5 ms·
> It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results. my thoughts exactly. i'
by a-dub 5y ago
> It blows my mind that she was found guilty for defrauding investors, but not guilty for defrauding patients about their test results.
my thoughts exactly. i'm woefully underread on the whole situation but something is weird and different about it.
one thing that does jump to mind is that the investor list and board composition isn't what i'm used to seeing for stem ventures. i can imagine that perhaps they're less forgiving of failure and were operating with more blind trust in company leadership on stem/technology matters.
- 300bps 5y agoTo me it seems like a simple matter of don't mess with people that have money.
- csours 5y agoMy impression is that the defense put the onus on the lab directors etc and that she didn't know what was going on. I don't buy that, but the jury is supposed to go on only evidence presented at the trial, so I guess the defense did a good job.
- eternalban 5y agoIt’s the elephant in the room. Hardly ever remarked upon but a complete head scratcher. This company is fated to play a staring role in at least one conspiracy theory going forward.
- CRConrad 5y agoA useful reminder (in advance) that not all conspiracy theories are necessarily false.