From a funding standpoint the first question that comes to mind is, "How did this happen?"
Theranos to date has raised $88.4M. The Series C was raised in 2010 following a 4-year hiatus.
In the ten years since the founding of Theranos, they were unable to hire anyone who would help them figure all this shit out?
It seems insane to me that a well respected venture firm like DFJ, who invested in their Series A,B and C, would not have done their due diligence and understood where Theranos would become vulnerable. Everyone knew that government regulators would be involved since day one.
I am bullish on Elizabeth. She is obviously extremely intelligent and charismatic but I'm bearish on her investors. Step one of funding should have been building a blood test that actually works and step two is getting that $88M test approved.
Without knowing the whole story it's hard to form an opinion about the situation but I am super interested in the psychology of how all "this" happened.
> It seems insane to me that a well respected venture firm like DFJ, who invested in their Series A,B and C, would not have done their due diligence
She's childhood best friends with Tim Draper's daughter.[0]
It really is that simple. If you saw a state construction contract going to a firm controlled by a friend of the Chinese Premiere's daughter you wouldn't be confused at all right? So why should anyone be confused now?
> Clinkle had a polished demo that came before things like Apple Pay, said one former employee, who declined to be named. But most importantly that person added, Duplan “was charismatic when he wanted to be” and could “raise money in absurd abundance.”
You really want to change the world? Forget being a programmer, learn to be be charismatic.
More like learn to be a wealthy, elite, and well-connected.
These founders are as privileged as Bill Gates but totally lacking his work ethic and sincere passion. They're pedigreed out the ass, so those involved (including themselves) think they're actually good. In fact they just seem like they should be.
So the VCs keep pumping more and more money into them, knowing that at least people won't blame them so much when they fail, given how elite the founders are. It's easier to keep funding them than to admit you were fooled. That's the mystery behind why they burn through such huge quantities of money.
I wouldn't say that either Theranos or Clinkle have changed the world.
I would say that Apple, Google, EBay, Uber, Android, and Twitter have, but Steve Wozniak, Larry Page, Pierre Omidyar, Garrett Camp, Andy Rubin, and Evan Williams are far from charismatic.
This is more an example of "You can fool some of the people all the time or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." Charisma can help fool a critical mass of people early on, but once you try to expand to a product all the people use all the time, you'll fall flat on your face. Build something useful and then you don't have to fool anyone.
I don't think you picked up on Jeff's snark. I read it as "the key to successfully getting funding is to be charismatic" and "successfully getting funding" is currently synonymous with the sentiment that you would be "changing the world".
The author gave a great talk in the Stanford Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders lecture series. She opens her talk with a delightful story about Marilyn Monroe, and the ability to flip charisma on and off like a light switch. Watch it and learn you some charisma.
It seems to be endemic to these biotech darlings: 23 & Me pulled the same thing and faced the same consequence. They thought as a tech prima donna that they did not have to adhere to the FDAs medical device regulations (or even publish efficacy data). They got smacked in the mouth - serves them right.
23&Me was presenting patients with studies based on genes they actually found in the samples. They got busted because the studies weren't clinical trials done by the FDA. I've got a rare genetic disease for which there is no FDA approved test: too few patients, and it's 100% penetrant, so the geneticist just looked at the sequence. 23 & Me wasn't so different from that.
Taking your sequence data to a counselor is a solid use of 23&Me data. RE: risk prediction - they need to show efficacy & describe methodology in a clinical trial. Otherwise one is just taking their word for it that your risk is what they say it is -- or that they didn't mix up your sample/lose chain of custody.
23 & Me's tests worked, though. And it's possible for a reasonable person to believe that the regulations they violated are BS. Their actions were arguably no more inherently immoral than Uber's "disruption" of the taxi incumbents and their captive regulators.
The ignorance of, and/or disregard for regulatory standards is the common thread here.
Also, How do you know they work? They got slapped for giving people risks of disease using genetic data over the internet -- a method which was not peer-reviewed or shown to be accurate and precise. That is not bullshit - that is effective regulation.
The saddest thing is - even if you are right, all the FDA asked 23&Me to do was file a premarketing authorization -- something that many tiny companies do all the time to buy time to generate solid evidence.
"They got slapped for giving people risks of disease using genetic data over the internet -- a method which was not peer-reviewed or shown to be accurate and precise."
So if they delivered the results by mail or phone call they would have been in the clear? That is bullshit.
Nope. It doesn't matter if the results came by courier pigeon: The test has not been validated in controlled trials or even published in peer-reviewed literature -- let alone approved by the FDA. If it were so simple don't you think they would have obtained approval by now? The sad thing is any idiot can invent a glucose meter and file their PMA properly -- but a company essentially backed by Google blows it horribly.
I disagree with your opinion on the CEO. Intelligent? clearly, but also weird to the point that it's uncomfortable to watch her speak, and she's clearly very bad at handling the press.
Theranos to date has raised $88.4M. The Series C was raised in 2010 following a 4-year hiatus.
In the ten years since the founding of Theranos, they were unable to hire anyone who would help them figure all this shit out?
It seems insane to me that a well respected venture firm like DFJ, who invested in their Series A,B and C, would not have done their due diligence and understood where Theranos would become vulnerable. Everyone knew that government regulators would be involved since day one.
I am bullish on Elizabeth. She is obviously extremely intelligent and charismatic but I'm bearish on her investors. Step one of funding should have been building a blood test that actually works and step two is getting that $88M test approved.
Without knowing the whole story it's hard to form an opinion about the situation but I am super interested in the psychology of how all "this" happened.
Thoughts?