Theranos' Death Rattle

[FartingMonk 3608]

If you want Walgreen just tell them CVS is interested 

[closetojumping 62791]

2 hours ago, bluto said:

They did have rev from Walgreens and Safeway though right?

 

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don’t know. Appears they had some revenue thru them but didn’t Walgreens also invest in them? Did Walgreens just see nothing but FOMO?

The Safeway deal never got off the ground and I do not believe ever generated any revenue accordingly. I guess there’s a shot that the employee guinea pigging generated something, not nothing worth a fresh infusion at the 9/10 year mark of a couple hundred million. 

Walgreens committed $140 million, of which $40 million was an “innovation fee” that was basically an investment. I think the other $100 million had a mutual business purpose associated to the rollout. 

For Safeway, the CEO basically fell in love with her and committed hundreds of millions of dollars to a posh redesign of their in-store health centers with a Theranos cobrand. Then Theranos never rolled out with them. Whoops. 

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned that made me laugh was the Rupert Murdoch stuff in the book. The fucking guy comes across as both a complete boss and a duped old man. As a duped old man, he put in something like $125million late, basically because Holmes successfully wooed him. This is one of the more legendarily savvy businessmen of our time.  Then, she attempts to use the investment as a means to convincing him to shut down the WSJ oncoming story before it broke. He politely declined and let it play out. Then, rather than become embroiled in the legal wrangling once the fraud was evident, he had Theranos buy back his shares for $1. $1 total. And then he took the write-off of the losses against various other gains. 

I was surprised that she was able to dupe these old guys who were all still very lucid. They’d all been around power and powerful women for decades. They’d all been with hotter women and they’d all certainly been around brighter women with better resumes. To boot, some of them had a background in international spycraft. Yet somehow, this lady pulled it over on some really, really famous and powerful dudes. That continues to fascinate me. 

[52-80 19237]

8 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I was surprised that she was able to dupe these old guys who were all still very lucid. They’d all been around power and powerful women for decades. They’d all been with hotter women and they’d all certainly been around brighter women with better resumes. To boot, some of them had a background in international spycraft. Yet somehow, this lady pulled it over on some really, really famous and powerful dudes. That continues to fascinate me. 

imgur

 

[NBMisha 224]

Right.  No one is immune to fallibility.  But what were the conditions that led this group to suspend disbelief?  One possibility is that they just weren't expecting it from this "special" woman.  No, they are supposed to expect shit, regardless.  The bigger the $, the higher the antenna.  Perhaps it is just not expecting them to act the fool  Perhaps we should know better about distiguised dudes like them.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

20 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I was surprised that she was able to dupe these old guys who were all still very lucid. They’d all been around power and powerful women for decades. They’d all been with hotter women and they’d all certainly been around brighter women with better resumes. To boot, some of them had a background in international spycraft. Yet somehow, this lady pulled it over on some really, really famous and powerful dudes. That continues to fascinate me. 

I have thought a bit about this the past week or so. I really think it comes down to greed. George Shultz wasn't trying to fuck Elizabeth Holmes, but he did like the idea of a) owning a meaningful stake in The Next Apple and b) having his name linked, in posterity, to a company that he believed would revolutionize health care.

Apple was such a poor role model for Theranos. Apple didn't have to invent the kind of technologies that Theranos' device(s) required-- at least, as a layman medically and engineering-ly, that's how it seems to me. Apple seemed like it intuitively understood better ways of packaging and presenting technologies that already existed, within reason. Theranos seems like it thought natural law was poorly thought out and should just be changed, because it would be revolutionary if it happened. 

Theranos' other problem seems to be that it was on an artificial timeline. It never had the option to simply work on its technologies until they were viable; from the jump, it overpromised when it could do things and was constantly scrambling to jerry rig some reasonable facsimile of what it was telling people it had already perfected. What a nightmare existence.

