Theranos–the drama and examination continues

The latest chapters:

Theranos’ boards–the advisory board chock full of Blast From The Past political figures like George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Bill Frist and Henry Kissinger–and a governing board–are standing by CEO/founder Elizabeth Holmes. Of course, they have essentially no choice, because Ms Holmes utterly and completely controls the company in the Silicon Valley Manner. The governing board, split off from the advisory board after The Troubles started last October–consists of Ms. Holmes, COO Sunny Balwani, Riley Bechtel of the eponymous construction firm, retired Marine Corps General James “Warrior Monk” Mattis and David Boies, prominently featured in both articles below. Mr Boies is politically well wired and the kind of attorney you call in when you are facing Big Trouble and need Big Defense–or Offense. These boards of course bear responsibility for the governance of the company, including fiduciary, and the actions being taken by CMS, the US Attorney’s office in San Francisco and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may be making for some sleepless nights. New York Times, Vanity Fair (which overlaps the NYT article)

Trust But Verify is the extraordinarily apt ‘eyebrow’ on this ‘rise and fall’ Quartz article reviewing l’affaire Theranos by a professor of medicine at Dartmouth College. For the non-scientists among us, it gives a layman’s explanation on why venous blood for most tests is needed versus fingerpricks (the latter mixes blood and tissue fluid, and doesn’t accurately measure large molecules such as proteins and lipids–but fine for the smaller blood glucose molecules, as testing diabetics know). It also touches on the Icahn Institute/Mount Sinai study [TTA 26 April, see comment] and points to the Smoking Gun of boards largely not constituted of those with medical or biochemical expertise.

Update: Bloomberg explores a POV in an opinion piece that blood tests are inherently variable, and only one factor in a proper diagnosis. Theranos’ promises to run multiple blood tests on a tiny quantity of blood are not only suspect but also that the “assumption that succeeding in this quest would improve public health” is specious indeed. Theranos and the Blood Testing Delusion

The stakes are high, and getting higher, for Ms Holmes, indeed.

[Ed. Donna’s comment below our earlier article, Theranos’ triple whammy: CMS, DOJ and SEC, addresses some concerns our Readers may have about our coverage. While we are a website interpreting the news and the Editors generally refer to multiple published sources in an article to supply various points of view, we also express our opinions. We try our level best to be fair, to stay in good humor and buttress our points. When you the Reader has a point to add, differs with our interpretation, or believes that your Editors are hanging too far out on that swaying limb, please feel free to comment. We do have a Comments policy which isn’t onerous…it’s posted here.]
Categories: Latest News.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>