Theranos 2.0
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
sergeiai.substack.comOtherstory
skepticalnegative
Debate
20/100
TheranosStartup FundingBiotechnology
Key topics
Theranos
Startup Funding
Biotechnology
The article 'Theranos 2.0' on Sergeiai's Substack raises concerns about a potentially problematic startup, with HN commenters questioning the article's credibility and interpretation of financial data.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
7m
Peak period
3
0-1h
Avg / period
3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 6, 2025 at 11:45 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 6, 2025 at 11:52 AM EST
7m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 6, 2025 at 12:26 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45837183Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 7:55:25 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
After clicking the link the 404 number is clearly the total amount of money raised, not a burn rate:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/burnrate.asp
I'm thinking don't take this article or writer seriously.
The press release he linked to couldn't be more clear as to what the $404m number was in regards to. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20251103432446/en/Hip...
Another quote from the article:
> What’s worse, more than 80% of AI-guided calls, Hippocratic’s main product, come from a single client—likely another one of Munjal’s or Hemant’s buddies. The company’s burn rate now stands at $404M.
"likely another one of Munjal’s or Hemant’s buddies"? wtf, is it, or is it not? what kind of analysis is this?