[HN Gopher] Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos' l... ___________________________________________________________________ Elizabeth Holmes urged employees to hide Theranos' lab equipment from inspectors Author : samizdis Score : 251 points Date : 2021-09-29 14:08 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arstechnica.com) (TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com) | gumby wrote: | This one point is misleading: | | > while it doesn't appear that [they] barred inspectors from | those rooms, keeping the doors shut certainly made it less likely | that they would ask to see what's inside. Typically during | inspections, company employees are supposed to "show inspectors | what they asked for," Rosendorff said. | | This one point is unremarkable (at least as stated). When I was | in the pharma business I was advised to have a conference room | for visitors that was right off the waiting room, so we could | have meetings with outsiders (i.e. inspectors) without them | having to enter the facility in general. The point wasn't to | cover anything up but just avoid questions. | | FWIW we didn't bother with this --- we didn't have an "outside" | conference room. But that is apparently not that unusual. | | State and federal inspectors get to look at anything part of the | business. The federal ones can arrive armed! (Though I never saw | this, only heard about it) | | Everything else I've read coming from the trial has been | alarming, though I'm not following closely. | photochemsyn wrote: | The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with | experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing | although there are other uses) knew that their claims were | impossible, technologically speaking. | | Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of | blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing | uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue | localization issues, I mean all the trained blood chemistry | specialists knew this. I worked a little with DNA microfluidics, | and it works because it's not quantitative. | | Now, what they could have done is just stuck to pos/neg tests, | i.e. 'are you infected with this virus or not' which is a lot | more plausible as you don't have to meet a quantitative goal, | just a detection goal. Also, one-stop STD screening for HIV / | herpes / etc. is possible too (I suggested this and someone | responded, 'new company name: ClapTrap"). | | It's really kind of sad, as Theranos might have been able to pull | that off (although new management would probably be required), | and then they'd have been positioned to do all the COVID testing | (which was a major problem in the initial US response). | | What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, and | how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, | and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird. | | What's interesting with Theranos is the composition of it's | board... It's exclusively older men with little to no expertise | on the subject matter (Channing Robertson might be an exception | to the latter rule). Not a single rising female Silicon Valley | executive or professor was invited to join, which is surprising | considering how much she was advocating for more women in SV. | | Maybe she knew that female executives and founders wouldn't | have the same reaction to a wide eyed conventionally attractive | 19 years old blonde as the 40+ years old men she was used to | "deal" with... | | I mean, we all know how Marissa Mayer got the job... | [deleted] | krageon wrote: | > how they didn't do due diligence | | "due diligence" processes are in practice a lot less stringent | or rigorous than an outsider would expect them to be given the | amount of money involved. Companies get bought based on | glorified sales pitches and nobody looks too hard at what | they're buying is the unfortunate truth of the matter. | Investors are no better. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I think it probably depends. When we sold our company they | spent months digging into numbers. And they kept asking for | new types of metrics that we had to figure out ways to derive | from data that wasn't necessarily designed to measure those | metrics. | foobarian wrote: | If you had sat next to Bill Clinton on a TED talk stage and | had a former Secretary of State and his friends on your | board I bet things would have gone more smoothly for you. | akiselev wrote: | I went through a similar experience. Turns out the | acquiring company knew it's audience well - all of the | metrics were for sales pitches tailored to specific | investors that they were raising money from, which they got | shortly before finally closing our deal. | | Turtles all the way down. | SkyMarshal wrote: | You're talking about selling your company, rather than | raising money for a startup. | | At the stage where you're selling a company, you're | expected to have sales, metrics, and various track records | that can be verified, hence the intensive due diligence. | And usually the acquiring company has in-house expertise on | the domain, and is capable of doing the due diligence. | | Early stage startups have none of that, just an idea, | things the team have done before as proof they can execute, | and sometimes some social proof like TED talks or high- | profile board members. | | The challenge of doing due diligence then is that most | general VCs that invest across a broad range of domains | lack the in-house expertise to fully vet all of them. They | can hire SME advisors, or ask around in their network, and | should. But it's possible for things to slip through the | cracks sometimes. | mrweasel wrote: | We worked with a med-tech company, as a subcontract. That | company kept getting funding, investors kept pumping money | in. Despite the company now being to old the justify being a | startup, they had never been profitable. | | We happend to know one of the newer investors and asked who | did technical due dilligence, because from what we could tell | the primary product was just a bunch of outdated open source | software glued together and general build on 15 year old | tech. We got a very angry call from the CEO telling us "to | mind our own fucking business". We don't work for them | anymore. | josefresco wrote: | > What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were | | You have confused gullibility with willful ignorance. | comeonseriously wrote: | > What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, | and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird. | | Gullible or just willing to take a risk on something that may | get them a return on their investment before it all collapsed? | makotech222 wrote: | > What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, | and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird. | | weird, maybe we shouldn't have our economy be decided by the | whims of private investors. | MattGaiser wrote: | The problem is that successful startups often start out | claiming that which is impossible. | | Uber was impossible, because it was illegal. | | Amazon was impossible, as you couldn't pack and ship stuff that | cheaply. | | Personal computers were at one point considered ludicrous. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > Uber was impossible, because it was illegal. | | Radio/Computer dispatch predates Uber. Where Uber got | innovative, legally speaking, was making a Black Car service | (can't be hailed from the street) just work with scheduling | in minutes instead of calling ahead a few hours beforehand. | | > Amazon was impossible, as you couldn't pack and ship stuff | that cheaply. | | Sears did it a hundred year prior here in America. | pron wrote: | AFAIK, the most likely projection at this point is that Uber | will not have made a single dollar from the day it was | created until the day it shuts down, and might well face | similar scrutiny as Theranos someday (although, not being | health related, consequences might not be as severe). | lesuorac wrote: | Who is claiming its impossible is what matters as well as | when. If somebody has given something serious thought then | their claim could be valid but unless they're providing any | evidence it's probably a worthless claim. The evidence is | also time constrained as the US going to the moon right now | is pretty ludicrous but in a few years maybe somebody will | have made a new lander. | | Also I don't think you picked good examples. | | Uber wasn't the first taxi app so it was definitely possible | (IIRC both mapquest & google maps had a taxi tie-in at one | point). Amazon used to charge for shipping so the cost of | pack & ship is irrelevant (they weren't doing the current VC | model of giving out dollars for 50 cents). See | https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release- | det... . | | Personal computers were ludicrous at a time when a computer | took up more than a whole room. Just like flying cars are | ludicrous but technology changes and thats why due diligence | matters, is this company developing any technology or are | they lieing. | kube-system wrote: | This is the SV "fake it 'till you make it" culture. Right now | Tesla is delivering "full self driving" cars that require a | human driver at all times. Experts have said that it's not | possible using cameras alone, without LiDAR. | | Oversell and underdeliver. Fraud works great until it | doesn't. | Hermitian909 wrote: | I mean, we can go the other way by looking at SpaceX. I | spent years reading detailed reports from experts that | everything SpaceX was doing was impossible. | | -A rocket made of steel | | -Landing a rocket _anywhere_ | | -Landing a _bigger_ rocket anywhere | | -Landing a rocket on solid ground | | -Landing a big rocket on the ground | | and a lot of smaller things in between. | | I read many plausible looking reports on the non- | feasability of these things often came with the backing of | professors at respected universities and they were all | wrong. | | Sometimes it goes the other way. | shadilay wrote: | It should be noted that the DC-X rocket also landed | propulsively in the 90's. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X | kube-system wrote: | I don't disagree. It's a good thing that people are | confident that they can achieve things that others deem | impossible, especially experts. That's real progress. The | part that starts to cross the line is when someone starts | making legally significant promises ahead of schedule. | | Tell stakeholders you're working on it. Tell them you're | ahead of everyone else. Tell them that the experts are | wrong. Tell them it's coming very soon. Update them on | the details of your progress. Don't tell them it's done | when it's not. | zardo wrote: | There were definitely no rocket experts claiming rockets | can't be made out of steel. That's not a new thing. | hef19898 wrote: | For the risk of being a broken record, nobody claimed | that reusable rockets were technically impossible. The | argument was that they were rather financially unfeasible | due to a limited number of LEO launches, so nobody tried | (I lost the ESA study on this from the early 2000s | unfortunately...). | | I'd really love that myth of SpaceX doing the impossible | with landing rockets to die. Also because they don't have | to, they were the first to do so. That alone is really | impressive. Whether or not it is profitable is impossible | to tell until SpaceX is publishing audited financials. | LanceH wrote: | Isn't the self-driving just a feature on top of the car? | They're faking one feature that a customer _might_ opt into | -- and none that I know have. | | Tesla has delivered a performant EV that is nice to drive | in and is comparable to other luxury vehicles. It's not | exactly faking for quite some time. | malcolmgreaves wrote: | The fake it part is calling something full self driving | when it does anything but that. | MrGando wrote: | They stopped calling it fully self driving a little while | ago in part due to a lot of pretty bad press and some | good journalistic research. | kube-system wrote: | > "Full Self-Driving Capability $10,000" | | ... is listed today as an option when configuring any | vehicle on tesla.com | MrGando wrote: | You're right. I think there's several regulators on it, | but no one