SF poop-testing startup, once compared to Theranos, charged in $60M fraud scheme

Re:SF poop-testing startup, once compared to Theranos, charg... by breck on Sunday March 21, 2021 @11:47PM (#26536653)

I was excited by the Theranos idea. I was excited by the uBiome idea (and even attempted to be a customer!). But obviously both went poof. I want to know how this could happen. What are the bigger problems in the industry? If you think these 2 are rare examples, I would call them minor compared to many of the companies in the space.

Common factors seem to be: secrecy, and sticking to the old mindset of #ImaginaryProperty business models (patents, ndas, copyrights, et cetera).

I want to see the visions espoused by Theranos and uBiome come to fruition. There are *not* a lot of great examples of good biotech companies to emulate. AFAIK, there hasn't been a "don't be evil" moment in biotech.

Some biotech/healthcare company needs to come out and say "fck the old ways, they aren't working—Americans are not healthier, costs are up, and we still haven't solved cancer", and take a radical new approach of openness, collaboration, and forget about the abosolute horsesht practices of secrecy, #imaginaryproperty, and putting patients far down on the list of priorities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF poop-testing startup, once compared to Theranos, charg... by refurb on Monday March 22, 2021 @04:27AM (#26538114)

I’m not sure you have great insights as to how the biotech market operates today because the basis of your arguments aren’t really factual.

“Haven't solved cancer”? Come on man!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF poop-testing startup, once compared to Theranos, charg... by alexanderskates on Monday March 22, 2021 @04:23AM (#26538093)

Given the cost of developing a single drug can be in the billions of dollars, what financial incentive is there for companies to spend so much on R&D and clinical development if there is no commercial exclusivity rights at the end of the pipeline? You could nationalise drug development but that is a lot of risk to burden the taxpayer with.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF poop-testing startup, once compared to Theranos, charg... by fastball on Monday March 22, 2021 @11:40AM (#26542367)

What financial incentive is there for drug companies to ever cure anything when instead they can just develop drugs that alleviate symptoms, which you must then purchase in-perpetuity?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF poop-testing startup, once compared to Theranos, charg... by breck on Monday March 22, 2021 @11:58AM (#26542613)

This is the best retort. I'm going to start using this, thanks.

The one I usually go with is "It actually costs $1T to develop a drug. $999B in basic research paid by US taxpayers and $1B in just enough frivolous novelty for the bigpharma company to get a patent racket going".

[ Parent | on HN ]