Edited March 26, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[DaysOff 7971]

The Safeway deal never got off the ground and I do not believe ever generated any revenue accordingly. I guess there’s a shot that the employee guinea pigging generated something, not nothing worth a fresh infusion at the 9/10 year mark of a couple hundred million. 
Walgreens committed $140 million, of which $40 million was an “innovation fee” that was basically an investment. I think the other $100 million had a mutual business purpose associated to the rollout. 
For Safeway, the CEO basically fell in love with her and committed hundreds of millions of dollars to a posh redesign of their in-store health centers with a Theranos cobrand. Then Theranos never rolled out with them. Whoops. 
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned that made me laugh was the Rupert Murdoch stuff in the book. The fucking guy comes across as both a complete boss and a duped old man. As a duped old man, he put in something like $125million late, basically because Holmes successfully wooed him. This is one of the more legendarily savvy businessmen of our time.  Then, she attempts to use the investment as a means to convincing him to shut down the WSJ oncoming story before it broke. He politely declined and let it play out. Then, rather than become embroiled in the legal wrangling once the fraud was evident, he had Theranos buy back his shares for $1. $1 total. And then he took the write-off of the losses against various other gains. 
I was surprised that she was able to dupe these old guys who were all still very lucid. They’d all been around power and powerful women for decades. They’d all been with hotter women and they’d all certainly been around brighter women with better resumes. To boot, some of them had a background in international spycraft. Yet somehow, this lady pulled it over on some really, really famous and powerful dudes. That continues to fascinate me. 

That's what I don't get. I'm 52 and have pretty low standards, and I don't find her attractive. At all. These guys were mesmerised by this blonde Amazonian creature.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

Just now, DaysOff said:

That's what I don't get. I'm 52 and have pretty low standards, and I don't find her attractive. At all. These guys were mesmerised by this blonde Amazonian creature.

One of the ways Enron snowed people was by implying and sometimes outright stating, "you're either with us or too dumb for the future". That is a winning pitch with a lot of otherwise skeptical people (FoMO)-- you're going to miss out, because you just don't grasp what this much smarter person sees. 

How many of us have ever thought we could revolutionize an industry? How many have acted on thinking that? Now imagine sitting across from someone selling exactly that. Kind of intimidating, no?

And then you factor in the self-fulfilling prophecy-- once she'd roped in one or two suckers, Theranos' value and validity were self-evident; your skepticism is even harder to justify because not only is this seemingly smart person trying to upend an industry based on science you don't understand, but she's got a whole bunch of people who you figure should know better saying she's the real deal. 

It's a real snowball effect. Once she got over a few initial hurdles-- one she had a handful of marks selected and could use them as props-- its momentum was self-propelled. 

But ultimately things that can't go on forever don't. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

7 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I have thought a bit about this the past week or so. I really think it comes down to greed. George Shultz wasn't trying to fuck Elizabeth Holmes, but he did like the idea of a) owning a meaningful stake in The Next Apple and b) having his name linked, in posterity, to a company that he believed would revolutionize health care.

Apple was such a poor role model for Theranos. Apple didn't have to invent the kind of technologies that Theranos' device(s) required-- at least, as a layman medically and engineering-ly, that's how it seems to me. Apple seemed like it intuitively understood better ways of packaging and presenting technologies that already existed, within reason. Theranos seems like it thought natural law was poorly thought out and should just be changed, because it would be revolutionary if it happened. 

Theranos' other problem seems to be that it was on an artificial timeline. It never had the option to simply work on its technologies until they were viable; from the jump, it overpromised when it could do things and was constantly scrambling to jerry rig some reasonable facsimile of what it was telling people it had already perfected. What a nightmare existence.

Great post, particularly the comparison to Apple.  I'm not sure I agree with the "greed" thing, but I think the association part is spot on.

Apple is ultimately an "industrial design" company.  They take basic technologies invented by someone else and package them prettier and nicer and easier to use. And they are damn good at it, but they don't really innovate at the deep level that would have been required of Theranos.

[Trey3216 15355]

27 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I have thought a bit about this the past week or so. I really think it comes down to greed. George Shultz wasn't trying to fuck Elizabeth Holmes, but he did like the idea of a) owning a meaningful stake in The Next Apple and b) having his name linked, in posterity, to a company that he believed would revolutionize health care.

Apple was such a poor role model for Theranos. Apple didn't have to invent the kind of technologies that Theranos' device(s) required-- at least, as a layman medically and engineering-ly, that's how it seems to me. Apple seemed like it intuitively understood better ways of packaging and presenting technologies that already existed, within reason. Theranos seems like it thought natural law was poorly thought out and should just be changed, because it would be revolutionary if it happened. 

Theranos' other problem seems to be that it was on an artificial timeline. It never had the option to simply work on its technologies until they were viable; from the jump, it overpromised when it could do things and was constantly scrambling to jerry rig some reasonable facsimile of what it was telling people it had already perfected. What a nightmare existence.