has forced them to rephrase the statement. | tsimionescu wrote: | They're charging for "full self-driving" separately from | the car, so I think it's fair to put it in the same | bucket. | kiba wrote: | It's not really impossible if you operate on first principle. | | Now, it might be harder to distinguish someone who can do it | well and who'll do it poorly, but that's another issue. | AlbertCory wrote: | This is the sort of pseudo-tech BS that she fed everyone. She | had Jobs envy and thought his approach would work everywhere. | | All those examples (and all of yours) are from computers. | _Blood tests are different from computers._ You cannot assume | that, just because great things happened with computers, the | same things can happen in all walks of life. | adventured wrote: | The Jobs presentation thing did work - much of the audience | bought into it early on - combined with the hefty bonus | points of her being a woman in Silicon Valley that the | media was desperate to elevate as a path blazing icon (so | desperate they entirely drank the kool-aid and acted as a | valuable reinforcement pillar for the fraud, and largely | failed to investigate if Theranos was legitimate). | | Jobs had follow-through, he had real products that often | lived up to his pitching. His salesmanship was merely half | the equation. Holmes only had a poor clone of that | salesmanship, with none of the product. Had Theranos had | real products, the approach she used in trying to quasi | copy the Jobs image/presentation, would have served the | promotional purpose effectively, as the media loved it. | sumtechguy wrote: | The voice pitch thing she was doing was a nice touch too. | AlbertCory wrote: | They say she might testify in her own defense. Of course, | the attorneys will always say that, to keep the | prosecution guessing. "Hide the ball" is the term the | lawyers use. | | If she does, whether she'll use the deep voice is a big | question. | overkalix wrote: | I think there's a substantial difference between impossible | and illegal. Uber was mostly possible (don't want to minimize | their efforts in operation optimization) but also | illegal/unregulated. Same for AirBnB. | | Personal Computers on the other hand... that's almost all | innovation with a dash of unregulated (garage companies, | surreptitious deals, etc). | darkr wrote: | These examples are all "impossible" due to regulatory or | commercial constraints, rather than scientific - which is a | category of obstacle somewhat more difficult to overcome. | yawaworht1978 wrote: | Tesla anticipated this, though, such laws don't get passed | fast. | | They don't have the software, the core of the product. | | And the fsd beta testers had to sign NDAs. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | Not scientific, physical. | jcrites wrote: | Uber was not generally illegal [0]. So called "Black car" (or | private car for hire) services (so called because these cars | used to be limousine like vehicles but now can be anything, | e.g. UberX) where a driver arranges pickup with a passenger | in advance -- which is how Uber started - is not regulated in | most cities at all, or is regulated very differently than | taxis. | | What legally distinguishes taxis and requires medallions in | many cities is the ability for passengers to "hail" an | unknown taxi from the sidewalk and get a ride. (Uber didn't | start out offering taxis, but now some of the vehicles that | they make available are also taxis.) | | You cannot "hail" an Uber on the street and get a ride in it | (unless that Uber, now, happens to also be a taxi). You had | to book trips in advance. The trips might have been booked | only a few minutes in advance, but that was the legal | distinction between these two classes of transportation. | | I am not aware of there being any regulation involved if you | wanted to arrange a ride from the Seattle airport to the | Space Needle with me as your driver on a certain date for a | certain price, for example. Or 10 minutes from now. (Actually | that's a bad example. I believe there are certain areas of | the city where drivers have to offer city-regulated fixed | price fares either to the airport or from the airport or | both, to certain sections of downtown. It's a relatively | small area though; I don't know if it includes the Space | Needle or not.) | | In fact, Uber was able to grow so quickly because so many of | these "private car for hire" services already existed in | major cities. The cars were often owner-operated small | businesses, with one car or a small fleet of vehicles and | employees (with the owner typically being one of the | drivers). They were able to tap into this excess supply and | put it to use. At least that was the case in Seattle where I | spoke to many Uber drivers during its early years, all of | whom had existing businesses and wanted to give me their | business card to cut out the middleman (Uber). They used Uber | to gain additional business during downtime from their other | clients, and often offered their business cards to riders | before Uber started cracking down on that [1]. | | Originally if you had a relationship with a private car | service and you were planning trips days ahead, then you | could typically get a better price than Uber would offer for | market rate pricing (once its low promotional discount | pricing eased up) with no advanced planning. (However Uber | now appears to offer the ability to schedule rides up to 30 | days in advance; I don't know if this change is the fare or | not). Since Uber takes a cut of the transaction you can | probably still get better pricing from individual private | services. The value that Uber offers for most passengers in | the ability to get reliable high quality transportation on | demand. (High quality in the sense that poor quality drivers | are removed from the platform) | | Uber provided legitimate value by connecting the supply of | private-cars-for-hire with the passengers who wanted to hire | them, creating a sort of marketplace. (Not a true marketplace | because Ubers set the price of fares; but I'm marketplace in | the sense that drivers and passengers can choose to use the | platform to connect and conduct a transaction of driving for | hire.) Uber won by providing a superior experience for both | parties having a reputation system for both sides with a | 5-star score. | | How many people reading this have had the experience of | ordering a taxi and having it arrive late or not at all? Or | have simply been frustrated by the lack of visibility into | when it will arrive, or whether it's even coming, when you | need to get to the airport? Or when you get to your | destination you learn that "the credit card reader is not | working"? (which is illegal in many/most cities). I've | certainly had all of these experiences in many cities with | taxis. | | Taxi drivers experienced no real penalties for misbehavior | like falsely claiming their credit card reader is not | working, or for not maintaining it in working order, or for | taking tourists on a "scenic route" to their destination" | (unless a passenger called the taxi company and report them - | and who would bother? Plus I don't necessarily know the local | law in the area, like whether the taxi is required to have a | working credit card reader; and in the days when Uber was | building traction, I might not have had mapping software on | my phone so as to know whether the taxi was taking me on an | unnecessarily long route.) | | Uber provided a legitimately better product experience by | solving these problems. You could see your vehicle as it | traveled to you, eliminating the uncertainty around whether | transportation was coming and an ETA for its arrival. You | could enter your destination and Uber would provide turn by | turn driving instructions that the driver was expected to | follow to get to the destination following a close-to-optimal | path. If the transportation provider was rude or provided | poor service, then you could give them a bad rating, and poor | service providers were be removed from the platform. | Similarly bad customers that were drunk and misbehaved and | did things like throw up in the vehicle would also receive a | poor rating and might find themselves kicked off the platform | after repeating that type of behavior. | | This reputation system was completely missing from taxis and | is one of the reasons why they were so dysfunctional in my | opinion. | | The vast majority of Uber's growth and expansion was in the | unregulated or lightly regulated area of arranging | transportation ahead of time between passenger and driver. So | long as the driver has a regular driver license in most | cities, rides-for-hire that are arranged in advance not | regulated, or are minimally regulated (though Uber/Lyft- | targeted regulation have appeared in response to their | presence). | | [0] Various cities subsequently banned it or limited it after | the fact, partially in response to political pressure from | things like taxi unions, or other reasons; but the core | business model was not originally illegal in typical cities. | | [1] IMO, I don't think it's necessary for Uber to prevent | high-end drivers from offering their professional business | card when the trip is complete if they do so in a | professional way. What Uber offers is the ability to get a | ride at any place at any time; I don't want to have a stack | of business cards from private car services in my wallet that | I dial one after the other to see if they are free to pick me | up -- with the same lack of visibility and accountability | that taxis used to have. | ghaff wrote: | Of course, in addition to being more convenient in some | circumstances, Uber just offered rides below cost much of | the time. For scheduled rides to the airport, many people | don't use Uber over a private car because it's better but | because it can be significantly cheaper. | moftz wrote: | In some places, Uber is just a front-end for a bunch of | taxi companies to let you hail them. I remember doing this | in Athens, the app just calls a taxi for you. Although I | don't remember if I paid through the app or paid the driver | directly. | jcrites wrote: | P.S. In my state in the US, and I believe this is true for | most of the country, "commercial drivers licenses" are | required for driving very large and heavy vehicles over a | certain weight; they are not required for driving paying | passengers in a regular sized vehicle - in case anyone is | wondering. You don't need a special license to transport | passengers for hire in typical sized cars, because the | expectation is that you already know how to drive those | vehicles safely. | | A catastrophic vehicle failure at highway speeds could | cause death but these kinds of failures are not especially | likely, and drivers are expected to be able to reasonably | handle circumstances they may encounter. The most dangerous | circumstance I can think of off the top of my head that is | not whether related would be the explosive decompression of | a tire at highway speed, leading to loss of control of the | vehicle. While the car might begin to swerve, a driver | should react to this and keep the vehicle under control | while they navigate to the shoulder. Catastrophic failure | of brakes isn't a common occurrence, and brakes begin to | squeak when they are wearing down; the entire brake system | would have to fail. | | Interestingly, the FAA _does_ make this distinction for | pilots licenses: if you are going to fly someone in an | aircraft for hire, then a private pilots license (PPL) is | not sufficient, and you need a commercial license - even if | you're operating the same aircraft. You can split the costs | of travel with someone if you're both flying to the same | destination, but you cannot fly someone else for hire and | charge them for everything (in other words, operate a small | airline or a charter service). | | I can think of a number of good reasons for this: among | other things, most adults with driver licenses quickly | develop hundreds or thousands of hours behind the wheel of | a car, and if the car malfunctions you can simply stop | (most of the time -- driving in extreme weather conditions | being an exception to this). Private pilots engaged in | general aviation may take years to reach 1000 hours flying | an aircraft, whereas a professional pilot probably flies | 1000 hours each year; and has a rigorously routine re- | training and certification schedule (from what I | understand) because an aircraft malfunction in the air is a | very serious situation. Plus the amount of information that | pilots need to know in order to fly safely is substantially | greater than what drivers need to know; the maneuvers that | pilots need to execute are much more cognitively and | mechanically intensive, and the concurrent task workload is | much higher. | | A private pilot engaged in general aviation is the one | taking on the risk of an accident, along with anyone they | bring along (e.g. friends/family). When a (non-pilot) | passenger pays someone else to fly them, they have little | understanding of the risks involved in the activity - | whereas most adults know how to drive or could easily get a | license; and even if they don't, they understand the risks | of road travel - whereas non-pilots have few understanding | of the risks of air travel. | bdcravens wrote: | This illuminates the problem: thinking that the startup model | can be applied to everything. This leads to people either | naively tackling problems (you listed successes, but for | every success there's many, many, failures). At worst, you | find have someone who can use the startup model to hide fraud | and grifting. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Why using small amounts of blood important? | | Are there some tests that need extremely large amounts of blood | that the patient cannot provide? Or is the point to improve the | patient's experience? | | When I give blood for testing, there is no difference in my | experience as a patient, however many vials are taken, it just | takes a bit longer. What am I missing? | ufo wrote: | The argument Theranos gave is that it would allow collecting | blood from a fingerprick (which would not require a trained | professional, and because people are afraid of needles). | rsynnott wrote: | > What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, | and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird. | | If you look at the investors, with few exceptions, they were | _not_ sophisticated VC firms with experience in the area. Most | of them were, for want of a better classification, elderly rich | people. This should probably, in retrospect, have been a huge | red flag. | fossuser wrote: | > The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with | experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA | sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their | claims were impossible, technologically speaking. | | I'd push back on this a bit - not because it's wrong in the | case of Theranos, but because it's often wrong in the general | case. A lot of the time 'industry experts' go on about how some | new approach is impossible for X reason and they're often | wrong. | | Tesla is a good example of this (some people are still saying | EVs can't work even today). | | You really have to get in the weeds yourself to understand | whether something is possible or not rather than deferring to | others most of the time. I do agree though that her investors | didn't do that. | | She was also able to get famous people invested and on her | board which I think compounded things. | boatsie wrote: | I think a similar situation happened with UBeam. Electrical | engineers insisted it would be impossible to charge a phone the | way they were claiming. But the "what if" dream made it so | nobody wanted to listen to them. | malthaus wrote: | You mean like most people currently know that most of the | crypto-claims are bs but hype it up anyway? | | You don't invest in something that's changing the world, you're | investing in something that gains value, changing the world is | just the narrative to get the sucker downstream to jump on | board | | EDIT: to add something less controversial, i can recommend the | book "the key man" of a similar bluff in the impact investing | space | ryandrake wrote: | A little history helps [EDIT: Maybe not!] explain it a bit. | Back when Holmes was a rising star, we were in the middle of | #MeToo, Tech Bro companies were getting increasing scrutiny | about their treatment of women, and in general how tech | companies were struggling with diversity, and then all of a | sudden, we have this company founded by a seemingly smart, | driven, technically-savvy woman, educated at Stanford (!) and | who wears _turtlenecks_ like Steve Jobs (!!!). It was the | perfect narrative. This is the _kind of_ exec they were all | looking for right at this moment! People were willing to | suspend a lot of disbelief in order to make it real. I imagine | these investors had the X-Files "I Want To Believe" poster in | their offices. It wasn't so much gullibility as it was a | perfect narrative that everyone desperately wanted to believe | in. | | EDIT: Oh yes, I 100% agree [1] that her outsized personal | charisma was a large part of it! | | 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28674285 | | EDIT2: You're right, I got the MeToo timeline wrong. I seem to | have remembered anti-sexism momentum building up long before | 2017 but yea the actual hashtag and Weinstein stuff was in the | news long after the company rose. | dumbfoundded wrote: | Your timeline makes no sense. Theranos started falling apart | in 2016 with charges being filed against Holmes in March | 2018. MeToo started in October 2017 with the release of the | Harvey Weinstein assault stories. | | By the time MeToo started, Theranos had been sued by | investors, Walgreens, and CMS. Additionally, Holmes was | banned from running labs and Theranos had failed many | inspections with severe penalties. Theranos was all but dead | by the time MeToo took off. | | What really happened (according to my recollection of reading | Bad Blood) is that Holmes never really connected with the | medical community. Anyone with any domain expertise knew her | tech claims were impossible. She used her personal | connections to generals, politicians, and wealthy individuals | to spin this web of lies and keep raising money. Most of the | Silicon Valley Investor elite had nothing to do with | Theranos. | | I really dislike your interpretation of events. Not only | because it makes no sense with the actual history but you | play on stereotypes & generalizations to make a point. Tech | certainly needs more female founders but you're not helping | by twisting what really happened. | | 1) https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-me-too- | timeline... | | 2) https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/07/tech/elizabeth-holmes- | therano... | NationalPark wrote: | That doesn't really square with her board, who were notably | from the military and older, conservative leaning men like | Kissinger or Shultz. I think they were more taken in by her | charisma than they were motivated by feminist activists. | supperburg wrote: | Never ever forget that anyone who said Holmes was a fraud was | screamed down by accusations of sexism and toxic masculinity. | JohnWhigham wrote: | _Even now_ , people are still doing it! NYT ran an op-ed | piece from a woman VC partner (who had a BS sexual harassment | case got shot down in court) basically saying "yeah but what | about all the male CEOs that don't get punished? You're | sexist if you don't punish them!" as if Holmes is receiving | any punishment herself. The delusional headcanons that some | people view the world through... | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/opinion/elizabeth- | holmes-... | dontblink wrote: | I wouldn't say all train professionals knew this. I talked to | doctors about Theranos and they were impressed by them and were | bullish. It may be they didn't look too much into it. | | Context: I was approached by a recruiter and I couldn't | understand how Theranos distinguished itself from other labs or | get any data when I tried to do diligence on their claims. | munificent wrote: | _> What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, | and how they didn 't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird._ | | The thing is, the primary goal of an investor is not to invest | in companies that are honest and actually do what they claim. | The goal is to invest in a company that reaches a valuation | high enough to let them recoup their investment at a profit. | | If that valuation happens through fraud, hype, destroying the | environment, whatever, that doesn't really factor in. It | probably is the case that successfully doing what the company | claims has a positive correlation with higher valuation, but | it's not strictly necessary. | | The failure mode for the investors in Theranos is not that it | was fraudulent. It's that the fraud was discovered before they | could cash out. They didn't need to believe that Theranos was | honest, they just needed to believe that _other later investors | would believe they were honest_. | avalys wrote: | Can you provide any examples of a high-profile company, | ultimately shown to be dishonest, where the early investors | were able to "cash out" before this dishonesty became known? | danans wrote: | Still unfolding, but Lordstown Motors looks like exactly | that. | | https://hindenburgresearch.com/lordstown/ | jborichevskiy wrote: | Enron, for one | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Peak_and_decline_of_sto | c... | effingwewt wrote: | uBeam. | stagger87 wrote: | MoviePass | mardifoufs wrote: | Movie pass was literally a loss for the vast majority of | its investors. If anything it was a wealth transfer from | the public/private market to the app users who got | extremely subsidized movie tickets. Moviepass was a total | loss for it's investors, so how does that not prove the | opposite of what's being argued here | [deleted] | [deleted] | stagger87 wrote: | I'm pretty sure early investors cashed out in 2017. | humaniania wrote: | Oil companies and their suppression of climate change | science. | hef19898 wrote: | Depends on what you call early. Nikola and WeWork come to | mind, I assume Newman wasn't the only one to cash out early | enough during one of the founding rounds. | rsynnott wrote: | Enron, to some extent. | ta1234567890 wrote: | Uber | | Explanation, since this is being downvoted. | | Uber might not have lied about their business, but it | surely looks like investors never cared about the | businesses viability and rather only cared about being able | to turn a profit on their investment (which was the point | being made by the gp). | | To this day, it is still not clear if Uber's business model | is viable. Also not to mention the original CEO/founder's | reputation and attitude, which the investors also didn't | care about until it became too big of a scandal. | Additionally, the investors didn't even care that Uber was | technically illegal (same as Airbnb btw). | | Some references: | | https://techcrunch.com/2021/02/12/will-ride-hailing- | profits-... | | https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uber-and-lyft-are- | staging-... | | https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-company-scandals-and- | co... | codegeek wrote: | "Uber might not have lied about their business" | | Yea that is what we discussing about Theranos. Theranos | was an outright fraud. You cannot say the same about Uber | whether they inflated or lied about their profits etc. | Uber provides a real service and honestly a good one for | people. Theranos on the other hand, played with people's | lives by lying about their entire business model and | product which never worked. Big difference. | MrGando wrote: | I think you're somewhat making an argument that the | "means" are justified if the end is noble. I think the | whole discussion revolts around the several issues with | that "system" or "philosophy" here in the Valley. | | I personally don't think it's the right way to do things. | Big fraud, small lies (fraud), it's all pretty bad. | codegeek wrote: | To some extent, aren't startups supposed to be doing | things to challenge the status quo which sometimes can | mean that they are breaking rules ? Uber overall has been | a net positive in my humble opinion so I definitely think | that to an extent, the means are justified if the end is | noble. | MrGando wrote: | If we're going to restraint to personal opinions, my | strong personal opinion is that startups have to operate | in the context of truth, rule of law and business ethics. | That would be my hope. I think it's totally possible to | succeed and still work through that lens. I think | thinking otherwise, is actually a fallacy perpetuated by | certain groups here in the Valley. | | I strongly believe that you can challenge the status quo | and abide by honesty and rule of law. | Alex3917 wrote: | > which the investors also didn't care about until it | became too big of a scandal | | More like investors didn't care until they needed | liquidity. | edot wrote: | Agreed. EBITDA in general is hot garbage, but that is | egregious. | eli wrote: | A dishonest company in other ways too. They sent drivers | and riders misleading information about any local | attempts to regulate them in the slightest. | | When they first launched UberX in DC, I called them out | for a price comparison of Taxi vs UberX that couldn't | possibly be true. They quietly changed the blog post and | marketing materials shortly after. | supperburg wrote: | The idea that Uber is not profitable is a myth isn't it? | I remember they posted some financial documents a while | back that showed them in the red. But when I looked at | the papers there were literal billions in advertising and | expansion. | | Uber runs the app. People call an Uber and they pay | money. Some of that money goes to the driver and some | goes to Uber. You're really saying that Uber can't | collect enough money to run their computers and pay some | staff? It just doesn't make sense. Of course they can. | junon wrote: | > The idea that Uber is not profitable is a myth isn't | it? | | I worked on the long-term forecasting team while I was | there. At least 5-6 years ago, Uber was very, _very_ far | from profitable. I can 't imagine much has changed enough | for it to make them profitable. Maybe with the new CEO | things changed but I'm doubtful. That company had a slew | of issues. | supperburg wrote: | Right, but would they be profitable if you took out the | advertising and expansion costs? From the document I saw, | yes. Can you please explain where are these enormous | costs that are necessary to run the business? Is it SV | salaries? Are their servers costing too much money? It | doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the concept of | dispatching taxis with a computer is not capable of being | profitable. It simply isn't true. It's like people who | said Amazon and Tesla were vapor ware because they were | unprofitable. Everyone in the media and most people on HN | couldn't fathom the concept of subtracting R&D. | junon wrote: | It's not an easy question to answer, but the majority of | the cost were salaries and marketing. We didn't consider | the one-off costs of e.g. legal, from what I remember. | | It was in the order of thousands (I think either $2k or | $22k, sorry for the rounding error) per user signup that | Uber paid in terms of marketing and advertising - and | that was regardless of if they generated any money. It | was way more for driver signups since the driving bonuses | were pretty sizeable. | | The amount of staff Uber has is way too much, in my | opinion. Uber's internals are the definition of "over- | engineered", to the point things were just too | complicated for any single person to really work with, | let alone understand to any degree. We had teams | internally that were making the same thing but had no | idea each other existed - and this happened pretty | frequently. | | There was a lot of turn and restructuring in upper | management, not to mention pulling out of China and then | having months in a row with almost daily sexual | harassment/discrimination/bad CEO news stories breaking | out. So the rest of the company was just kind of left to | fend for itself for a long time, just burning even more | money despite nothing getting released. | | I knew one other engineer that... to this day, I'm not | sure he even wrote a single line of code. He was always | hanging around other people, wanting to chat. When you'd | casually ask "so what are you working on these days?" | he'd just shrug and smile. Never got a straight answer | out of him. He was higher up in the ranks than I was, | younger, assumedly paid more. Couldn't answer basic | questions about writing code, but loved to brag about his | new designer shoes and stuff. Just an anecdote. | | It was insanity. Everyone I personally interacted with | hated working there, and it was clear it was way too | crowded. That, along with the marketing/ad spend, made me | convinced Uber would never be profitable. | supperburg wrote: | Wow what a substantive and interesting comment. Thanks | ta1234567890 wrote: | > Right, but would they be profitable if you took out the | advertising and expansion costs? | | An issue with this line of thought is that you think that | they could one day flip a switch and just like that stop | expanding or acquiring new customers. | | Two problems with that are: 1) most likely if they stop | growing, they start shrinking - it's not like they are | the only ones out there doing what they do, and 2) a lot | of their marketing and expansion expenses (as | corroborated by the sibling comment) don't go towards | acquiring new customers, but rather new drivers, which | given their turn over, they can't stop putting money | into. | | So basically if they stop spending money on advertising | and expansion, they will loose all their drivers and | slowly churn customers as well. | | Hence, it doesn't matter if they could technically be | profitable without advertising and expansion, because | then their business becomes unviable. | hef19898 wrote: | Excluding an integral part of the costs to say they are | profitable is like saying you are cash flow positive, | after including external funding. There is a reason why | companies are running their books the way they are. Very | good and valid ones! | supperburg wrote: | I don't know if that's a technical accounting term but | "integral" is the key word there. Massive expansion is | not integral to the normal operations of a business. R&D | and literal billion dollar ad campaigns are tools to | expand and grow into whatever space is open from lack of | competition. Amazon filled their space, Tesla theirs and | one of the computerized taxi companies will fill that | space. Until they do, they will spend money on expansion. | So that's the key. It's a temporary state. "Integral" is | a completely incorrect term for the cost of that growth. | The viability of a business is based on how much it costs | them to actually carry out their core business. | | And maybe Uber has already gotten as big as they will | get. It doesn't change the fact that they don't need one | billion dollars in advertising. And also, what you are | asserting is that it's impossible for a computerized taxi | company to exist. So do you think it would be cheaper to | have a human dispatcher? Obviously you can run a | profitable taxi company. It's been a thing for a long | time and the computers aren't making it any worse or more | expensive I can assure you. | varjag wrote: | There's a bunch of ways to rationally explain the losses | in any operation. None of them make it profitable. | ModernMech wrote: | > It doesn't make sense. It's like saying that the | concept of dispatching taxis with a computer is not | capable of being profitable. | | If that's all you are doing, then yeah, that's probably | not profitable because competition would just eat your | margins. You're essentially a broker matching drivers | with passengers, and they can use any service they want. | They will choose the one with the lowest cost to use and | that pays the most to serve i.e. they will use the one | that leaves the least amount of profit for the broker. | | Therefore Uber has to have some other value add, which | will eat into profits (unclear what that could be, I | think they were hoping it could be robotaxis); or, they | have to spend massively in advertising to maintain | mindshare, which will also eat into profits. | | This is why they spend so much on advertising and | expansion. They want to be the first player in town | because when there are more players, it's a race to the | bottom. You can't take out the advertising and expansion | dollars and say they would be profitable without them, | because those dollars are staving off competitors for as | long as Uber can. Imagine a future where you have an | "Expedia" of taxi services, that search dozens of | providers and gives you the lowest one. That's Uber's | future if they stop their spending. | | The question of profitability then becomes: how can Uber | justify its existence while staving off competitors, and | can they manage this before going under? Maybe given an | infinite time horizon and infinite VC cash, Uber could be | profitable one day, but for now I don't think it's clear | they are or will be soon. | supperburg wrote: | > If that's all you are doing, then yeah, that's probably | not profitable because competition would just eat your | margins. | | So markets don't exist? Businesses can't exist in a | market? This is economics 101. No wonder everyone is so | off | ModernMech wrote: | No, that's not what I said. My point is explicitly that | markets _do_ exist, and that markets are the mechanism by | which Uber will find itself unprofitable, because they | aren 't adding enough value to the equation. Having the | app and the scheduling algorithm was a game changer a | decade ago, but now that part of the business has been | effectively commoditized. | | But Uber doesn't want to be 1 of 1000 taxi players in a | crowded market with no margins. They want to be taxi king | of the world. How do they stay on top when every local | municipality can hire some college kids to make a close | facsimile to what Uber does? Sure maybe it's not as good | as the Uber offering, but they don't have to support a | global taxi empire, so they can offer their service for a | lot less than Uber can. If that app takes hold in city X, | why are people going to use Uber when they come to town | 30% more expensive than your small town provider? | dogman144 wrote: | Collecting enough money to pay staff/run servers != | profitable. You're asking a cash flow vs. a income | statement question. With enough cash flow, yes, can | achieve any sort of operational expense that you're | referring to. | | Uber still hasn't turned a profit, and might be able to | soon via some creative accounting: | https://gizmodo.com/uber-says-its-on-track-to-maybe-make- | a-f... | ta1234567890 wrote: | > The idea that Uber is not profitable is a myth isn't | it? | | No, it's a financial/accounting fact expressed by Uber | themselves in their filings as a public company. | | Having a business model (which is what you are | describing), doesn't make it profitable. | | Hertz had a business model too, they owned cars, people | rented cars and paid money for that. Are you saying Hertz | couldn't collect enough money to run their operations and | pay some staff? Well they couldn't, and they went | bankrupt. They were also in the red for several years | before the pandemic hit. | exogeny wrote: | MagicLeap, Groupon, Nikola, WeWork, Uber.. | | A company doesn't have to have an exit for early investors | to get out. You just need to find a sucker to buy into a | round later than you. | | How to do that, in the modern context, is pretty clear. | Either do it through outright fraud (Theranos, Nikola, | MagicLeap), extreme FOMO (MagicLeap), or raising so much | that you crush competition despite comically bad | fundamentals and never get to unit-profitability (Uber, | others). | nosianu wrote: | Do cigarette companies lying about health effects of | smoking and Big Oil doing the same about climate change | count? | | Just example links, I think I'm not making any outrageous | claims but that this has long been established and | discussed here too many times: | | https://stopswithme.com/exposing-big-tobacco/big-tobacco- | fou... | | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate | -... | | The investors already got theirs many times over. | | I think you could also include any company that left what | became a "super fund site" (US name, similar in other | countries). They cannot have believed creating and leaving | all that toxic waste in the ground would be a neutral | action. | stickfigure wrote: | The hard part here is "ultimately shown to be dishonest" - | who is privy to what is said in boardrooms and sale | negotiations? How about just examples where the investors | managed to get out just before the bubble popped? | | The canonical example would be Broadcast.com, which made | Mark Cuban a billionaire. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com | | 1998 IPO at $1B valuation | | 1999 bought by Yahoo! for $5.7B | | 2002 shut down | edot wrote: | WeWork and Nikola come to mind. Robinhood depending on if | you consider purporting yourself to be "stealing from the | rich, giving to the poor - Robinhood", but you actually | take orders from Citadel to be fraud. I think a lot of | recent IPOs will turn out to be fraud-lite, in which it is | shown over the next decade that these companies were pump | and dumps that never actually do anything. They look just | good enough to garner investment at IPO for initial | investors to cash out. | | Most any company with ML or AI in their branding, running | stupid amounts of CNBC ads and repeating their AI name 30 | times during the ad. | mrkramer wrote: | WeWork and Theranos were selling hype no real solution or | service. They seem like companies from dot com bubble | era, I thought tech investors got smarter but they are | still as stupid as they were 30 years ago. | jollybean wrote: | WeWork is different than Theroanos. | | People actually rented WeWork properties and got a | valuable service. | | The problem was more or less shenanigans on the Exec. | side, and unsustainable financial situation. | | In that case, the 'consumers' actually end up ahead, with | a cheaper services than otherwise, then investors lost. | chmsky00 wrote: | Well, yeah... | | The old political ways are not going anywhere anytime | soon. The useful land is politically captured. | | Hack the planet; have money = untouchable in our society. | | After biological well-being, there isn't much economic | activity needed to sustain the species. | | This is why the market went up during the lockdown but do | nothing companies worth $75 a year ago are worth <$10 | again. | | At some point it just becomes keeping the simulation | alive for the sake of those that benefit most from the | simulation; these gods, then this god, then no god, we | create value... | mardifoufs wrote: | Which investor actually made money from WeWork? If | anything it's an example proving the opposite. The | founder may have made some money but the investors were | left holding the bags. The whole scandal was centered | around the size of the investment loss that the main | investor, Softbank, had to eat... | lizdax wrote: | Benchmark did. Invested in the early rounds (starting | with Series A of $15m, mentioned in "WeWork, Adam | Neumann, and the great Startup Delusion"), mid rounds and | the final stake when they were supposed to IPO was $626m | -- 40x their initial investment, according to FT[0]. | | 0. https://www.ft.com/content/d32c8526-f555-11e9-b018-3ef | 8794b1... | kingTug wrote: | Robinhood | michael1999 wrote: | Groupon. | guiriduro wrote: | Most, if not all SPACs. | cryptica wrote: | This is spot on. Investors don't give a damn about the | business. They just want a machine that they put money in and | more money comes out. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of | fast growing businesses these days are frauds. In such | environment, the less they know, the better. | | Only frauds can succeed in a monetary system which is itself | founded on fraud. So it makes no sense to do due diligence if | you know that the company is all hooked up to the money | printers because the business doesn't matter. Only the money | printer and the business' connection to it matters; | everything else is a nuisance. | | The business of almost every company in the tech sector these | days is the 'capture the newly printed fiat money business.' | Any other narrative is fake and only used to create a facade | of legitimacy for the company. | | No company will ever admit that their main line of business | is 'government contracts', 'government grants', 'laundered | credit from shell companies', 'foreign money laundering', | etc... | Radim wrote: | You're not wrong but... it's pretty disheartening. Do you | see a way out? | | For businesses that want to minimize their reliance on the | (trickle-down scraps of) the fraud money business. | cryptica wrote: | I think the economy has become overly financialized - It | has become too difficult to earn income through value | creation and too easy to earn income through financial | schemes - People are realizing this and giving up on | value creation en mass. Fraud has become | institutionalized (and therefore legalized). | | IMO, the financial system has already suffered | irreparable damage to its reputation. I think there might | be calls for asset seizures and redistribution soon. In | the US, the BLM movement has already been campaigning for | 'financial reparations'. South Africa just passed a law | to allow land to be seized by the government without | compensation. I think this might become more widespread - | Hopefully it will only be restricted to specific assets; | I think big corporate stocks are a likely target for | expropriation because they have benefited the most from | money printing; it will be easy for people to find | evidence of wrongdoing and use it as a basis to seize and | redistribute shares (or simply nationalize the companies | altogether). | | My gut feeling is that we're headed to some kind of | partial-communist government - First, they will only | seize the assets related to big finance, big tech, big | pharma since this will have public support. Maybe later | once the public has warmed up to the new form of | government, the government will be able to make a move on | all private property. | spaceflunky wrote: | This sounds plausible, but as someone else said, has this | ever been proven to be the case? What are some good examples? | olalonde wrote: | But in the end, it's such a gamble that I'm skeptical any of | the investors knew or suspected fraud when they initially | invested. I've heard of exits for companies without a | business model or revenue, but how many companies have an | exit event (e.g. get acquired or IPO) with no product at all? | akiselev wrote: | _> I 've heard of exits for companies without a business | model or revenue, but how many companies have an exit event | (e.g. get acquired or IPO) with no product at all?_ | | Depends on your definition of "no product at all" but it | happens all the time in biotech. | | Most biotech companies don't have a product until FDA | approval because they can't legally sell anything (unless | it's a product other biotech/pharma companies can use for | their own R&D). | gruez wrote: | >The goal is to invest in a company that reaches a valuation | high enough to let them recoup their investment at a profit. | | Alternatviely, they want to invest in insane | companies/founders on the off chance that they actually make | it. | | >But another theory is: No, those investors really want to be | lied to. Those investors are holding a competition of the | form "who can sound the most excited and persuasive and crazy | when they lie to us," and they give their money to the | winner. They wouldn't put it quite that way. But what the | investors want is a fantasist, a wild-eyed dreamer, a | visionary who sees the world not as it is but as it could be. | They want someone who looks at $1 million in revenue and sees | $10 million. They want someone who looks at some blueprints | for an electric truck and sees hundreds rolling off the | production line. They want someone who looks at a finger- | prick blood test that doesn't work and sees one that does | work. They want someone who believes in something that nobody | else believes in, an out-of-consensus visionary who wants to | change the world. Obviously obviously obviously they would | prefer it if this person's wild belief comes true, if she | succeeds in changing the world. But the first step is to back | founders with crazy ideas. And then if one of them works out, | that pays for 10 that are just crazy. | | >This theory is also well supported! Lots of venture | capitalists will say it out loud! But also, like, man, look | at the entire history of SoftBank Group Corp. Look at how | SoftBank's Masayoshi Son met WeWork's Adam Neumann, and | Neumann pitched him on some vision of office-space-rental | changing the world, and Son gave Neumann $3.1 billion. And, | famously, "Mr. Neumann has told others that Mr. Son | appreciated how he was crazy--but thought that he needed to | be crazier." You don't say that and then turn around and | check every line of the financial projections for | exaggerations and unjustified assumptions. If you invest in | startups by (1) meeting crazy people and (2) telling them to | be crazier, your main investment criterion is not scrupulous | accuracy. | | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-31/theran. | .. | aj7 wrote: | A dead giveaway for throwaway board seats: Nobel Prize winners, | generals, politicians. Another: "professional board members" | who sit on multiple boards but have never had senior executive | roles involving profit and loss. | | These people may be accomplished in their own right, but they | know little about business. They are there for lunch, the fat | fee, and to pose. | | And when a big company has a NUMBER of these types, i.e. two or | more, they have an authoritarian/secrecy problem. | jacinabox wrote: | Why did Theranos insist on using 'a single drop of blood.' Why | not be able to run a normal blood sample through an | unprecedentedly compact form factor testing unit. Wouldn't that | be good enough? | hef19898 wrote: | In industry terms? Absolutely. In terms of getting a billion | dollar evaluation for being a disruptive start up? Probably | not. | | Also, the former seems to be a harder problem to solve than | the latter. | Ajay-p wrote: | Look at the board. Older men. They saw an attractive, young, | energetic technology wizard and fell for her charm. I don't | know if one could go as far as to say this is female privilege, | but I think there was definitely elements of seduction. | robertlagrant wrote: | > What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, | and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or | anything. Weird. | | When you're sat on stage next to Bill Clinton people assume | someone somewhere has done some due diligence already. Turns | out there are a lot more jobs out there to do with marketing, | hype, and event planning than there are doing fact checking. | pessimizer wrote: | What is Bill Clinton but a hype man, though? The board of | Theranos was filled with names evocative of gravitas to baby | boomers, but whose input on anything would be worthless. | hef19898 wrote: | Clinton? For all his faults, a two term president. And one | that left with a federal budget running in the black. That | requires some skills, even if I have no idea which exactly. | | Edit: Come to think of it, Clinton was also a president | that didn't start or prolong a pointless war, on the scale | of the war on terror, Vietnam or Korea. | sjg007 wrote: | Clinton is probably one of the best Presidents in recent | history. Obama is the best currently and Biden will | probably be the best if he can get his legislation passed | and the pandemic under control. Right now blue states | with mask requirements and mandatory vaccinations are | doing very very well. The rest of us are in for a bumpy | ride. | random314 wrote: | Elizabeth Holmes went out of her way to find non expert | investors. Infact, I don't think any silicon valley VCs made | any significant investments in Theranos. | misiti3780 wrote: | I too thought about the counterfactual in which that if their | technology actually worked, COVID testing could have been have | been done at scale in the US. | nitrogen wrote: | There are companies (at least one anyway) that make rapid | testing panels that include COVID, plus a dozen plus other | respiratory diseases, in a single test that is profitable at | $200 and costs $20 in consumables. I heard that they disabled | all the other tests so they could get approved as a COVID | test sooner, or something like that. The problem is you can't | ask