I try to be less judgmental and reactive than the norm about evaluating others’ actions, too, but I question whether the logic you are using to distance them fr

I try to be less judgmental and reactive than the norm about evaluating others’ actions, too, but I question whether the logic you are using to distance them from wrongdoing is really sound or necessary. If they did a bunch of unethical stuff that adds up to fraud, as you agree, what does it matter if some individual actions, if you completely take them out of context, look at them through the right lens, and create a distinction between “unethical” and “bad,” aren’t necessarily bad? Maybe the reason no one is saying that is because no one is doing that, because it’s not relevant. The individual actions are certainly sketchy, IMO. And red flags. Is there a definite semantic difference? It seems like splitting hairs. No single action by itself implies fraud, though significant acts of lying make a case. Theranos’s level of deception is not the norm. Nor is it legal or ok. You conclude by sort of saying you just aren’t going to focus on the misconduct aspect of things. But it is still there.