Kind of like Tesla until they recently mostly got their shit together...

[Nice Guy Eddie 13523]

1 hour ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I have thought a bit about this the past week or so. I really think it comes down to greed. George Shultz wasn't trying to fuck Elizabeth Holmes, but he did like the idea of a) owning a meaningful stake in The Next Apple and b) having his name linked, in posterity, to a company that he believed would revolutionize health care.

Apple was such a poor role model for Theranos. Apple didn't have to invent the kind of technologies that Theranos' device(s) required-- at least, as a layman medically and engineering-ly, that's how it seems to me. Apple seemed like it intuitively understood better ways of packaging and presenting technologies that already existed, within reason. Theranos seems like it thought natural law was poorly thought out and should just be changed, because it would be revolutionary if it happened. 

Theranos' other problem seems to be that it was on an artificial timeline. It never had the option to simply work on its technologies until they were viable; from the jump, it overpromised when it could do things and was constantly scrambling to jerry rig some reasonable facsimile of what it was telling people it had already perfected. What a nightmare existence.

great post. Not to mention that even if Apple has a poorly received product or service, no one is dying over it. When you are taking people's health into your hands, there's another level of responsibility that you need to accept.

[closetojumping 62791]

1 hour ago, SwanderedTalent said:

One of the ways Enron snowed people was by implying and sometimes outright stating, "you're either with us or too dumb for the future". That is a winning pitch with a lot of otherwise skeptical people (FoMO)-- you're going to miss out, because you just don't grasp what this much smarter person sees. 

How many of us have ever thought we could revolutionize an industry? How many have acted on thinking that? Now imagine sitting across from someone selling exactly that. Kind of intimidating, no?

And then you factor in the self-fulfilling prophecy-- once she'd roped in one or two suckers, Theranos' value and validity were self-evident; your skepticism is even harder to justify because not only is this seemingly smart person trying to upend an industry based on science you don't understand, but she's got a whole bunch of people who you figure should know better saying she's the real deal. 

It's a real snowball effect. Once she got over a few initial hurdles-- one she had a handful of marks selected and could use them as props-- its momentum was self-propelled. 

But ultimately things that can't go on forever don't. 

We're all capable of being conned, no doubt, but I feel like these guys being grandpas made them easy marks for a sociopath that looks like a granddaughter. More surprising than even that was the fact that so many employees either drank the koolaid the whole way down, or let her and Balwani bully them for years before they said "fuck it and fuck you". The Ian Gibbons guy killing himself was too fucking much. Quit and go home, dude. If the legal system compels you to speak, speak. You're a genius in your late 60's. Shit. 

I was at a start-up in its early days right after school in Houston, just as the dot.bomb/Enron/Global Crossing/Worldcom/AA stuff swirled together over a few years. That start-up was run by a Stanford wizard who used the "You're either with us, or you're too stupid to win" premise constantly. It was a compelling challenge, but I think the backdrop of what was happening in the business world around us made it easier for the employees to revolt and ultimately oust the lunatic rather than have him take us into the toilet. He didn't own more than 50% of the voting shares though, and that would have certainly mattered. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

In addition to being grandpas, very few people that got conned were at all technical.  It's mostly the technical types that were able to suss out the fraud. 

[PilotsError 2318]

Another amazing thing is how she got voted out as CEO but talked her way back in.  She either blew all of them in that meeting, or they are stupid as fuck.  She doesn't seem bright enough to be that much of a manipulator.

[XYZ 2154]

15 hours ago, Deej said:

Didn't Boies answer the question about whether they were using other machines for blood tests, in the interview with the book's author, with, "Those are trade secrets." Seems like he was playing cover-up.

Yeah, the trade secret was that the Edison machine was vaporware.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

27 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

 

I was at a start-up in its early days right after school in Houston, just as the dot.bomb/Enron/Global Crossing/Worldcom/AA stuff swirled together over a few years. That start-up was run by a Stanford wizard who used the "You're either with us, or you're too stupid to win" premise constantly. It was a compelling challenge, but I think the backdrop of what was happening in the business world around us made it easier for the employees to revolt

Double-edged sword to be sure. Context can definitely help people to be more discerning, or it can make them feel like everyone else is getting rich and they'd better latch on really fucking tight to whatever opportunity comes along. In the latter situation, people who aren't honest with themselves are really vulnerable. They'll shut out evidence and absorb abuse from fucking shitheads like Balwani. 

