5 ms·

Ironic that her board of directors-- one of the most praised aspects of Theranos-- probably hurt her when it came to going after her with criminal charges. Thes

Ironic that her board of directors-- one of the most praised aspects of Theranos-- probably hurt her when it came to going after her with criminal charges. These were some of the most well-connected people in the country, and making them look like fools did her no favors. Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. (which I think she deserved anyway.) Especially because it was those same directors' reputations that likely helped the fraud go on so long. There was probably a fair number of skeptics who thought "Surely they wouldn't put their name on something like this if there was nothing there". I doubt Kissinger or the people around him want the last of his legacy to be punctuated by Theranos. I'll be honest: I kind of thought the same thing. That a breakthrough in science of this magnitude with so much silence around its details was strange, especially in the face of some expert skepticism. But the idea that Henry Kissinger etc. would attach themselves to it without compelling evidence made me more or less shrug my shoulders and move on.

leroy_masochist 5y ago
> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?
- MiscIdeaMaker99 5y ago
  Because it sounds like a much better story than what probably really happened.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Could be! Because regardless of outside influence, this is the sort of high-profile case that can boost the career of anyone working on prosecution. But I also don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable to speculate that people who were on the board of directors due to their connections and influence could have used that same influence when things went sour.
- kesselvon 5y ago
  You don't even have to influence. DoJ is naturally going to take interest when a huge startup that has the Secretary of Defense on the board goes belly up.
  - leroy_masochist 5y ago
    Mattis left the Theranos board when he became SecDef and as such was not a board member when charges were filed in 2018.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      I think you can change "has" to "had the current" in that comment and it still makes a reasonable point. I was in a job once where there was a snafu with a relative of a local politician. It didn't take a call from the politician for the CEO to issue an all-hands with a mandate to find out what the heck happened.
      - selestify 5y ago
        Did the politician actually ever check in with the company about whatever happened?
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Nope: that much I remember. It was over a decade ago & I was only peripherally involved so the details are hazy, but IIRC it was pretty much just the name-drop by the nephew (I think it was a nephew) that got the ball rolling, and we took the initiative from there. I'm pretty sure we reached out to the politician's office to "clear things up".
      - leroy_masochist 5y ago
        I don't think it is a reasonable point to claim without evidence that, as sitting SecDef, Mattis worked behind the scenes to get charges filed against Holmes in order to protect his reputation.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  If so, why do you think this? Is it not clear that I'm speculating? And is speculating that people with government connections might use them in this situation? After all, that's part of why they were on the board in the first place. Did they actually use that influence? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable bit of speculation. Influential people using their influence when they're publicly embarrassed shouldn't require much of an imagination. I'm not sure that Trump's presidency is relevant here. The influence these people have would be with others in the government, not Trump.
  - leroy_masochist 5y ago
    Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism. Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Got it, so you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything. It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.
      - leroy_masochist 5y ago
        > you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything I try not to make nonsensical conjectures in public forums, if that is the question you're asking.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        I don't think it's nonsense the think it's possible, and not too implausible, that influential people placed on a Board due to their influence may actually have used that influence, or that their influence played a passive part in this. (see my other response on that.) Let's part ways on this topic though: You seem to be verging close to personal attacks, and so we've passed the point of useful discussion.
1cvmask 5y ago
Kissinger is known for his war crimes and Nobel Peace Prize. Being associated with this fraud is not a stain on his reputation at all. They joined because they thought they were going to make a lot of money. Kissinger also has the fame of being the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombing_n_5615690ce4b021e856d33d51 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombi... More on Kissinger war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying his brutal play of realpolitik game or any of his awful failures. (Also the Nobel Peace Prize has become pretty meaningless. I usually wonder what skeletons will come out of the closets of any recipients--Hitchens had some bad things to say about Mother Teressa too.) I'm talking about his name recognition, and most importantly his influence & connections. I'm sure he'd rather be remembered for his work with the Soviet Union & China.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    “Brutal play of realpolitik game” as if committing war crimes is some kind of tough-nailed, pragmatic style of leadership.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      tough-nailed, pragmatic style of leadership. That's a rough definition of realpolitik. Pragmatism over ideals or morals is baked into the concept.
      - avgcorrection 5y ago
        Yes, your praise has been noted.
tristor 5y ago
> Henry Kissinger etc. would attach themselves to it without compelling evidence An endorsement from Henry Kissinger is hardly an endorsement. There were far more prominent and well-regarded VCs attached to Theranos to support your point, however, which I think is well-founded.
darksaints 5y ago
> I doubt Kissinger or the people around him want the last of his legacy to be punctuated by Theranos. I doubt the world's most notorious unprosecuted war criminal would have his reputation tarnished by advising a fraudster.
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  His legacy is millions murdered directly through his actions. Theranos isn't enough to put a scratch in the veneer of his mass murderous legacy.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who think well of him. I don't happen to be one of them, but not everyone views his actions through the same lens. Also his de-escalation of tensions with the Soviet Union overshadows a lot of the other stuff for many people. He was a horrifically adept player of the realpolitik game, and for some people the awful acts that came with that game are just the necessary costs.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    A lot of historians seem to see Kissinger as more the guy who thought of himself as 'horrifically adept', than the guy who actually was.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    You are very adverse to the “war criminal” label. I guess that’s too disrespectful for your tastes. (We must, above all else, respect the “players” of the “politicking”.) Reading comments by students of polsci (amateur or pro) either makes me fall asleep—oh the regergutation of supposed “ideals” and bromides and empty platitudes—or makes me shake my head in disgust. They must have ascended to a Platonic Plane where they are unperturbed by the implications of what they say.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Separate from my other response, he is probably not a villain in his own mind. So, while Theranos wouldn't even register against some of his other acts from the opinions of many, it very well might in his own mind. I also should have been clearer in my original comment and provided another aspect of the influence people at that level have: It can often be passive. It may not take a phone call to for the influence to manifest itself: The mere involvement of prominent people like this in a scandal could be all it takes to spark significant interest by the DOJ and prosecutors to investigate, it doesn't necessarily have to be a back-channel request from the person to look into an issue. On a much smaller scale that has happened where I work before.
baby 5y ago
Reminds me of magic leap. What happened to itv
- minitoar 5y ago
  Magic Leap still exists. I think they pivoted a bit?
deepsun 5y ago
Tim Draper was telling everyone that Holmes did no wrong. Last time I checked, a large poster with Elisabet Holmes was still present at the back of Hero City (Draper's accelerator, across the street from Draper University).
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Tim Draper is one person. It's the non SV/VC members that would be a factor here. Of course I could be wrong: There's enough to Theranos to make the career of any prosecutor involved, and that may have been enough. But speculating on that as the animus doesn't seem any more or less unreasonable than speculating that people who were on the board for their government influence might have been a factor. They may never even have needed to make a call: Having the names of two former Secretaries of State, a former Secretary of Defense, and a 4-star general attached to a scandal would be more than enough passive influence for people in the DOJ to perk up their ears and start looking to see what the heck happened.
- luckydata 5y ago
  Tim must be the single human being holding the most incorrect opinions on the face of the planet. I've never heard him being right about anything, it's kind of amazing really.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    His "University" is somewhat questionable as well. It was very much not a university when founded and only achieved legitimacy by proxy when ASU took them under its wing. And ASU seems to have dropped any reference to the ridiculous "Hero" pretentions in its marketing of the program-- I don't see any reference to it from ASU since 2018. It also doesn't appear to have produced many notable alumni in its (nearly) decade of existence: Some of the Alumni they feature are profiles of people with defunct products. The QTUM crypto currency may be an exception as a somewhat moderately successful coin w/ market cap ~$1B, although that's not quite the same as a Unicorn valuation since it doesn't really all belong to QTUM as an organization. It's possible I'm not being fair on the Alumni though: It does seem that fair number have gone on to modest success, and as I reflect on the above, the SV focus on multi-$billion valuations is possibly coloring my judgment. ASU-Draper doesn't necessarily have to be a Unicorn factory to be successful, so I'll temper my above judgement with that.
FuriouslyAdrift 5y ago
Holme's parents are very connected with regards to the federal government. Her father was a VP at Enron, CFO of the EPA, Director of US Trade and Development Agency, etc. Her mother worked as a lobbyist and at one point was a Congressional staffer.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > Her father was a VP at Enron That's not exactly an endorsement.

