Theranos trial thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don’t know many people who could even say how much blood you’d need to run those tests on. I’d have to do a search here to see if anyone back in the day was saying “no, this is crazy, it’s impossible!”, or were people more like, “wow, that’s amazing they could build the tech to do that!”

I think the vast majority of the public at large suspected nothing until all of the whistleblowers came forward and exposed the deception.

That’s why from an outsiders view that looked legit, as opposed to FTX, where you don’t need to dig deep to figure out it’s fraud.

The Dean of Medicine at Stanford told her it was impossible. On Day #1.

You cannot generate results on these tests on that little blood.

Holmes didnt like that answer and so she stamped her feet and pounded her fists on the floor, like all rational billionaire visionaries and not at all like a petulant child.

And then lo and behold...it was determined that you cant generate meaningful results off of that little amount of blood.

Who could have seen that coming? You'd think a Doctor or maybe a Dean of Medicine or something would have seen that writing on the wall.

[Wormius]

Yeah, I understand what Holmes knew. I am saying the tech “seemed” legit to most of the outside world. From the perspective of any lay-person, until that article came out and exposed the fraud, I don’t think there were many doubters. If there was anybody besides her former professor who shared that skepticism, it wasn’t getting much notice until Carreyrou’s story.

It’s not that different than Volkswagen’s cheating on emissions testing. It also seemed totally legit that VW had this awesome low emissions engine design with lots of horsepower, for a number of years, until some university students became suspicious when trying to replicate the results. Surely somebody from the automotive industry should have known this wasn’t possible?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Locke

The Dean of Medicine at Stanford told her it was impossible. On Day #1.

That was for a different idea. A wearable device that could diagnose and treat that would be impossible because of the physical limitations of .

The whole Theranos grift was something else. A stand-alone diagnostic machine.

Of course the skeptics will say it can’t be done. They’ve invested so much into bulky lab spaces and will say anything to try and keep a disruptor like us out of the picture. Their antiquated testing equipment is so bulky because they haven’t needed to innovate. We are expanding on technology that already exists. Test just a drop of blood like checking your blood sugar. They have so much to lose if we can take their big labs and put it into a clinic, or even into homes. Places that have poor access to healthcare could now have it. We could even put it into a helicopter. Imagine soldiers in the field getting tested before they even get to the hospital. It could save lives. By the way have you met General Mattis, former Chief of the Joint Forces? He’s on our board.

Anyway where was I. Oh right, we are currently running successful tests in Walgreens centres as part of our strategic partnership with them and hope to bring that program nationwide. If you’re still skeptical here’s some documentation from some leading pharmaceutical companies about our testing abilities…

It was a good grift.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Yeah, I understand what Holmes knew. I am saying the tech “seemed” legit to most of the outside world. From the perspective of any lay-person, until that article came out and exposed the fraud, I don’t think there were many doubters. If there was anybody besides her former professor who shared that skepticism, it wasn’t getting much notice until Carreyrou’s story.

It’s not that different than Volkswagen’s cheating on emissions testing. It also seemed totally legit that VW had this awesome low emissions engine design with lots of horsepower, for a number of years, until some university students became suspicious when trying to replicate the results. Surely somebody from the automotive industry should have known this wasn’t possible?

What? No.

This is the whole problem. Theranos wasnt a Company it was a Cult.

The 'Tech' was objectively BS from day 1.

How often do I need to repeat this? Because I'm not going to sugarcoat it, when I first heard about this thing I thought it was an Onion article.

On Day #1 the 'Tech' was unfeasible.

And comparing Theranos to VW?

Sure. Fine.

"These figures dont make sense."

It works for both of them.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? No.

This is the whole problem. Theranos wasnt a Company it was a Cult.

The 'Tech' was objectively BS from day 1.

How often do I need to repeat this? Because I'm not going to sugarcoat it, when I first heard about this thing I thought it was an Onion article.

On Day #1 the 'Tech' was unfeasible.

And comparing Theranos to VW?

Sure. Fine.

"These figures dont make sense."

It works for both of them.

You’re saying that back in 2003, you knew that Theranos was a cult and the technology they were purporting to develop was a scam?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

You’re saying that back in 2003, you knew that Theranos was a cult and the technology they were purporting to develop was a scam?

Yes.

Because you cannot generate meaningful results from the minimal amount of blood they were talking about.

Yes.

The Dean of Medicine at Stanford said this immediately upon being presented with the concept. It was inherently flawed and completely impossible.

The fact that people poured cash into it? Thats America. Give er'.

Come on, it doesnt pass the 'smell test.' It is the epitome of 'too good to be true.'