And, that doesn't just mean people who can't see through bullshit because they're gullible or desperate. These elder statesman types that Holmes conned might not have been as skeptical of their instincts because a lifetime of success makes it really hard to distrust your own gut. 

I am 70% done w the book and MY favorite thing so far is introductory characterization of Balwani-- not just the description of what a tool he was in terms of clothes and taste but the author hit his central character flaw dead-on: he made it rich basically through a stroke of luck and was convinced that was irrefutable evidence that he was smarter than everyone else. There are a million funny aspects to that but my favorite is, the guy cashed out for $40 million if I remember. That's terrific, it's a lot more money than I have, but in the context of Silicon Valley, to be surrounded by high tech and VC and act like $40m is fuck-you-and-your-horse money is hilarious.

[XYZ 2154]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The lawyer's first duty is to the client, not to the public.

Maybe the root of the “discontent” that some posters are expressing toward your explanations is that to many people, a lawyer’s first duty should be to the rule of law, then to the client.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

12 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Maybe the root of the “discontent” that some posters are expressing toward your explanations is that to many people, a lawyer’s first duty should be to the rule of law, then to the client.

Then that is a naive view.  Has "rule of law" become the most hackneyed, meaningless term ever?

The rule of law in the United States is premised on an adversarial system in which lawyers, representing their clients as adversaries, thereby get at the truth.

It's like asking a criminal defense lawyer, "how can you represent guilty people"?  I personally couldn't be a criminal defense lawyer, for a multitude of reasons mostly unrelated to the guilt of clients.  But I understand and value their place in the system.

Edited March 26, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Incredulity 11683]

9 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Maybe the root of the “discontent” that some posters are expressing toward your explanations is that to many people, a lawyer’s first duty should be to the rule of law, then to the client.

lawyers are bound by the rule of law. 

[Beau Vine 54395]

2 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

One of the ways Enron snowed people was by implying and sometimes outright stating, "you're either with us or too dumb for the future". That is a winning pitch with a lot of otherwise skeptical people (FoMO)-- you're going to miss out, because you just don't grasp what this much smarter person sees. 

How many of us have ever thought we could revolutionize an industry? How many have acted on thinking that? Now imagine sitting across from someone selling exactly that. Kind of intimidating, no?

I once turned down a chance to immediately grow $5K into $5M by not wiring my money to a Nigerian prince, whose father, the King of Nigeria, was being held hostage and needed ransom money.  Biggest financial mistake of my life.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Beau Vine

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

I once turned down a chance to immediately grow $5K into $5M by not wiring my money to a Nigerian prince, whose father, the King of Nigeria, was being held hostage and needed ransom money.  Biggest financial mistake of my life.

and now you're stuck here, what a dumbass

[Hagbard Celine 10911]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:14 AM, HenryJames said:

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Hagbard Celine
better

[XYZ 2154]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Then that is a naive view.

Maybe, but I think it’s the proper view. The engineering code of ethics starts off with “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”. For doctors, the Hippocratic oath starts with “first, do no harm”. Are those naive also? Should everyone’s first priority be “the employer”?

[TwiceHorn 31533]

3 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Maybe, but I think it’s the proper view. The engineering code of ethics starts off with “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”. For doctors, the Hippocratic oath starts with “first, do no harm”. Are those naive also? Should everyone’s first priority be “the employer”?

The western world disagrees.  You would too if charged with a crime.

[tbone_ 14148]

Greed. Thirst. Fomo.

[gsoda3 3281]

Great post, particularly the comparison to Apple.  I'm not sure I agree with the "greed" thing, but I think the association part is spot on.
Apple is ultimately an "industrial design" company.  They take basic technologies invented by someone else and package them prettier and nicer and easier to use. And they are damn good at it, but they don't really innovate at the deep level that would have been required of Theranos.

Apple combined the abilities of a phone, computer, and media player and put it all on one device you could hold in one hand. They then came up with the concept of apps and an app store. I feel that was innovative at a deep level.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

5 hours ago, gsoda3 said:

 

 

Apple combined the abilities of a phone, computer, and media player and put it all on one device you could hold in one hand. They then came up with the concept of apps and an app store. I feel that was innovative at a deep level.

