeth has will make the film a must see alone.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Theranos Misled Me by Pyxl101 on Monday December 21, 2015 @05:08AM (#10770409)
It seems possible that there wasn't much initial due diligence nor a working product at the beginning:

> Tim Draper, the venture capitalist, said Holmes, who was friends with his daughter growing up, is the first entrepreneur he knows who kept quiet about her business

From what I understand, Tim Draper, of DFJ Venture invested in Holmes when she was a Stanford student.

> DFJ, formerly known as Draper Fisher Jurvetson, became one of Theranos’ first investors. The firm doesn’t have a seat on the Theranos board, Jurvetson said. “We wrote a $500,000 check before anyone else, but she’s been somewhat independent and has been going at it all on her own, so I don’t have the answer to your question,” Jurvetson said when asked whether DFJ would invest again.

It seems most likely to me that this investment was based on her personality and/or personal connection, rather than due to a technology breakthrough she had made at the time. If she had something at the time, then it's taken 11 years to get where they are now, which is not having any publishable research demonstrating the results. My guess based on the situation is that she was charismatic and asked for money to go start solving the problem, from scratch, and people gave her money because of her charisma and because they judged the problem sufficiently tractable. It seems unlikely that she had more than an idea while still in university.

It looks like DFJ has not participated in the most recent investing rounds (?)

http://www.mercurynews.com/michelle-quinn/ci_26147649/quinn-...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-19/early-ther...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Theranos Misled Me by randycupertino on Monday December 21, 2015 @06:35AM (#10770624)
> It seems most likely to me that this investment was based on her personality and/or personal connection

isn't that how most founders get their initial $$? At least the ones I know. One got his money from his parents because his dad is a world famous cardiologist and the other one because he was friends with a bunch of people on the board of YC.

Heck, even the go pro founder got a ton of $$ from his parents.

Elizabeth holmes was no different.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:How Theranos Misled Me by pessimizer on Monday December 21, 2015 @11:23AM (#10771788)
Entrepreneurs don’t have a special gene for risk—they come from families with money

http://qz.com/455109/entrepreneurs-dont-have-a-special-gene-...

[ Parent | on HN ]