3 ms·

They did start with legitimate attempts at implementing th technology needed to microfluidics (though apparently Holmes knew nothing about the field and didn't

They did start with legitimate attempts at implementing th technology needed to microfluidics (though apparently Holmes knew nothing about the field and didn't even know anything about existing players such as Abaxis, who actually had working machines). However, they could not get the technology to work and abandoned several development paths in favour of a less ambitious approach that, among other things, involved doing blood analysis the old-fashioned way (manually in the lab), and only pretending to be using new tech they'd invented. They knew it didn't work, but kept selling it anyway, which is where it went from just faking it to outright fraud. Most of their money was raised after they failed to develop their blood analysis technology, but to the investors, to the press and to their clients (such as Walgreens), they were still claiming to be using their proprietary technology [1]. [1] http://m.nautil.us/issue/60/searches/does-theranos-mark-the-peak-of-the-silicon-valley-bubble http://m.nautil.us/issue/60/searches/does-theranos-mark-the-...

meowface 8y ago
>They knew it didn't work, but kept selling it anyway, which is where it went from just faking it to outright fraud. I'm playing Devil's advocate and not justifying or defending their fraud and the physical harm they caused, but if we were to look at Holmes' intentions, I'm suspecting it was something like "we just need to do this for a few months/years until our technology works", rather than "let's just run this scam forever and get rich". As for how close they actually were to developing that technology (and assuming most of their talent didn't leave) or if it was even possible for them, who knows. And of course, regardless, they still intended to commit fraud and should pay the price.
- konschubert 8y ago
  No, it's just that annoying mentality of "fake it till you make it".
  - meowface 8y ago
    I guess we might find out during the trial.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Fake it until you make it is just a nice way of saying fraud. People that do that are being deceitful and should be publicly shamed and face criminal prosecution in some cases. They are scam artists, not honest entrepreneurs.
    - zebnyc 8y ago
      Are you going to say that to the founders of reddit & airbnb?
      - paulie_a 8y ago
        I would absolutely say that to them. It's doubtful they actually committed a crime but it shows a lack of character and constituition to say the least and potentially fraud to their investors. Fake it until you make it makes you a scam artist, con man, flim flan man etc... People that embrace that philosophy are frauds and cheats that should not be trusted.
        meowface 8y ago
        Seeding a community where pseudo-anonymous users submit image/link content with images and links might be fraud by some semantic and technical definition (certainly not a legal one), but 1) it's pretty much necessary to get something like that off the ground, 2) no one is really being deceived or misled in a significant way. I'd say it's pretty harmless. My understanding is reddit did this at the very start of the site's existence and stopped pretty early. They probably would've died quickly if they didn't seed some content.
      - asveikau 8y ago
        If the way you are going to talk to someone depends on how successful you think they are, you may be doing it wrong.
      - Fnoord 8y ago
        I do, and the "fake it until you make it" doesn't fly very well in Europe; its generally frowned upon. Which also explains why there isn't much of a "startup culture" in Europe.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    Also known as "Fake it while awaiting unknown outcome." It's not like faking it guarantees making it. And since "unknown outcome" is kind of the default always, the most concise statement of this approach is really just "Fake it." Which is the problem. "Fake it" is so bad, that even if you later "make it" (like Shkreli for example), you still don't get forgiven.
  - konschubert 8y ago
    Edit: And I mean 'just' to be understood with quotation marks.
- xorcist 8y ago
  It's easy to fall prey for psychopaths trying to second guess their intentions. "This can't be staged, that would be an unnecessary risk. Had they wanted to get rich quick they would have lied about this other thing instead". True intentions are illogical to other people, because they are the result of a limited, narcissistic and self centered world view. (Not making any real life connections here, I am absolutely not qualified to call anyone medical terms, but in the subthead about clinical psychopathy it seemed important to point out.)
  - meowface 8y ago
    You're right. I can't make assumptions about her true intentions. But I don't think you or anyone else can either. It'll be interesting to see if anything new regarding that comes to light at trial. Maybe she's a pure sociopath, maybe she's a college dropout who was in way over her head and dug the company into a hole it couldn't escape, maybe neither, maybe both.

meowface 8y ago

>They knew it didn't work, but kept selling it anyway, which is where it went from just faking it to outright fraud. I'm playing Devil's advocate and not justifying or defending their fraud and the physical harm they caused, but if we were to look at Holmes' intentions, I'm suspecting it was something like "we just need to do this for a few months/years until our technology works", rather than "let's just run this scam forever and get rich". As for how close they actually were to developing that technology (and assuming most of their talent didn't leave) or if it was even possible for them, who knows. And of course, regardless, they still intended to commit fraud and should pay the price.

konschubert 8y ago
No, it's just that annoying mentality of "fake it till you make it".
- meowface 8y ago
  I guess we might find out during the trial.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Fake it until you make it is just a nice way of saying fraud. People that do that are being deceitful and should be publicly shamed and face criminal prosecution in some cases. They are scam artists, not honest entrepreneurs.
  - zebnyc 8y ago
    Are you going to say that to the founders of reddit & airbnb?
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      I would absolutely say that to them. It's doubtful they actually committed a crime but it shows a lack of character and constituition to say the least and potentially fraud to their investors. Fake it until you make it makes you a scam artist, con man, flim flan man etc... People that embrace that philosophy are frauds and cheats that should not be trusted.
      - meowface 8y ago
        Seeding a community where pseudo-anonymous users submit image/link content with images and links might be fraud by some semantic and technical definition (certainly not a legal one), but 1) it's pretty much necessary to get something like that off the ground, 2) no one is really being deceived or misled in a significant way. I'd say it's pretty harmless. My understanding is reddit did this at the very start of the site's existence and stopped pretty early. They probably would've died quickly if they didn't seed some content.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      If the way you are going to talk to someone depends on how successful you think they are, you may be doing it wrong.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      I do, and the "fake it until you make it" doesn't fly very well in Europe; its generally frowned upon. Which also explains why there isn't much of a "startup culture" in Europe.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Also known as "Fake it while awaiting unknown outcome." It's not like faking it guarantees making it. And since "unknown outcome" is kind of the default always, the most concise statement of this approach is really just "Fake it." Which is the problem. "Fake it" is so bad, that even if you later "make it" (like Shkreli for example), you still don't get forgiven.
- konschubert 8y ago
  Edit: And I mean 'just' to be understood with quotation marks.
xorcist 8y ago
It's easy to fall prey for psychopaths trying to second guess their intentions. "This can't be staged, that would be an unnecessary risk. Had they wanted to get rich quick they would have lied about this other thing instead". True intentions are illogical to other people, because they are the result of a limited, narcissistic and self centered world view. (Not making any real life connections here, I am absolutely not qualified to call anyone medical terms, but in the subthead about clinical psychopathy it seemed important to point out.)
- meowface 8y ago
  You're right. I can't make assumptions about her true intentions. But I don't think you or anyone else can either. It'll be interesting to see if anything new regarding that comes to light at trial. Maybe she's a pure sociopath, maybe she's a college dropout who was in way over her head and dug the company into a hole it couldn't escape, maybe neither, maybe both.