 

You're not disagreeing with the premise, though. Apple took existing technologies, mostly, and combined them in a more useful, usable, and pretty way. They didn't invent the concept of an app any more than they invented the concept of a song-- it was the App Store that created the captive user ecosystem you're talking about, and that's brilliant but doesn't have any application to Theranos, which was my thinking in saying Apple made for a poor role model for them.

Saying Apple doesn't innovate is wrong, but saying they don't and haven't innovated at the deep level Theranos needed to is accurate. Think of it this way: Apple never had to overcome any obstacle along the lines of "capillary blood just isn't suitable for the majority of bloodwork doctors order", or "blood is tested in a variety of totally discrete ways and trying to both combine AND miniaturize those methods in a pretty box isn't technologically possible". 

[Pato del Muerto 52572]

AND make the box small enough to claim portability. 

Like with computers and mobile phones, miniaturization happens after technology is developed. 

[Deej 76902]

So the problem was her box was too big?

 

[Buzzrock 14937]

They talked about it a little in the doc, but the other element here was SV hubris. SV firms love to talk about “changing the world” (and the SV HBO series riffed on that a lot), and I bet a lot of these guys just couldn’t resist the opportunity to be heralded as saviors. None of them had any medical background and were used to wunderkinds making technology work, so they bought it.

Problem is, if a 3D printer or an iMac malfunctions it doesn’t spray Hep C everywhere.

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

Whenever my mom asks a question about something on tv that I know the answer to, I hold my phone up to it and tell her the answer and say an app figured it out and she believes it.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

4 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

You're not disagreeing with the premise, though. Apple took existing technologies, mostly, and combined them in a more useful, usable, and pretty way. They didn't invent the concept of an app any more than they invented the concept of a song-- it was the App Store that created the captive user ecosystem you're talking about, and that's brilliant but doesn't have any application to Theranos, which was my thinking in saying Apple made for a poor role model for them.

Saying Apple doesn't innovate is wrong, but saying they don't and haven't innovated at the deep level Theranos needed to is accurate. Think of it this way: Apple never had to overcome any obstacle along the lines of "capillary blood just isn't suitable for the majority of bloodwork doctors order", or "blood is tested in a variety of totally discrete ways and trying to both combine AND miniaturize those methods in a pretty box isn't technologically possible". 

Exactly.  Theranos needed some pretty hardcore fundamental technologies to succeed.  An analog might be if Apple had to invent a touch-sensitive LCD.

[XYZ 2154]

What Theranos claimed was akin to somebody saying I’m going to develop spaceships that use propulsion that is not chemical rockets. It’s based on harnessing gravity waves, so you don’t need a huge fuel tank, and you can accelerate to speeds close to the speed of light. Pretty awesome. Then they launch a spaceship and people are like why does it look exactly like a rocket, and why is there fire coming out of the bottom, like with a rocket? And you are like, shhh, you don't need to know the details.

[Pasken 1309]

1 minute ago, XYZ said:

 And you are like, shhh, you don't need to know the details.

More like, "it's trade secrets"

[Angry Gorilla 1769]

3 hours ago, Deej said:

So the problem was her box was too big?

 

Her box was small, it was just full of tainted blood.

[Deej 76902]

That same tape recorded interview between th WSJ and the Theranos lawyers had the woman claiming it was like asking for the formula for Coke. 

No, it was like asking if they were filling Coke cans with Pepsi and telling everyone it was Coke. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Let me pose a hypothetical type question.

Let's say you're a non-fraudulent company working on some invention machine.  You've touted your work on it, but you haven't quite got it running.

Do you think that the non-investor, non-regulatory public has any right to know how well you are doing with your invention machine? 

[XYZ 2154]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me pose a hypothetical type question.

Let's say you're a non-fraudulent company working on some invention machine.  You've touted your work on it, but you haven't quite got it running.

Do you think that the non-investor, non-regulatory public has any right to know how well you are doing with your invention machine? 

The problem I have with your hypothetical question is that in the case of Theranos, people were asking questions because there were all kinds of warning signs. It wasn’t people asking to see under the hood just because.

[Pato del Muerto 52572]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me pose a hypothetical type question.

Let's say you're a non-fraudulent company working on some invention machine.  You've touted your work on it, but you haven't quite got it running.

Do you think that the non-investor, non-regulatory public has any right to know how well you are doing with your invention machine? 