for such a test as a patient, hospital billing | departments make the news for charging insurance $$$$ for | each individual pathogen on the test, and doctors come out of | the woodwork to say how negligent and irresponsible it is to | test for so many things at once, as if it's literally | impossible to take base rates into account when you do more | than one test. | robertlagrant wrote: | If the regulators get out of the way it would be great to | make these available direct to consumer with an app | companion, and the consumer can share the results with | their physician. | adolph wrote: | _Millions and millions, millions of tests per day could | be available today, except that the FDA is sitting on the | applications, many of which I've looked at. And the | applications are stellar. There's absolutely no reason | for an inexpensive three- or four-dollar test to be being | outright rejected by the FDA right now or just sitting in | a queue for many months. It's no longer a normal time at | the FDA, they're being held up there for unknown | reasons._ | | Coronavirus (COVID-19): Press Conference with Michael | Mina, 02/24/21 | | https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coronavirus- | covid... | nitrogen wrote: | If we could mail a free test and free mask to every | registered USPS address once a week we could end the | pandemic if people who are anti-vax are not anti-test. | InitialLastName wrote: | Something tells me that if the regulators got out of the | way, we would have dozens of Covid tests available, half | of which would work better than a coin toss. | jbay808 wrote: | Isn't COVID testing being done at scale in many countries | right now? I'm in Canada and I can go to a free drive through | test station without appointment and get about a 24-hour | turnaround on results, and that's been the case for over a | year. | misiti3780 wrote: | yes, but it was not happening in March 2020 in the US for a | variety of reasons. | cactus2093 wrote: | As someone who knows very little about biology, I watched the | HBO documentary about Theranos and am kind of still confused by | some of the conflicting claims I hear. | | In the documentary, they focused a lot on the engineering | challenges of the machine they were making. The blood samples | would spill, which would gum up the mechanical workings of the | machine and make a huge mess and contaminate all the other | samples. The documentary claimed that Theranos started doing | demos where they would pretend to put the blood samples into | the machine, but really take it to a lab bench and run the | tests there, and then report the results back. | | That implies to me that at least some of their tests were | actually possible to do. I left the documentary thinking | "someone should simply do this again, solve the | mechanical/robotics problem, and not lie about it and this | could still be a game changing technology". But then I've seen | other sources (like your comment here) claiming that the basic | science of what they were trying to do was | impossible/fraudulent from the beginning. | | Which is true? | random314 wrote: | They failed on several fronts | | 1. The basic equipment they built simply didn't work at all | | 2. Their workaround trick of getting a finger prick blood | draw, dilute it with water and run the test on a Qwest | machine produced wrong results. | | 3. The fundamental approach itself was unviable. You can't | get reliable results from a finger prick. | | Theranos failed on all fronts except being able to attract | investments from non experts. | gitfan86 wrote: | There is room for improvement in testing technology and | processes. | | But not to the extent of "One drop of blood from your finger | can provide accurate tests on 26 different types of tests" | Especially when some of those tests are only accurate with a | large sample of blood | michaelrpeskin wrote: | I'm always reminded of this when Theranos comes up. Years | ago I was in the hospital, they wouldn't let me out until a | blood test showed some numbers that made them feel better. | I asked about how the one test worked. The nurse would come | in and draw a tube of blood (I forget the volume, but if | you've had your blood drawn for a test, a typical tube | sized - 10's of mL). And then that'd go down to the lab and | be mixed with reagents and a tech would look in a | microscope slide and count things. Then they'd reverse the | math and turn the things they counted into a concentration | of stuff in my blood. That's the number the doctor looked | at. So when I worked through the process, and deduced that | what the lab tech counted was on average 4 particles of | interest. And since I was an obnoxious grad student, I | brought up shot noise and said that means there's a 50% | error in the measurement and that the doctor should | discharge me. Of course, he said that even with a 50% | buffer, the numbers were too low for him to feel | comfortable. | | Long story, but they needed an entire tube of my blood to | count 4 particles in the microscope. A drop of blood would | not have enough things in it to count. Real life is | discrete, and often we need a big sample just to get enough | things to count. | | That's why I always though Theranos was a fraud. | cblconfederate wrote: | Were they the first ones to do it? | mrkramer wrote: | She defrauded investors out of so much money, she deserves at | least 10 years in prison imo. | spaetzleesser wrote: | There is a documentary on Frontline about cannabis. A guy had a | medical marijuana license from one state. Cops in another state | find a small amount of marijuana with him. He gets 5 years. Put | that in proportion to a possible punishment Holmes may receive. | danjac wrote: | Frankly don't care about the investors, they won't go hungry | and they should have known better. | | Endangering the lives of ordinary people though - 10 years | isn't enough. | mrkramer wrote: | But the money which was lost investing in Theranos could've | been invested in other companies that would actually save the | lives of ordinary people the ones that Theranos was suppose | to save. | rsynnott wrote: | I mean realistically, given the timing, it would probably | have been invested in Uber or that iPhone app that was just | a "hey" button or something. | spaetzleesser wrote: | I know there is "fake it till you make it" but usually these | companies have some idea how to get success. But as far as I | understand Theranos never had any technology or approach that | promised to lead to their goals. They just tried various stuff | that never worked and lied about it. | | It was more like me starting a company that wants to create a | battery with ten times the capacity of current batteries but | having no idea how to achieve this so I take in a lot of money | and desperately try to figure something out while having no | promising insight . | rsynnott wrote: | It's a step worse. It's as if you then sold that battery to | electric plane manufacturers, really just gave them a standard | lithium ion battery, and planes started falling out of the sky. | Theranos's broken tech was used on real people and had real | consequences. | aj7 wrote: | The famous picture of her taking reporters into the machine shop | is one example. | | "Touring the machine shop" is an old trick when you want to waste | time and not show anyone anything. Technically naive people don't | realize that modern machines each have a computer attached to | them, and there is little proprietary in most shops. | fullshark wrote: | I think it also makes for compelling pictures, which was her | primary goal at all times: marketing. | AlbertCory wrote: | A free way [1] to track the trial, at least some of it. I'm | hoping to go to at least one day of it. | | I'm sure the actual court reporter trial transcripts will be | public at some point (does anyone know?), but they're not in [1]. | | If you are drawing comparisons between her and the rest of | Silicon Valley, you are missing one rather important fact: hard | sciences are hard. We have it easy in computers. | | There are government agencies involved in testing what she did, | and people's health is at stake. Just imagine that some | bureaucrat was reading every line of code you wrote. | | [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united- | states-v... | bryanrasmussen wrote: | I am actually very, very surprised that they had lab equipment? | throwoutway wrote: | There was a second room where they led the inspectors with true | lab eqpt while the other had the inaccurate machines (according | to the book) | the-dude wrote: | Are you sure it wasn't the other way around? | | Weren't they pretending to operate their own equipment while | the real equipment was 'behind the curtain' ? | moogly wrote: | Yeah, that's what I remember too. They had the Siemens | equipment in a back room that they used to run the real | tests on, but pretended that they were using their own tech | for these tests. | throwoutway wrote: | Maybe I forgot, but I think they were operating both. | lmkg wrote: | Depends on what's being audited. For investors, you want to | show a room of gear that other companies don't have. For | certification of medical equipment, you want to demonstrate | that your process works. | tito wrote: | BioCurious received some very nice lab equipment for free when | Theranos shutdown: https://biocurious.org/ | louwrentius wrote: | If you haven't read the book "Bad Blood" by John Carreyrou I | think you should give it a try. I think it's really worth it. | danso wrote: | Seconded. Besides being absolutely stock full of | incredible/hilarious inside details about Theranos's rise and | fall, it's one of the best books I've ever read about the | investigative journalism process. Carreyrou goes out of his way | to credit the obscure blog author who tipped him off to | Theranos. | FloayYerBoat wrote: | ...and he details how the Wall Street Journal was pressured | by very powerful people / organizations and they fully stood | by their journalists. Very surprising and encouraging. | philg_jr wrote: | And the new podcast that Carreyrou is doing for the most | updated info on the evidence and trial, "Bad Blood: The Final | Chapter". | callistus wrote: | Thanks for this! Just finished listening to the audiobook and | was itching for an update by Carreyrou. There's another | podcast, The Drop Out: Elizabeth Holmes on Trial that is also | covering the trial. | curtis3389 wrote: | > "Passing," Christian told him, "is not an option." In a later | email exchange between Christian and Elizabeth, she told her | brother, "You handled this excellently." | | > In a separate reply, Balwani was dismissive of Rosendorff's | complaints and later emailed Holmes, urging her to fire him | rather than let him finish his last few days. "We need to respond | to him now and cut him Monday." | | The worst management. | Animats wrote: | All that is in the book "Bad Blood". | dev_tty01 wrote: | Beyond all the fraud, lying, and deceit, the real shame is the | lost opportunity and the associated colossal mismanagement. | Theranos was able to marshal about a billion dollars with an | overarching goal of democratizing access to health data. They | basically accomplished nothing. Generating such a concentration | of resources for this goal was a notable accomplishment. The | subsequent arrogant (and stupid) inability to discern "hard" from | "impossible" and adjust their approach to maintain some chance of | success to the overarching goal was a grotesque and massive | failure. | tushar-r wrote: | I recommend the "Bad Blood: The Final Chapter" podcast by John | Carreyrou. He's the journalist who broke the story and the | podcast goes into some detail about the history and also talks | about what is going on now. | fullshark wrote: | Or read his book! It's fabulous. | paxys wrote: | Do both! I loved the book and am following the podcast. | There's a lot of new commentary about the trial and the | material that came out during discovery (which wasn't | available to the author when he wrote the book). | carabiner wrote: | I recommend the video of her dancing to "Can't Touch This": | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrT0jKOhnD4 | | and the video of her using her real, non-deep, voice: | https://youtu.be/PjnsYz-xdOI?t=55 | ipsum2 wrote: | I despise Holmes, but using a video of her dancing