leroy_masochist 5y ago

> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?

MiscIdeaMaker99 5y ago
Because it sounds like a much better story than what probably really happened.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Could be! Because regardless of outside influence, this is the sort of high-profile case that can boost the career of anyone working on prosecution. But I also don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable to speculate that people who were on the board of directors due to their connections and influence could have used that same influence when things went sour.
kesselvon 5y ago
You don't even have to influence. DoJ is naturally going to take interest when a huge startup that has the Secretary of Defense on the board goes belly up.
- leroy_masochist 5y ago
  Mattis left the Theranos board when he became SecDef and as such was not a board member when charges were filed in 2018.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I think you can change "has" to "had the current" in that comment and it still makes a reasonable point. I was in a job once where there was a snafu with a relative of a local politician. It didn't take a call from the politician for the CEO to issue an all-hands with a mandate to find out what the heck happened.
    - selestify 5y ago
      Did the politician actually ever check in with the company about whatever happened?
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Nope: that much I remember. It was over a decade ago & I was only peripherally involved so the details are hazy, but IIRC it was pretty much just the name-drop by the nephew (I think it was a nephew) that got the ball rolling, and we took the initiative from there. I'm pretty sure we reached out to the politician's office to "clear things up".
    - leroy_masochist 5y ago
      I don't think it is a reasonable point to claim without evidence that, as sitting SecDef, Mattis worked behind the scenes to get charges filed against Holmes in order to protect his reputation.
ineedasername 5y ago
If so, why do you think this? Is it not clear that I'm speculating? And is speculating that people with government connections might use them in this situation? After all, that's part of why they were on the board in the first place. Did they actually use that influence? I don't know. But I think it's a reasonable bit of speculation. Influential people using their influence when they're publicly embarrassed shouldn't require much of an imagination. I'm not sure that Trump's presidency is relevant here. The influence these people have would be with others in the government, not Trump.
- leroy_masochist 5y ago
  Got it, so your argument is basically an abstract appeal to cynicism. Not sure why you'd think it's "a reasonable bit of speculation" to baselessly posit that Mattis decided to obstruct justice by reaching out to a regional prosecutor in order to influence the government's decision to prosecute a criminal case.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Got it, so you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything. It's also not obstruction of justice to ask the DOJ to look into an issue. If a threat was involved in that request then sure-- that's obstruction.
    - leroy_masochist 5y ago
      > you're argument is basically that any speculation on an issue is unreasonable. I'm sure you never speculate on anything I try not to make nonsensical conjectures in public forums, if that is the question you're asking.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        I don't think it's nonsense the think it's possible, and not too implausible, that influential people placed on a Board due to their influence may actually have used that influence, or that their influence played a passive part in this. (see my other response on that.) Let's part ways on this topic though: You seem to be verging close to personal attacks, and so we've passed the point of useful discussion.