[Wormius]

When/where did you hear about Gardner’s concerns? I didn’t see anything until the article came out and the subsequent shows. If there were red flags prior to 2015, nobody raised them publicly.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Wormius

When/where did you hear about Gardner’s concerns? I didn’t see anything until the article came out and the subsequent shows. If there were red flags prior to 2015, nobody raised them publicly.

Yeah, you're right, Lizzy was a visionary, when are you bestowing her with a Knighthood?

'Dame' Elizabeth Holmes, do you get one too?

I have no idea what you're arguing about. She committed to doing something that all physical laws deemed completely impossible.

But....she was a visionary?

Just like the clown that ran FTX? He was a visionary too...until it was unveiled that he wasnt. He was a child.

[Wormius]

My goodness. What are you talking about? Are you drunk speech-to-text posting?

I said from that from the outside, nothing to an ordinary, casual observer seemed fishy about Theranos. Therefore, as an investment it isn’t that inconceivable that people were conned through no fault of their own. Compared to FTX, which was such an obvious con job, I don’t have much sympathy.

Anyway, I don’t know what you were doing in the early 2000s that gave you this extra insight into what was or wasn’t possible in biotech, or how you knew that the Dean of Medicine at Stanford told Elizabeth Holmes that this product was impossible, prior to the Carreyrou article in 2015, in order for you to make that assessment way back then that this was a con.

Can you point to anything that you saw prior to 2015 that said to you Theranos was a total scam and that nobody in their right minds should have anything to do with investing in it?

I don’t know why you think I am hero-worshipping Holmes. I have made no statements that even remotely credit her for anything.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Theranos had seemed legit though, so I could see an intelligent investor being had as there weren’t a lot of red flags initially. FTX though is on a totally different spectrum. Like, you’d need to be certified brain dead to trust them with any assets. Crypto is all about FOMO now.

Initially starts at what point? Sure, when Ian Gibbons was initially running the engineering it seemed legitimate. As soon as he was pulled out it lost all legitimacy because they went into full clandestine mode. Nobody could ever see the actual prototypes perform tests and investors were not allowed to see the lab. They had so many red flags after the first year or so, but that's when the investors came pouring in with promises of massive wealth. Many on the board knew there were red flags, but didn't question anything. It's a classic case of failure to do due diligence before investing in a company. It will be used in economics classrooms for decades to follow.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yes.

Because you cannot generate meaningful results from the minimal amount of blood they were talking about.

Yes.

The Dean of Medicine at Stanford said this immediately upon being presented with the concept. It was inherently flawed and completely impossible.

The fact that people poured cash into it? Thats America. Give er'.

Come on, it doesnt pass the 'smell test.' It is the epitome of 'too good to be true.'

I'm going to push back a little and say that real chemical engineers with long track records thought the idea had possibilities. You can amplify signals with trace chemical elements, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities. However, when the theoretical met the practical, it became obvious that there were physical limitations that could not be overcome.

At that point the company should have lost momentum, but instead, more people poured money in, and that's why she was charged and convicted with fraud. Making up results and using other company's technologies and passing it off as her own. That was the only way to maintain the grift.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I always assume that people like this still have money stashed away somewhere. She will probably get out of jail in 11 years and have more net worth than the majority of people her age.

Here is an interesting question, if you could pull something off where you had to serve 11 years in prison but would have let's say $200M waiting for you when you got out would the time be worth it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Here is an interesting question, if you could pull something off where you had to serve 11 years in prison but would have let's say $200M waiting for you when you got out would the time be worth it?

\

Depends on the prison I would be sent to.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I'm going to push back a little and say that real chemical engineers with long track records thought the idea had possibilities. You can amplify signals with trace chemical elements, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities. However, when the theoretical met the practical, it became obvious that there were physical limitations that could not be overcome.

At that point the company should have lost momentum, but instead, more people poured money in, and that's why she was charged and convicted with fraud. Making up results and using other company's technologies and passing it off as her own. That was the only way to maintain the grift.

She was the ultimate sales person, and she built a cult of personality about herself, so people saw her as a visionary.

I didn't take that long for the technology to break down. But she prolonged it with a shell game that PT Barnum would have whistled at in appreciation.

The smartest thing that you can do is keep as much behind the curtain as possible. In other words, she literally did the rabbit in the hat thing. But with blood.

She deserves every bit of the sentence that she got.

Medical scams are particularly scumbag like.

She showed a shocking lack of integrity.

Even her engineers when you watched the documentary knew quickly that the device was unworkable. But she charged ahead in a self orgy of greed.

[monkeyman]

I'd say no. especially when you consider her scam didn't just cause rich investors money, it affected real patients. What she did was deplorable and I couldn't live with myself knowing where all that money came from.