5 ms·

What's the takeaway from this other than "killing people by giving phony medical test results is just fine, but don't you dare anger the wealthy"?

afterburner 5y ago
Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on tax evasion have more to do with how he was running a murderous criminal organization for many years?
- codeflo 5y ago
  Isn’t Al Capone’s tax evasion conviction usually mentioned as a bit of a joke? I don’t see how anyone can cite it as an example of the system working perfectly fine. Ignoring for a moment that this was in a very different era, to me, there are only two possible conclusions from this: (a) The conviction was legitimate. This means that if only he had been a bit more thorough about laundering his money, he’d have gotten away with organized murder. (b) The conviction was ultimately politically motivated, because it became a public embarrassment that he couldn’t be convicted of anything. But if the state really wants to get rid of someone, a prosecutor will find a way, so they did. And I seriously don’t know which possibility is more frightening.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    Montesquieu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
  - notch656a 5y ago
    (b) is far more terrifying. I'd rather 1000 murderers get away than a single case of a prosecutor have that kind of discretionary power to fuck over essentially anyone just for selective enforcement. The law should be applied equally.
  - afterburner 5y ago
    You think the state imprisoning a crime boss is frightening?
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case Yeah. Gangster? Police doesn't care or is on the payroll. The IRS however will get you -- it will only let the very rich off.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
PradeetPatel 5y ago
The cynic in me says that this is a master class in stakeholder management imo. It is crucial to understand what is the cost of doing business vs what will sink the ship.
junon 5y ago
That proving some things in court is easier than other things and by reducing down nuanced legal systems to "rich bad" doesn't help the situation any.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  IIRC the notorious gangster Al Capone was done on tax evasion, not on his main murder-heavy business.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    You can't intimidate a lack of tax payments for clearly possessed wealth. Unlike witnesses and accomplices.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      I think the same approach is now used by German authorities against the (mostly Lebanese) "big family gangs" (Grossfamilien), that have also proven to be very capable of intimidating or killing witnesses, but cannot hide their acquired wealth.
      - WHA8m 5y ago
        It's heartbreaking when people are able to play the justice system. It's not necessarily about these exact people, but the fact that the system we all put our hopes and trust in, can be played.
        avgcorrection 5y ago
        Sometimes having your heart broken is simply caused by naivete.
        WHA8m 5y ago
        Sure. Your statement can stand on its own. It's so broadly framed. I'm not sure where you want to go with that here specifically. If you want to 'accuse' me of naivety, I can assure you I try not to be. But I'm still (and I don't want to give that up) involved and care about the justice system. So it makes me sad to see it fail. But that's not being naive. Maybe 'heart-broken' was too strong of a word in this context. idk.
differentView 5y ago
Maybe "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions instead of satisfying random internet commenters looking for perfect justice."
- watwut 5y ago
  Maybe that still means there is larger issue in the system anyway?
- cies 5y ago
  Strawman. He's not advocating perfect justice. He raises awareness to something that I also found gut wrenching when reading the article: investors (super rich) mattered, commoners did not. Calling that "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions"... Well. You do you.
  - babarock 5y ago
    You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. As far as anyone can tell, this is just an allegation. So either: 1. you have incredible insight into the inner workings of the company. 2. you're joining an online pitchforking mob. As much as I rejoice seeing a Silicon Valley poster child be exposed as a phony and a fraud, I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed.
    - cies 5y ago
      > You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. Nope. I take from the text that prosecutors-and-or-law-itself defend the interests of super rich better than the interests/well-being of commoners. > I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed. Good for you. I'm not saying it is flawed, neither am I passing judgement on who's guilty... I'm saying it seems the whole system is favoring the some over others.
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
Did she kill anybody? I wasn't aware that a hospital full of children died because Theranos was doing different lab tests than they said they were. I really just can't find myself caring about some millionaires scamming some billionaires. VCs get robbed like this all the time. Especially the ones with more money than brains. And I'm also not going to lose any sleep if she gets 5 years instead of 100. This has been kind of a fun news story to follow the last few years but really I think most of the outrage here is because the particular demographic of this website doesn't really like women like this.
- rtpg 5y ago
  You should read bad blood. There are interviews with people who had disorders and theranos blood tests gave false negatives thanks to that, delaying treatment for a long while. I don’t know about everyone but it’s reallllly hard to find sympathy for somebody who plays fast and loose with peoples health like this. She wasn’t an arms manufacturer but I don’t really see the sympathy angle here (especially considering how much institutional support she had throughout the controversy)
  - VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
    Oh, the dude's book. Maybe the jury should have read the dude's book. Then they wouldn't have acquitted her of all the charges related to end-user patients. Maybe because all of that was quite overblown anyway.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      It's ok that people got duped then with what they knew. But you seem to want to still be duped now, as if Theranos still represents some noble promise...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
batmansmk 5y ago
As an american resident, I feel less safe being healed in USA after yesterday's judgement. Healthcare should not be just business. Food additives, sugar and the obesity crisis, a list of 1,300 chemicals used in cosmetics, the Vioxx scandal, the opioids crisis and more generally the drug situation, the cost of healthcare, tanking life expectancy... The list is long on why "healthcare is just business" is not working.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  I bet ill-health and disease really helps to increase the GDP… Perversely.
- notch656a 5y ago
  If healthcare a business, they should be allowed to operate one. Deregulate, eliminate licensing for healthcare professionals. Eliminate FDA, DEA, medical board, etc. Fuck needing a prescription for antibiotics when I can take a strep test at home. I'm totally good with making healthcare a business so I can finally have accessible affordable healthcare and just straight up import drugs from India or whatever for 1/100th the cost. Course if government wants to keep their crusty paws in it and decides it actually isn't just a business, they should take some cues from countries with much lower GDP overhead. The half-assed system we have is the worst of both worlds.
nova22033 5y ago
The only takeaway is that the burden is on the prosecutors to prove that she defrauded the patients..and they failed to meet the burden.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

