I’m not saying we should all pile on her in particular; I’m sure it’s not fun to be her right now and I’m sure there are lots of other founders that have done worse and not gotten caught. (One of the perils of being female in the public eye: your scandals are extra scandalous.)
-
Show this thread
-
In general: there’s more to business success than just revenue & user numbers. You can boost those artificially by shady tactics, in the short run. If the apparent growth is totally out of whack with what you know of the userbase and their needs, something is fishy.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
“Ah yes, health insurers, well known for their willingness to pay for experimental and elective treatments” — wait, no, scratch that, reverse it!
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
I see the impulse to go “ok, I can’t see how this helps those customers, it makes no sense, but they’re buying, so the company must be doing something right.” But there’s always another possibility: that it’s fraud.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
The natural comparison to uBiome is Theranos, because that’s another female-founded health-tech fraud. But the types of fraud are actually very different.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Theranos’s tech would have been unquestionably valuable (to patients, drugstores, insurers, etc) had it worked. And something like it probably could have worked. It just didn’t. Elizabeth Holmes lied to everyone about the tech, and went to extreme lengths to avoid discovery.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
I get the impression that Theranos' tech could work for some applications if it was competently executed. There must be a huge amount of useful information in a capillary blood sample, and probably there is some level of tech that could extract it. Yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RokoMijicUK
That’s what I thought but apparently
@halvorz disagrees.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @RokoMijicUK
my understanding (to be clear this is not my area of expertise) is that the tiny volumes of blood used inevitably lead to wildly variable results, especially if you want to run multiple tests from a single draw
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @halvorz @s_r_constantin
I doubt that there's literally no info in that blood. Maybe one needs to rethink all the tests. Instead of testing one compound, make a model that predicts things using all the available info and a big, sophisticated ML model. BTW, would I look good in a black turtleneck?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
You need a biobank or hospital partnership to make that happen, but maybe!
-
-
But then you run into the same problem as uBiome. If you’re not measuring the levels of a specific molecule, but your own composite score, then you have to prove to the satisfaction of doctors and insurers that this score can be used to make actual medical decisions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @halvorz
I don't have a good intuition for how hard the regulatory hurdle is. But it's obvious to me that a composite score will outperform [M] for any single molecule M.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.