Theranos

I don't think you can blame investors for 2 reasons

1) sometimes investment is in potential, not a working product
2) I'm sure like any fraud there was an elaborate scheme behind it all to pretend the machine worked

You are right about the second part though. Any time a new technology is introduced, you can be damn sure a group like the government is supposed to do thorough due diligence and testing. Even I wonder about the patents because I assume when you patent something you have to show how it works. And the most obvious way of proving something like this works is to take blood from donors and test them conventionally and using the machine and get the exact same results. I'm assuming this wasn't done.

sempel said:

I don't think you can blame investors for 2 reasons

1) sometimes investment is in potential, not a working product
2) I'm sure like any fraud there was an elaborate scheme behind it all to pretend the machine worked

You are right about the second part though. Any time a new technology is introduced, you can be damn sure a group like the government is supposed to do thorough due diligence and testing. Even I wonder about the patents because I assume when you patent something you have to show how it works. And the most obvious way of proving something like this works is to take blood from donors and test them conventionally and using the machine and get the exact same results. I'm assuming this wasn't done.

Click to expand...

You have to show how it should work, not that it will work. That is a flaw in the patent system.

The reason for limited liability companies.

This reminds me of a few things

1) Bernie Madoff and any Ponzi scheme
2) These financial scams that are spammed to people (Nigerian Prince for example)
3) The "snake oil salesman"

In all cases, it's either an elaborate scheme or the promise of something great that outweighs cynicism or practical knowledge/logic.

- A 20 year old somehow comes up with a new process to analyze blood
- The process is cheap, fast, uses one drop of blood
- The process somehow can't be done even by multi billion corporations
- According to articles, her interviews and showmanship skills were vague, grandiose and never went into scientific detail

....... and people didn't see this as sketchy?

Occasionally said:

- A 20 year old somehow comes up with a new process to analyze blood
- The process is cheap, fast, uses one drop of blood
- The process somehow can't be done even by multi billion corporations
- According to articles, her interviews and showmanship skills were vague, grandiose and never went into scientific detail

....... and people didn't see this as sketchy?

Click to expand...

Lol.

Some people are just eager to believe a good story. A skeptic such as myself would have scrutinized the hell out of it before investing a penny. Her age is irrelevant - plenty of young geniuses. But this fraud is widespread. No way just one person at the top knew it was BS and everybody working for her didn't know jack.

franci said:

Where investors really this stupid to invest in a company that could not prove it's product worked?

Click to expand...

Have you seen photographs of Elizabeth Holmes?

I wonder how much money she still has, or moved offshore.

Aardvark154 said:

Have you seen photographs of Elizabeth Holmes?

Click to expand...

Sure wish she'd put my hot dog up her crotch.........oops, wrong thread.

tml said:

Sure wish she'd put my hot dog up her crotch.........oops, wrong thread.

Click to expand...

Think you wishing she'd do an oral test of your blood/semen makes more sense - and you wouldn't give a damn what the results were....

sempel said:

Lol.

Some people are just eager to believe a good story. A skeptic such as myself would have scrutinized the hell out of it before investing a penny. Her age is irrelevant - plenty of young geniuses. But this fraud is widespread. No way just one person at the top knew it was BS and everybody working for her didn't know jack.

Click to expand...

To me, a 20 year old coming up with a huge scientific breakthrough is unlikely. To do this kind of thing, you need to have the basics in science/medical education. And she didn't even graduate.

It's like engineering. You can be super smart, but you can't suddenly build a bridge or skyscraper at 20 years old.

Occasionally said:

To me, a 20 year old coming up with a huge scientific breakthrough is unlikely. To do this kind of thing, you need to have the basics in science/medical education. And she didn't even graduate.

It's like engineering. You can be super smart, but you can't suddenly build a bridge or skyscraper at 20 years old.

Click to expand...

TBH, I don't think you can make a determination on that basis alone. Yes, it's unlikely but there are plenty of "geniuses" who were young and didn't graduate. Zuckerberg and Bill Gates come to mind. Yes, there breakthroughs weren't scientific per se but they are supersmart. There have been plenty of young people who have come up with a variety of gadgets and breakthroughs in science projects, research, or other means. I just saw a listing of teens who've all been given huge scholarships for university who've done something or the other worthwhile in science/technology.

I wouldn't count her out on the basis of age. I just think that anything new requires a large amount of testing/analysis before it's accepted as working. That's where I'm confused as to how that has basically been skipped or somehow been faked. I don't know how much a unit costs to purchase and install but if I'm a buyer I want to test it out in some way first to prove it isn't fake. Most people don't believe in accepting a black box technology as working. Too sketchy.

franci said:

Where investors really this stupid to invest in a company that could not prove it's product worked? And how could the government allow them to set up testing labs?

https://www.thestar.com/business/20...to-settle-charges-linked-tomassive-fraud.html

Click to expand...

You might Google Motherisk, another testing lab that built its business outta Toronto's SickKids, claiming its non-invasive tests detected illicit drug-use, and cranial trauma when they didn't, and likewise messed up the lives of those who trusted it.

I take it from the question, you're in favour of earlier, tougher and more rigorous (not to mention expensive) government involvement, certification and inspection of all labs and testing facilities? Good on you!

But currently, the basic standard is to allow people and their companies to do what is not forbidden, as long as they don't outright lie about it. Which Holmes admitted she did.