afterburner 5y ago

Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case, or maybe did the effort put into pinning Capone on tax evasion have more to do with how he was running a murderous criminal organization for many years?

codeflo 5y ago
Isn’t Al Capone’s tax evasion conviction usually mentioned as a bit of a joke? I don’t see how anyone can cite it as an example of the system working perfectly fine. Ignoring for a moment that this was in a very different era, to me, there are only two possible conclusions from this: (a) The conviction was legitimate. This means that if only he had been a bit more thorough about laundering his money, he’d have gotten away with organized murder. (b) The conviction was ultimately politically motivated, because it became a public embarrassment that he couldn’t be convicted of anything. But if the state really wants to get rid of someone, a prosecutor will find a way, so they did. And I seriously don’t know which possibility is more frightening.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  Montesquieu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
- notch656a 5y ago
  (b) is far more terrifying. I'd rather 1000 murderers get away than a single case of a prosecutor have that kind of discretionary power to fuck over essentially anyone just for selective enforcement. The law should be applied equally.
- afterburner 5y ago
  You think the state imprisoning a crime boss is frightening?
coldtea 5y ago
>Did you know they only ever got Al Capone on tax evasion? Would you draw a similar conclusion in that case Yeah. Gangster? Police doesn't care or is on the payroll. The IRS however will get you -- it will only let the very rich off.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

PradeetPatel 5y ago

The cynic in me says that this is a master class in stakeholder management imo. It is crucial to understand what is the cost of doing business vs what will sink the ship.

junon 5y ago

That proving some things in court is easier than other things and by reducing down nuanced legal systems to "rich bad" doesn't help the situation any.

inglor_cz 5y ago
IIRC the notorious gangster Al Capone was done on tax evasion, not on his main murder-heavy business.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  You can't intimidate a lack of tax payments for clearly possessed wealth. Unlike witnesses and accomplices.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    I think the same approach is now used by German authorities against the (mostly Lebanese) "big family gangs" (Grossfamilien), that have also proven to be very capable of intimidating or killing witnesses, but cannot hide their acquired wealth.
    - WHA8m 5y ago
      It's heartbreaking when people are able to play the justice system. It's not necessarily about these exact people, but the fact that the system we all put our hopes and trust in, can be played.
      - avgcorrection 5y ago
        Sometimes having your heart broken is simply caused by naivete.
        WHA8m 5y ago
        Sure. Your statement can stand on its own. It's so broadly framed. I'm not sure where you want to go with that here specifically. If you want to 'accuse' me of naivety, I can assure you I try not to be. But I'm still (and I don't want to give that up) involved and care about the justice system. So it makes me sad to see it fail. But that's not being naive. Maybe 'heart-broken' was too strong of a word in this context. idk.

differentView 5y ago

Maybe "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions instead of satisfying random internet commenters looking for perfect justice."

watwut 5y ago
Maybe that still means there is larger issue in the system anyway?
cies 5y ago
Strawman. He's not advocating perfect justice. He raises awareness to something that I also found gut wrenching when reading the article: investors (super rich) mattered, commoners did not. Calling that "pragmatic prosecutors made pragmatic decisions"... Well. You do you.
- babarock 5y ago
  You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. As far as anyone can tell, this is just an allegation. So either: 1. you have incredible insight into the inner workings of the company. 2. you're joining an online pitchforking mob. As much as I rejoice seeing a Silicon Valley poster child be exposed as a phony and a fraud, I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed.
  - cies 5y ago
    > You're making the assumption that Holmes wronged "commoners" with malicious intent. Nope. I take from the text that prosecutors-and-or-law-itself defend the interests of super rich better than the interests/well-being of commoners. > I would be very careful before jumping to conclusions and asserting with high confidence that the court verdict is flawed. Good for you. I'm not saying it is flawed, neither am I passing judgement on who's guilty... I'm saying it seems the whole system is favoring the some over others.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

Did she kill anybody? I wasn't aware that a hospital full of children died because Theranos was doing different lab tests than they said they were. I really just can't find myself caring about some millionaires scamming some billionaires. VCs get robbed like this all the time. Especially the ones with more money than brains. And I'm also not going to lose any sleep if she gets 5 years instead of 100. This has been kind of a fun news story to follow the last few years but really I think most of the outrage here is because the particular demographic of this website doesn't really like women like this.

rtpg 5y ago
You should read bad blood. There are interviews with people who had disorders and theranos blood tests gave false negatives thanks to that, delaying treatment for a long while. I don’t know about everyone but it’s reallllly hard to find sympathy for somebody who plays fast and loose with peoples health like this. She wasn’t an arms manufacturer but I don’t really see the sympathy angle here (especially considering how much institutional support she had throughout the controversy)
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  Oh, the dude's book. Maybe the jury should have read the dude's book. Then they wouldn't have acquitted her of all the charges related to end-user patients. Maybe because all of that was quite overblown anyway.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    It's ok that people got duped then with what they knew. But you seem to want to still be duped now, as if Theranos still represents some noble promise...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

batmansmk 5y ago

As an american resident, I feel less safe being healed in USA after yesterday's judgement. Healthcare should not be just business. Food additives, sugar and the obesity crisis, a list of 1,300 chemicals used in cosmetics, the Vioxx scandal, the opioids crisis and more generally the drug situation, the cost of healthcare, tanking life expectancy... The list is long on why "healthcare is just business" is not working.

avgcorrection 5y ago
I bet ill-health and disease really helps to increase the GDP… Perversely.
notch656a 5y ago
If healthcare a business, they should be allowed to operate one. Deregulate, eliminate licensing for healthcare professionals. Eliminate FDA, DEA, medical board, etc. Fuck needing a prescription for antibiotics when I can take a strep test at home. I'm totally good with making healthcare a business so I can finally have accessible affordable healthcare and just straight up import drugs from India or whatever for 1/100th the cost. Course if government wants to keep their crusty paws in it and decides it actually isn't just a business, they should take some cues from countries with much lower GDP overhead. The half-assed system we have is the worst of both worlds.

nova22033 5y ago

The only takeaway is that the burden is on the prosecutors to prove that she defrauded the patients..and they failed to meet the burden.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]