No. But once you claim your invention works, if it’s in he space of public health and safety, you need to prove to certain watchdog groups that it works. 

[MrBig 5433]

Speaking of dogs, I read an article that said Holmes had a Siberian Husky named Balto, told people it was a wolf, let it roam around the office shedding hair everywhere, and let it shit and piss in the corner during meetings. 

[Deej 76902]

But Theranos said they had their machine running and were using them for testing, but they were using the other companies' machines. 

The patients who were having their blood work done deserved to know how that was being handled. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Deej

[SydneyCarton 48155]

17 minutes ago, XYZ said:

The problem I have with your hypothetical question is that in the case of Theranos, people were asking questions because there were all kinds of warning signs. It wasn’t people asking to see under the hood just because.

I'll take it the obvious step further from what you were illustration. There weren't warning SIGNS. The machine that was "not quite running" was being branded and touted in walgreens stores, and in some capacity was being used to actually perform tests. Tests that were wildly incorrect and were having a negative effect on people's lives and putting said lives at risk. As a non-investor, and a non-regulatory agency that walked into a Walgreens and had an Edison machine run one of my tests (after they shipped my blood back to their lab) and tell me I was going to die in 3 days, do I have a right to know that tests that were sold to me were accurate? Well, I'd certainly like to think so, since if not I could die. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by SydneyCarton

[C-Man 27254]

On 3/26/2019 at 8:40 AM, DaysOff said:

On 3/26/2019 at 8:19 AM, closetojumping said:

The Safeway deal never got off the ground and I do not believe ever generated any revenue accordingly. I guess there’s a shot that the employee guinea pigging generated something, not nothing worth a fresh infusion at the 9/10 year mark of a couple hundred million. 
Walgreens committed $140 million, of which $40 million was an “innovation fee” that was basically an investment. I think the other $100 million had a mutual business purpose associated to the rollout. 
For Safeway, the CEO basically fell in love with her and committed hundreds of millions of dollars to a posh redesign of their in-store health centers with a Theranos cobrand. Then Theranos never rolled out with them. Whoops. 
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned that made me laugh was the Rupert Murdoch stuff in the book. The fucking guy comes across as both a complete boss and a duped old man. As a duped old man, he put in something like $125million late, basically because Holmes successfully wooed him. This is one of the more legendarily savvy businessmen of our time.  Then, she attempts to use the investment as a means to convincing him to shut down the WSJ oncoming story before it broke. He politely declined and let it play out. Then, rather than become embroiled in the legal wrangling once the fraud was evident, he had Theranos buy back his shares for $1. $1 total. And then he took the write-off of the losses against various other gains. 
I was surprised that she was able to dupe these old guys who were all still very lucid. They’d all been around power and powerful women for decades. They’d all been with hotter women and they’d all certainly been around brighter women with better resumes. To boot, some of them had a background in international spycraft. Yet somehow, this lady pulled it over on some really, really famous and powerful dudes. That continues to fascinate me. 

Read more  

That's what I don't get. I'm 52 and have pretty low standards, and I don't find her attractive. At all. These guys were mesmerised by this blonde Amazonian creature.

Only thing attractive about her was her estimated $4B net worth at one point.

[ChickenSandwich 9849]

On 3/26/2019 at 8:39 AM, SwanderedTalent said:

I have thought a bit about this the past week or so. I really think it comes down to greed. George Shultz wasn't trying to fuck Elizabeth Holmes, but he did like the idea of a) owning a meaningful stake in The Next Apple and b) having his name linked, in posterity, to a company that he believed would revolutionize health care.

Apple was such a poor role model for Theranos. Apple didn't have to invent the kind of technologies that Theranos' device(s) required-- at least, as a layman medically and engineering-ly, that's how it seems to me. Apple seemed like it intuitively understood better ways of packaging and presenting technologies that already existed, within reason. Theranos seems like it thought natural law was poorly thought out and should just be changed, because it would be revolutionary if it happened. 

Theranos' other problem seems to be that it was on an artificial timeline. It never had the option to simply work on its technologies until they were viable; from the jump, it overpromised when it could do things and was constantly scrambling to jerry rig some reasonable facsimile of what it was telling people it had already perfected. What a nightmare existence.

yeah, maybe make the box bigger when your competition are giant off-site labs....NOPE, needs to be the size of an ink jet

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me pose a hypothetical type question.

