3 ms·
It's important to note that she defrauded investors long after it became clear that the "bells and whistles" she was selling were just smoke and mirrors. Thera
by amackera 5y ago
It's important to note that she defrauded investors long after it became clear that the "bells and whistles" she was selling were just smoke and mirrors.
Theranos isn't a typical case of founder hype like you describe. It was a con job through and through.
Don't harbour sympathy for Holmes. She's made it harder for good-faith actors to get access to funding.
- thehappypm 5y agoI can't see how it was a con job. They were doing R&D. They were clearly trying to make the machines work and were just straight-up struggling with the tech.
- yesenadam 5y ago(Not an expert at all, but have read Carreyrou's book.) You make it sound like they were 80 or 90% of the way there. But it seems like what they promised—hundreds of tests from a drop of blood—is totally impossible, which is why it sounded so amazing. They were not even 1% of the way to what they were saying they already could do. And they were giving what sound like fairly random blood test results to people with serious medical conditions, while pretending they were 100% of the way there.
- Grustaf 5y agoThe con was that they claimed that they were working when they weren't. Clear as day.
- stevula 5y agoThe fact that the tech was not ready for production was hidden from investors and the public. They sold the tests in Walgreens to real patients, knowing the machines were not accurate. Imagine the trauma of being diagnosed with a life-threatening disease, only to find out later that you’re fine. Or worse, a false negative result leading to a disease going undiscovered until it’s already progressed to a late stage.
- thehappypm 5y agoThat might make it fraudulent or negligent but a con is a very specific thing.