[kwisatzh]

I don't think so. People behind Theranos from the VCs to the media are too powerful. Nothing much would change, I reckon.

[w1ntermute]

Rupert Murdoch is also very powerful, and he's no doubt personally OK'd this WSJ-led takedown of Theranos, even though Kissinger and pals can't be too happy.

[randycupertino]

I've been very impressed with the WSJ coverage of Theranos. The same reporters broke the CMS Medicaid Fraud in 2014 and won a Pulitzer Prize. http://www.wsjplus.com/invites/medicare

[mnglkhn2]

I think WSJ got to play the role where they finally pull the trigger on this company, to help it move along to its demise. Sometimes you hope the management and the board get the message and unwind things when the reality shows you that that particular game is done. And if they don't, then somebody has to come along and provide the kick.

Theranos is done, for all intents and purposes: no proven new technology and nothing interesting at all on the business execution side. Just pure founder ambition and aggressive PR/marketing. Not enough to string things along too much.

[CPLX]

> Rupert Murdoch is also very powerful, and he's no doubt personally OK'd this WSJ-led takedown of Theranos

You're aware that you're accusing the editors and reporters at the WSJ with a massive violation of professional ethics right? Is that your intent?

[escape_goat]

I may be mistaken, but I took the intent to be ironic speech. A happy accident, if not.