Let's say you're a non-fraudulent company working on some invention machine.  You've touted your work on it, but you haven't quite got it running.

Do you think that the non-investor, non-regulatory public has any right to know how well you are doing with your invention machine? 

Only when those two circles overlap in the Venn diagram. As soon as Theranos' claims gained it access to the floor at Walgreens stores, they were guilty of fraud (I mean this philosophically, not in specific legal terms). Even if Theranos didn't tell ME their magic boxes worked perfectly, they told Walgreens and Walgreens passed that claim on to me.

But no, if you're working in your home on a space rocket like XYZ describes, I don't need to know whether it works or not unless you're gonna launch it from the easement separating our houses. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by SwanderedTalent

[HenryJames 66164]

If I preface the question by adding ‘imagine you’re a lawyer,’ would any of you change your answers?

[XYZ 2154]

4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

If I preface the question by adding ‘imagine you’re a lawyer,’ would any of you change your answers?

Yeah, sure. My answer to everything would be fuck you, pay me.

[gyroprotagonist 2595]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me pose a hypothetical type question.

Let's say you're a non-fraudulent company working on some invention machine.  You've touted your work on it, but you haven't quite got it running.

Do you think that the non-investor, non-regulatory public has any right to know how well you are doing with your invention machine? 

i was kinda tipsy watching the HBO piece and have not read the book, but they asked and received FDA approval for one of the tests run on the Edison, correct?  That's not touting, that's  not 'working on it' that's at the point where your shit better be airtight with a working product.  It can be a later stage prototype, but once submitted for FDA approval, then you are locked in from making certain changes that are considered major and any other smaller changes have massive documentation requirements and sometimes retesting/recerting.  Trying to make the machine work after submitting for FDA would be laughable if it was not fucking up people's health.

our company supplies components that go into implantable devices and although we don't deal directly with the FDA, the shit that runs downhill from our OEM can be staggering in terms of documentation and testing.  Slight changes/improvements to existing products can take 2+ years to get through the FDA.  complete new products are usually 5+ years.  Even changes that do good stuff like improve battery life etc... sometimes don't even get slotted by the FDA to get looked at in the current cycle and implementing them are delayed.  Theranos had to filling out bogus reports with bogus data if they got one of those machines approve for even 1 test.

[Reagan1k 3024]

4 hours ago, XYZ said:

What Theranos claimed was akin to somebody saying I’m going to develop spaceships that use propulsion that is not chemical rockets. It’s based on harnessing gravity waves, so you don’t need a huge fuel tank, and you can accelerate to speeds close to the speed of light. Pretty awesome. Then they launch a spaceship and people are like why does it look exactly like a rocket, and why is there fire coming out of the bottom, like with a rocket? And you are like, shhh, you don't need to know the details.

Well-  she did design a time machine when she was 11 yrs old.... so there! 

[Deej 76902]

36 minutes ago, Reagan1k said:

Well-  she did design a time machine when she was 11 yrs old.... so there! 

And it was probably being used in the field by the military.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Let me pose a hypothetical type question.

Let's say you're a non-fraudulent company working on some invention machine.  You've touted your work on it, but you haven't quite got it running.

Do you think that the non-investor, non-regulatory public has any right to know how well you are doing with your invention machine? 

The point being:

A customer who purchases an invention machine that doesn't work has a civil case against you.

An investor who relies on your misrepresentations about your invention machine has a civil case against you.

A regulatory agency with jurisdiction over your invention machine has a civil and possibly criminal case against you and can force you to take your non-working invention machine off the market.

The US Attorney or local DA may have a criminal case against you because you deceived customers, or more likely, investors or the regulatory agency.

The people involved in those cases might be entitled to detailed information about your invention machine, but really all that matters is that it didn't work and/or you lied about it. No one needs to know why the fetzer valve couldn't be made out of polycarbonate.

The Wall Street Journal, the press generally, and the general public have no right to know anything detailed about your invention machine, except as may become public through the above civil and criminal cases.  Accordingly, your private attorney is going to tell them to pound sand when they ask.  Every. Single.  Time.

 

So, change the hypo to Theranos and Edison and it all applies.  No member of the general public or the press was damaged by Theranos, only the people in the categories above.  Everyone was deceived, but there isn't any general right to the truth, and you have no real reason to expect a company's attorney to assist you in obtaining the truth.

Edited March 28, 2019 by TwiceHorn