The idea of a “unicorn” — a company valued by venture capitalists at more than a billion dollars — is so seductive that some whole industries use it as a benchmark without understanding its irony. The mania of Silicon Valley is so great that the venture capital firms even got tired of “only” looking for unicorn companies, so they coined the painfully stupid word “decacorn,” which means “valued as 10 unicorns.”
When your aspirations are so disconnected from reality that even unicorns do not do it for you anymore, this is a clear sign that you’ve been drinking the Kool Aid.
The company Theranos has been the darling of Silicon Valley for years because it promises to “disrupt” healthcare testing, with disruption defined as the classic trifecta: that it will be cheaper, faster and better than the traditional ways.
Illustration: Mountain People
Theranos’ breakthrough technology claims to use just pinpricks of blood to get the results you used to need whole vials for. Also the tests get results incredibly fast, and would be rolled out at chain pharmacies across the US, changing the shape of medical testing forever. Did I mention that the tests would also be incredibly cheap?
It is claims like this, and support from venture capital firms, that have driven Theranos to a US$9 billion valuation. It is not intuitive that all this talk of valuation is simply calculated based on how much venture capital firms have invested. In other words, we say a company is “valued” at US$9 billion, and then act as though this is actual real money, but that number is based on nothing except what a venture capital firm felt the company was worth in a bet on the future.
MYTHS EXPOSED
The Oct. 15 Wall Street Journal expose of Theranos explodes the mythology of the company. Insiders who spoke to the Journal allege that out of the 240 kinds of tests it currently performs, the “pinprick” technology lauded as the linchpin of their strategy was only used for a tiny fraction of its testing.
Worse yet, there have been complaints to regulators from inside the company that their revolutionary tests are not giving results that agree with traditional testing, and that Theranos has been burying those unwanted results.
What has been blown open, again, is how little we truly know. Even though Theranos received regulatory approval, it is not clear at all if anyone truly knows how accurate their tests are.
The company responded to the story by stating: “Theranos’ technology is reviewed by regulators, proven in the field, and praised by leaders in the industry and doctors and individuals that we serve.”
This is why it is so important for us to sniff out unicorns when they make their way into our lives, and view them with the suspicion a mythological beast deserves.
Yes, Uber connects people and drivers — but it also short-circuits labor protections. Yes, Airbnb connects people for short term stays — but it also upends hotel regulations.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and tech companies need to stop pretending they have discovered a way to both have and eat their cake through “sharing.”
Despite all these well-worn warning signs, the allegations against Theranos still shocked its many defenders.
A lot of the hype about Theranos is driven by its narrative: It has the young brilliant founder, Elizabeth Holmes, a Stanford dropout who founded the company at 19 and has a penchant for black turtlenecks. It has the cute origin story, too. You see, Holmes is afraid of needles, and it is that fear drove her to develop the pin-prick technology. And of course, the special technology that runs the special tests is called Edison, because when you’re making a mythology, a dollop of US exceptionalism never hurts.
Holmes has been on the cover of Fortune, profiled in the New Yorker and covered in all the right places. The fact that on paper she is worth billions causes her to be taken very seriously, because that is how this culture functions: Authority is created by money. From Ted talks to tech salons, she has been a prominent presence, and some have believed that her company could become the Google of healthcare testing.
And she fulfills all our personal checkmarks for the mythological quirks of genius. She does not date, is a vegan, sleeps very little, quotes Jane Austen by heart, works nonstop, dresses like Steve Jobs and as the New Yorker helpfully informs us: “Several times a day she drinks a pulverized concoction of cucumber, parsley, kale, spinach, romaine lettuce and celery.”
She sounds like someone who is tremendously fun to have at Scrabble night, and absolutely otherworldly; in fact, she sounds like a unicorn.
However, unlike mythical creatures, the allegations against her company are very real, and very ugly. Healthcare is not a new iPhone; people’s lives are on the line.
Employees allege in the Journal piece that some of the potassium levels seen in Theranos’ tests are so high that the person would have to be dead to give those results.
COMPARISON TEST
All this attention even caused Jean-Louis Gassee, a former Apple executive, to do a comparison test of his own with a blood test he is required to take monthly. Over two days having his blood tested traditionally and by Theranos yielded wildly different readings.
Gassee’s results are anecdotal, but it bears noting that this is not a beta program. He could check it out because Theranos is in use at pharmacies right now, and people use it every day to get real test results.
The company’s response has been to deny the allegations and to call the Wall Street Journal a tabloid. When that did not work, it published a rebuttal, but critics argue that it should publish its data in peer-reviewed journals if it wants to address the questions raised by the Journal.
This is the standard model of rapacious capitalism, fueled and developed in the tech sector. If medical testing were treated differently, it would damage its ability to “disrupt.”
How can Theranos be a decacorn if it does not deliver world-changing tests immediately at incredibly low cost?
There has to be unbearable pressure for the tests to work and work well, and if they do not perform perfectly, bury any dissent.
In retrospect, so much about Theranos seems suspect — the secretiveness of the company, the choice to have a majority of men like former US secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz on the board of directors instead of health professionals, and the idea that a college dropout could found a company that could be the fountainhead from which a new way of doing all our medical testing springs forth.
Also, it is never wise to trust people who drink kale several times a day.
IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR
The marketplace is as irrational as we are. It wants to believe the story that it wants to hear, and we all want unicorns to exist. That is why they are so lovely to us — because they exist only in the mind’s eye, in our dreams. We all want the world to be as simple as coding an app. We want to believe it is possible to codify all the variables, then address them one by one and then solve the equation.
Theranos is a perfect tech company name — it sounds mysterious, Greek and portentous. In Greek mythology Thanatos is Death. Could it be Death’s little-known brother, a minor Greek deity responsible for prescriptions and blood tests?
The reality is more prosaic. It has no larger mythology at all. It is simply an amalgam of the words “therapy” and “diagnosis.” That is it.
It sounds like it means a lot more than it actually does.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS