What began as questions surrounding Elizabeth Holmes’ novel technologies, has evolved to include inspection deficiencies for clinical operations at her Theranos lab (with immediate jeopardy to patients), and allegations of fraud.
For a review of our coverage of Theranos and diagnostic lab testing (With more to come on Investing in the Clinical Laboratory Landscape):
The best way to innovate is to look at things from different perspectives… in different ways. That’s what Elizabeth Holmes did, with the promise to disrupt and improve lab testing…
The disruptive nature of what Ms. Holmes proposed – and her passion to achieve it – was the beautiful appeal. The technology was innovative. The business model was smart. The board was stellar. And the CEO was brilliant. Forbes and The Wall Street Journal agreed, and the company was valued at more than $9 Billion. Elizabeth was essentially “changing the rules” with technology and a business model that circumvented the customary confines of typical clinical/medical laboratories. Or so it seemed. So what happened?
If you’re wondering why Theranos’ results are yet the subject of debate, let’s start with three questions:
- Does Elizabeth Holmes’ technology actually work (i.e. where is the science / proof)?
- Does Theranos still hold the promise of a $9 billion valuation?
- What does this mean for patients and clinicians?
continue reading →