as an | argument against her seems like an ad homeniem. | jnewman23 wrote: | Wait, I thought this was a fake case stemming from structural | misogyny! | encryptluks2 wrote: | If anyone truly deserves a very long prison sentence it is | Elizabeth Holmes. I think we're about to confirm what we've | always known and that has been apparent since the start of this | case. That rich white people, even if they got their money by | taking advantage of others are pretty immune from harsh | punishment in the criminal justice system. | danso wrote: | Why do you think it's apparent that this case in particular | will reaffirm that rich white people "are pretty immune from | harsh punishment in the criminal justice system"? I mean I | don't argue that the wealthy _often_ escape justice, but why | would you think the Theranos case is evidence of that? It 's | literally at trial right now, which is a very, very bad | scenario for Holmes. The vast majority of cases (including ones | with a guilty plea) don't go to trial. | stickfigure wrote: | Hold your outrage, the show's not over yet. | thehappypm wrote: | I kinda disagree. Sure, she was not honest to investors. But | who cares? these investors are billionaires trying to make a | quick buck. The faulty equipment in actual pharmacies is | problematic, but I can actually see how prototypes out in the | wild is a good thing. | jjulius wrote: | >Sure, she was not honest to investors. | | ... or the businesses that purchased the machines, and every | average person who got tested with those machines and put | their faith in the results, all because she was dishonest. | | This is the healthcare industry we're speaking of - it's not | just investors at stake here, it's everyone's _health_ that | she put at stake for the sake of getting herself rich. | | Edit: Regarding prototypes in the wild; given that this is | healthcare, I don't mind prototypes being used _as long as | the unknown accuracy of the devices is clearly communicated | before they are used, and everyone getting a test understands | that they 're part of a clinical trial_. This was absolutely | not the case. | thehappypm wrote: | I agree that the prototypes in the wild was done | improperly. If it's a prototype used for data gathering | with a big "these are prototypes!" waiver, then that's one | thing. I'm not sure how they were positioned in the stores | they were placed in, if they were marketed as a 100% | accuracy miracle box or an up-and-coming technology that | still has to have kinks worked out. In either case I'm | struggling that this is jail time criminal; I think at best | it's a civil issue. | jjulius wrote: | We'll have to agree to disagree here. To me, with the | level of fraud she engaged in in every area of her | company, and the fact that that fraud impacted the | healthcare decisions of individuals who used that test, | that is a criminal issue. | | She was fucking around with the actual health of people | for her own financial gain. | chollida1 wrote: | Well there are stories of people who made actual medical | decisions from the faulty machines she produced. | | I'm guessing everyone who made medical decisions based on her | faulty machines cares a great deal. | | How can you have so little empathy for the everyday people | caught up in this | thehappypm wrote: | The faulty equipment in actual pharmacies is problematic, | but I can actually see how prototypes out in the wild is a | good thing. | dustintrex wrote: | Not being honest to investors is one thing. _Knowingly_ | peddling faulty lab results to consumers making important | medical decisions based on the results _and_ unaware that | they were pawns in this game is quite different. | | This is what makes the Theranos case qualitatively different | from (say) WeWork, and why she's facing criminal charges. You | buy office space from WeWork, you get exactly what you pay | for, even if there were insane shenanigans going on in | investorland. You buy a lab test from Theranos, you're | getting essentially fake results and risking your health on | it. | thehappypm wrote: | What I'm struggling with is how this is criminal. | | Like, there are rapid COVID tests out there. They're | marketed as accurate. Yet everyone knows they're not | foolproof. If I got a positive rapid test, the first thing | I'd do is go get a PCR test. | | With these Theranos lab tests, it's honestly (to me) a | similar thing. If I'm a startup trying to make a cheap HIV | test, and I know it's not perfect, it's wrong sometimes, | does that make me a criminal for wanting to get real-world | users to use my product? Isn't it more of a regulatory | oversight if people are making medical decisions based on | new and imperfect tech? | rspeele wrote: | Depends strongly on how your represent the accuracy of | your test to those using it. If you are up front about | the level of accuracy it should be fine. | | But my limited understanding of this case is that the | Edison machine was so inaccurate as to be near useless. | So if customers had been informed about how bad it was, | they would not have chosen to use it. | akshayB wrote: | I can't recall last time a C-level company executive get into | trouble for using deceptive tactics, every S&P500 company does | this to some extent. When they get caught, in majority of cases | it is a gentle slap on the wrist or given more of a timeout and | reallocation of their position. Also unfortunately using public | money and delivering a bad product is not a criminal offense, | more like being sloppy at what you do. With big lawyers | involved she might get sometime in a fancy hotel like prison or | some restrictions on trading stock or fundraising. | smart_creature wrote: | She didn't just "using public money and delivering a bad | product". She lied to investors and regulators. That is | called fraud and it is definitely a criminal offense. Her | defense rests on proving she did not do it knowingly or with | the intention to defraud. Nevertheless, yes she could get | away with it. And yes, this being the United States race and | class is involved but more so class in this case. | mordechai9000 wrote: | Here's a fun one: a telecom CEO (named Elizabeth, too) was | forging customer signatures - signatures of people she had | known and worked with in many cases - to show to investors. | | And she took money from friends and employees, and told them | they were getting shares in the company. In reality she used | the money to pay off her lifestyle expenses. | | To be fair, she probably intended to make good on the | investments once the company was wildly successful. | | The amazing thing is, the company had hired a new CEO and is | actually still operating. Last I heard. | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-08/quintilli. | .. | superbaconman wrote: | > According to the indictment, the defendants also allegedly | made numerous misrepresentations to potential investors about | Theranos's financial condition and its future prospects. For | example, the defendants represented to investors that | Theranos conducted its patients' tests using Theranos- | manufactured analyzers; when, in truth, Holmes and Balwani | knew that Theranos purchased and used for patient testing | third party, commercially-available analyzers. The defendants | also represented to investors that Theranos would generate | over $100 million in revenues and break even in 2014 and that | Theranos expected to generate approximately $1 billion in | revenues in 2015; when, in truth, the defendants knew | Theranos would generate only negligible or modest revues in | 2014 and 2015. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v- | elizabeth-holmes-et-a... | | If that's not fraud, what is? | wyldfire wrote: | > Also unfortunately using public money and delivering a bad | product is not a criminal offense, more like being sloppy at | what you do. | | They lied to FDA auditors in what sounds like a criminal | conspiracy to defraud investors, business partners, and the | patients whose blood tests were processed there. | misiti3780 wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal | makerofspoons wrote: | Interestingly Holmes' father was a VP at Enron: https://www | .forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2019/02/17/4-startli... | hef19898 wrote: | Maybe it's time for a new SOX moment. | akshayB wrote: | The point I am trying to make is way things work in US, | most likely C-levels and high level officials of companies | get away with it. I am sure there are cases when folks got | into trouble. Apple had Antennagate for one of the iphones | and even with a class-action lawsuit people got like $15 | reimbursement. For these huge companies in most of the time | amount of fines are more like margin of error in accounting | spreadsheet. | billyhoffman wrote: | These are not remotely comparable. | | One is a company that built a product with a design flaw | effecting only one aspect of the product (cell radio) | that was only triggered under certain circumstances | (placing you fingers in certain positions). A civil | lawsuit against the company caused the company to issue a | fix (free bumper case which insulated the antenna) that | retroactively fixed all products that shipped with the | flaw. | | The other is a medical device company that sold a product | that didn't work, giving incorrect results that directly | informed how people treated or even detected health | problems. People inside the company knew this and lied | anyway, repeatedly, and then those people induced and | conspired with others to hide their fraud. Those specific | people are now facing criminal charges. | floatboth wrote: | Antennagate and a big fraudulent startup in the _medical_ | (!) industry are quite different scale things. | hart_russell wrote: | I think you could have just stopped at rich. Money helps anyone | going through the US Justice system, regardless of color. | tmpz22 wrote: | The data backs it up [1]. Sentencing disparities based on | race in the United States are undeniable. | | [1]: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_i | achr... | hart_russell wrote: | So based on your provided data, white people are | incarcerated more than latino and "other". | svrourke wrote: | There's always someone that has to make sure no one is | being unfair to white people | s_dev wrote: | >That rich white people | | Balwani isn't white. He seems just as culpable as Elizabeth. | hijinks wrote: | say what you want about her but if I knew nothing about this | company and someone told me the CEO got charged with a crime and | she got pregnant after charges were filed. | | I'd almost think she is guilty and trying to get a lesser | sentence because of having a kid. | | As a sane person the last thing I want to do is bring a child | into a world where a parent could be in jail for 20 years. | apples_oranges wrote: | The modern wisdom, "fake it till you make it", requires you to | make it, otherwise you'll pay for lying to us. | [deleted] | SkipperCat wrote: | I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because it | touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley? 'Fake it till | you make it', 'move fast and break things', 'disrupt the | markets', etc. | | IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk | are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets, but | when it comes to life and safety - bad news. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because | it touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley? | | I think people are so used to being lied to by companies that | they're really happy to see it come back on someone. When's | the last time you saw a press release that wasn't spun to | contort the truth as far as possible? We're so used to | corporate communication being 99% polished turds and, while | we accept it, we hate it. Just like all the experts calling | out their stuff as impossible, we all know we're being lied | to. | | _Finally_ , someone was caught being full of shit in a way | that makes them liable. | | > IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at | risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more | widgets | | I think this business model is _normal_ when it's other | things at risk, but people are enthusiastic to see | comeuppance because they're so sick of this being business as | usual. | sam0x17 wrote: | All of those things, but also I think a factor we all | underestimate is Elizabeth herself has this super creepy | presence in nearly every photo and video where she makes an | appearance -- something just seems "off", in an almost | uncanny valley sort of way, and confirmation that something | is in fact "off" in the form of an actual scandal, I think, | might satisfy some deep emotion that drove views to the | original news stories that showed her picture. Those pictures | stick with you, even sans-scandal. | | Can't wait to see who they cast in the inevitable Netflix | series. | N00bN00b wrote: | >I think a factor we all underestimate is Elizabeth herself | has this super creepy presence in nearly every photo and | video where she makes an appearance -- something just seems | "off", in an almost uncanny valley sort of way, and | confirmation that something is in fact "off" in the form of | an actual scandal | | Got to learn how to recognize the antisocial ones. This is | how you figure that out. | | You can fake a lot, but the involuntary eye muscles don't | move properly, so you can see it in the eyes. | | Some use that to avoid certain people. Some use it to find | the people they are looking for. The words that are said | don't matter as much. You can just look them in the eyes. | nvr219 wrote: | It gets a lot of attention because VCs were publicly conned. | elliekelly wrote: | > IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at | risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more | widgets, but when it comes to life and safety - bad news. | | She's not on trial for defrauding patients and putting their | life and safety at risk. She's on trial for defrauding | investors and putting their money at risk. | LanceH wrote: | There are two possible "fake it until you make it" levels | going on here. Say you draw a regular sample of blood and run | tests with competitor's products until yours work. Tests are | real, but everyone thinks your tests are doing the work. | That's one way. The other way is you take a drop of blood and | produce unreliable results. | | Generally "fake it until you make it" has some delivery of | the actual product, even if it costs more to produce than it | generates in revenue. Or it requires human execution of | something which appears to be automated. | | The Theranos case is interesting because it straight up | didn't work. It definitely crossed over from "getting | something done differently than it appears" into "straight up | fabrication, intimidation, lies, and buying off the | politically influential." | | Look at the board for the simple reason it gets a lot of | attention (beside hitting all the tropes). Short on medical, | long on political influence. | capableweb wrote: | > IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at | risk are venture capital [...] | | Isn't there always more risk than just "venture capital" to | this "move fast and break things" model? | | Take Uber for an example, sure, they've burned so much cash | trying to circumvent laws, but not only have they burned | cash, they have also changed economies around the world by | burning this cash and trying to disrupt things. Many normal | taxi drivers are now without jobs, and suddenly the risk | seems bigger than just venture capital. | | Same with AirBnb and changing the hospitality sector, and | many other examples where it seems there is just cash being | burned, but that burn also have an outside effect bigger than | just the burn. | krageon wrote: | Yes, organised crime (because that is what you are | describing) has big knock-on effects on the rest of | society. That is why we treat organised crime the way we | normally do. The fact that these corporations were allowed | abroad and left to do what they did highlights that the | legal system (meant in the first place to protect citizens) | has been broken. That that doesn't get looked at harder and | seen for what it is is truly tragic. | rewma wrote: | > Many normal taxi drivers are now without jobs, and | suddenly the risk seems bigger than just venture capital. | | I've lost count of how many times I call an Uber and I end | up getting a taxi. I guess IMMV but from my vantage point | I'm not sure how realistic is the "taxi drivers are getting | fired" take. | | One aspect where Uber thankfully did disrupted the taxi | industry is that now customers can flag bad taxi drivers | for providing a bad customer experience, and in the process | push out all the bad apples. | SkipperCat wrote: | Totally agree. I can't stand Uber and AirBnb because they | mess with people in a bad way. Their sins are well | documented. I'm fine with investors losing some $$$ on | companies like Juicero. Capitalism needs success and | failure to be effective and the death of $699 juice | squeezers are an acceptable casualty. | jjcon wrote: | This goes way beyond "fake it till you make it" - its not just | overhyping tech - its active and deliberate deception in a | product where you are playing with peoples lives | fnord77 wrote: | Holmes still made it - she's still rich and probably will serve | minimal (if any) jail time. | spaetzleesser wrote: | And in a few years everything will be forgotten. She will do | a little philanthropy and be a hero like Michael Milken. | RegnisGnaw wrote: | The problem is that none of this will work against her defense, | that she was not of sane state of mind at the time. | rsynnott wrote: | That's traditionally a very difficult defense; it's often tried | as a Hail Mary, but rarely succeeds. | thehappypm wrote: | Wait, that's not her defense from what I've seen. Her defense | was that she basically tried her best, was doing actual R&D, | there were tech problems, she made some blunders, but failure | is not criminal. | dazc wrote: | Tech problems is a bit of an understatement. | fernandotakai wrote: | she's going to say Balwani was abusing her emotionally and | sexually, which impaired her sense of mind. | | https://www.npr.org/2021/08/28/1031961327/elizabeth- | holmes-t... | MisterBastahrd wrote: | What are they basing that on? Her turtleneck was too tight? | misiti3780 wrote: | Any lawyers here - is the general consensus that she is going | to jail for a long time? | smart_creature wrote: | Not a lawyer or legal expert. But American juries are | generally unpredictable and overwhelming evidence doesn't | always decide cases (look at the O.J Simpson trial or more | recently Bill Cosby or the first Epstein case). I think the | general consensus is that there's a lot of damning evidence | against her and there's a good chance she'll be found guilty. | But a lot depends on how effective her defense is in swaying | the jury and a lot of technicalities. Plus there's the | baby/new mother factor that might influence her sentencing if | not the jury verdict | mannerheim wrote: | There wasn't overwhelming evidence in the Cosby case, which | is precisely why his conviction was overturned. He was | convicted based on testimony he was forced to give against | himself in a civil trial where he was not allowed to | exercise his fifth amendment right against self- | incrimination. The previous DA specifically said there | wasn't enough evidence to convict Cosby, which is both why | he never pursued charges and why Cosby was forced to | testify against himself (without the threat of criminal | indictment, he didn't have the right against self- | incrimination on the civil suit). | smart_creature wrote: | You are technically correct but I don't see what the | contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was | 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing | what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and | inadmissible, hence the 'technicalities' part. My point | is that even an open confession existing somewhere is not | a guarantee of conviction or a long prison sentence. | mannerheim wrote: | If the exclusion of a single piece of evidence whose use | in a trial was unconstitutional meant there wasn't enough | evidence to convict, I would say there wasn't | 'overwhelming evidence'. | kesselvon wrote: | That defense is not likely to work. | | The reason she's using it is because the evidence is so | overwhelming, there are no other cards to play. | [deleted] | xqcgrek2 wrote: | Western society is way too tolerant of certain kinds of mental | illness, such as sociopathy/psychopathy, and intolerant of | others (e.g. anxiety/depression). | toss1 wrote: | Very succinct statement of the issue. | | Not only is Western society too tolerant of sociopathy, | corporate structures tend to actively filter to top ranks | those with such behaviors (just spend 5min reading Glassdoor | or any employment-related NH topic...). | short_sells_poo wrote: | I have a pet theory on this that is entirely based on my | own biased views: societies which are communal, whether | around a family, village, tribe, etc..., tend to keep | sociopathic tendencies in check. Either the sociopathic | individual is exiled from the group, or at least identified | and prevented from harming the collective. If the larger | structure is still made up of smaller (at most 100s of | individuals) communities, exiles risk becoming pariahs and | without any societal support, it becomes next to impossible | to strive (or even survive). | | In highly individualistic societies, a lot of the most | personal checks and balances are removed. You no longer | have a tight-knit family that imposes some moral framework | and behavior on it's members (good or bad). | | Having said that, I'm not sure whether there are any truly | communal societies left in the modern world. I suppose some | isolated, rural communities could qualify, but pretty much | all modern countries are now individualistic. Family values | are slightly more pronounced in the East/far-East, but not | to a degree that matters. Being successful still often | trumps being a decent human being. | toss1 wrote: | Indeed! The ability to make a mess then move on to a new | crowd to abuse/scam/etc. without your reputation fully | following you, is hugely enabling for sociopaths. | smart_creature wrote: | I've followed the case fairly closely. I'm not aware that this | is part of her defense. Where did you get this from? | RegnisGnaw wrote: | https://www.npr.org/2021/08/28/1031961327/elizabeth- | holmes-t... | | Basically: yes I did do this, but I was abused by Balwani and | as a result I was in an impaired state of mind. | smart_creature wrote: | Those are not exactly the same thing. And it would undercut | her current defense which is "I was just doing my best and | we failed and business failure isn't a crime" | RegnisGnaw wrote: | She doesn't have a current defense in the court. The | defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not | media. The prosecution is presenting the evidence right | now, she will have her turn afterwards. | smart_creature wrote: | "She doesn't have a current defense in the court.The | defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not | media" | | Huh? I don't even know what this means. According to you | her defense is "that she was not of sane state of mind at | the time". Maybe you can post another npr link that | explains what you mean by no current defense in court. | RegnisGnaw wrote: | The "Balwani abused me and I had diminished mental | capacity" is her planned defense in court as stated in | the NRP article. | | At the trial right now (in court), her lawyers hasn't | presented that defense yet. Right now the trial is in the | first step, the prosecution/state presenting their case. | Once the prosecution/state rests their case, the defense | begin present their case (at this point they will present | their "Balwami abused me argument". | buescher wrote: | I thought her defense was "we tried real hard and it just | didn't work, is that a crime?" I guess "also, I'm nuts" adds | some spice to the mix. | emaginniss wrote: | Her actual defense is going to be: "That bad man made me do it" | RegnisGnaw wrote: | Exactly, "I did do it. But that bad man made me do it." | dmurray wrote: | Cherchez l'homme! | jdorfman wrote: | Tyler Schultz and Erika Cheung risked it all. They saved lives by | blowing the whistle knowing it could potentially ruin their | careers, relationships, financial stability (lawyer fees). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-29 23:02 UTC)