F

or weeks, biotech billionaire Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong has been taking to social media to portray himself as a valiant warrior against cancer, unfairly maligned by the press.

He and his diagnostics company, NantHealth, have strenuously denied reports that they reaped benefits from a $12 million gift he made to support medical research at the University of Utah.

This is a STAT Plus article and is only available to STAT Plus subscribers.
To read the full story, subscribe to STAT Plus or log in to your account.
Good news: your first 30 days are on us.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • This is old new a month ago being rehashed. I am baffled by why a multi-billionaire who signed Buffett’s GivingPledge to give away majority of his wealth suddenly turn into a con artist at age of 65.

    This guys is controversial, no doubt, partly because he is a self-made man and he doesn’t seem to give a damn about what other people think.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/09/10/medicines-manhattan-project-can-the-worlds-richest-doctor-fix-health-care/#5c32e973ac3f

    He could have asked U. of Utah to name 5 buildings with his name for his donation, but instead, he asks U. of Utah to try out his product that will benefit their patients. Gray area, but is it because he wants to make extra couple bucks or does he really believe that his product will one day cure cancer? He is also probably not the first philanthropist or foundation who’s “self-dealing”. The Soon-Shiong bashing (10 articles on STAT) seems excessive. Maybe there is alternative motive as the other commenter pointed out.

    We call guys like Elon Musk (he wants to colonize space!) visionaries, but Soon-Shiong as “showman” because he claims curing cancer is possible. Watching his interviews, he sounded quite down to earth to me.

    Anyway, let’s hope he finds that algorithm.

  • The question should be asked where Rebecca is getting this information from? She has no investigative journalism experience, and very little journalism experience and is being fed this information from sources simply trying to malign Soon Shiong. The likely candidates are Tronc, where he is fighting a nasty battle for control, and short sellers who have made large profits on the declining price of NantKwest and NantHealth. In the era of email hacks, the integrity of a writer who is being fed stolen emails and cherry-picks snippets of information should be questioned. But honestly, I have to thank her, as I am buying shares of NantKwest on the cheap and will continue to do so. So thanks Rebecca for being so naive. I wonder if this comment will stay up on the site, or if Stat will pull it down since they really dont care about the integrity of their journalism?

    • Not stolen if the emails came from someone who received them. Which is how this happened in the days before hackers.

      People who had either had concerns about the university and its association with NantHealth or investors concerned they are being sold a false narrative, if I may use a Trumpian term.

    • Tina – Her article cites emails circulated at the University AND NantHealth. If she got internal emails from NantHealth, then someone has violated their confidentiality agreement. But the real interesting point is that she got emails from BOTH sources. This points to an email hack, not a single internal source. And for someone to put that effort into it, there is usually a financial incentive. But honestly, if that single quote “It will help our product” is the only quote they could find to implicate Soon Shiong in wrong-doing, then she has absolutely nothing. Will any real news outlet cover this? I doubt it. NantHealth’s response with emails from the physicians demonstrated that Rebecca ignores any facts that contradict her story.

Recommended Stories

Sign up for our biotech newsletter, The Readout

A guide to what’s new in biotech — delivered straight to your inbox every weekday morning.