I&#x27;m in two minds about this kerfuffle.<p>On the one hand, you have a mediagenic, celebrity CEO with little relevant qualifications or experience (and a penchant for posing for photographs in Steve Jobs-style turtlenecks) who raised millions at a stratospheric valuation on the promise of revolutionising healthcare and disrupting the lab testing industry, while making lofty claims about &quot;scientific advancement&quot;, but has ultimately failed to deliver on that promise, while appearing to erect a facade designed to conceal the fact that the service they&#x27;re offering isn&#x27;t all that different from the incumbents&#x27;, and deflecting questions about the technology they (claim to) have developed. The suggestion that they broke federal rules by fudging proficiency-testing is the icing on the cake.<p>On the other hand, the suggestion that they broke the rules is merely an allegation. On the topic of the company&#x27;s progress towards it&#x27;s stated goals, science is hard and a ten-plus-year time horizon doesn&#x27;t appear unreasonable for achieving the objective Theranos is aiming for. Plus, they <i>have</i> successfully rolled out the HSV1 test. It&#x27;s seems reasonable to expect that more will follow.<p>I am instinctively skeptical of founders who seem to focus more on cultivating their media profile than on getting their heads down and actually delivering. There <i>are</i> people whose overriding motivation is maximising media exposure but who completely lack the ability to deliver what they promise. Sometimes their behaviour is down to naiveté, over-confidence, self-delusion or a deep-rooted desire for celebrity, fame or recognition (such people seem to wear the CEO &quot;brand&quot; in the same way that others wear Dolce &amp; Gabbana or Prada). Othertimes, they&#x27;re simply con-artists, looking to fleece gullible customers or investors.<p>Given that Theranos has gained FDA approval for the HSV1 test, and the suggestion that they broke federal rules is unproven, I think Holmes deserves the benefit of the doubt. Her principal crime appears to be that she was a bit naive in making overly optimistic promises and embracing the celebrity CEO role, which has made her a target for schadenfreude.