1cvmask 5y ago

Kissinger is known for his war crimes and Nobel Peace Prize. Being associated with this fraud is not a stain on his reputation at all. They joined because they thought they were going to make a lot of money. Kissinger also has the fame of being the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombing_n_5615690ce4b021e856d33d51 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombi... More on Kissinger war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger

ineedasername 5y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying his brutal play of realpolitik game or any of his awful failures. (Also the Nobel Peace Prize has become pretty meaningless. I usually wonder what skeletons will come out of the closets of any recipients--Hitchens had some bad things to say about Mother Teressa too.) I'm talking about his name recognition, and most importantly his influence & connections. I'm sure he'd rather be remembered for his work with the Soviet Union & China.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  “Brutal play of realpolitik game” as if committing war crimes is some kind of tough-nailed, pragmatic style of leadership.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    tough-nailed, pragmatic style of leadership. That's a rough definition of realpolitik. Pragmatism over ideals or morals is baked into the concept.
    - avgcorrection 5y ago
      Yes, your praise has been noted.

tristor 5y ago

> Henry Kissinger etc. would attach themselves to it without compelling evidence An endorsement from Henry Kissinger is hardly an endorsement. There were far more prominent and well-regarded VCs attached to Theranos to support your point, however, which I think is well-founded.

darksaints 5y ago

> I doubt Kissinger or the people around him want the last of his legacy to be punctuated by Theranos. I doubt the world's most notorious unprosecuted war criminal would have his reputation tarnished by advising a fraudster.

SauciestGNU 5y ago
His legacy is millions murdered directly through his actions. Theranos isn't enough to put a scratch in the veneer of his mass murderous legacy.
ineedasername 5y ago
Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who think well of him. I don't happen to be one of them, but not everyone views his actions through the same lens. Also his de-escalation of tensions with the Soviet Union overshadows a lot of the other stuff for many people. He was a horrifically adept player of the realpolitik game, and for some people the awful acts that came with that game are just the necessary costs.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  A lot of historians seem to see Kissinger as more the guy who thought of himself as 'horrifically adept', than the guy who actually was.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  You are very adverse to the “war criminal” label. I guess that’s too disrespectful for your tastes. (We must, above all else, respect the “players” of the “politicking”.) Reading comments by students of polsci (amateur or pro) either makes me fall asleep—oh the regergutation of supposed “ideals” and bromides and empty platitudes—or makes me shake my head in disgust. They must have ascended to a Platonic Plane where they are unperturbed by the implications of what they say.
ineedasername 5y ago
Separate from my other response, he is probably not a villain in his own mind. So, while Theranos wouldn't even register against some of his other acts from the opinions of many, it very well might in his own mind. I also should have been clearer in my original comment and provided another aspect of the influence people at that level have: It can often be passive. It may not take a phone call to for the influence to manifest itself: The mere involvement of prominent people like this in a scandal could be all it takes to spark significant interest by the DOJ and prosecutors to investigate, it doesn't necessarily have to be a back-channel request from the person to look into an issue. On a much smaller scale that has happened where I work before.

baby 5y ago

Reminds me of magic leap. What happened to itv

minitoar 5y ago
Magic Leap still exists. I think they pivoted a bit?

deepsun 5y ago

Tim Draper was telling everyone that Holmes did no wrong. Last time I checked, a large poster with Elisabet Holmes was still present at the back of Hero City (Draper's accelerator, across the street from Draper University).

ineedasername 5y ago
Tim Draper is one person. It's the non SV/VC members that would be a factor here. Of course I could be wrong: There's enough to Theranos to make the career of any prosecutor involved, and that may have been enough. But speculating on that as the animus doesn't seem any more or less unreasonable than speculating that people who were on the board for their government influence might have been a factor. They may never even have needed to make a call: Having the names of two former Secretaries of State, a former Secretary of Defense, and a 4-star general attached to a scandal would be more than enough passive influence for people in the DOJ to perk up their ears and start looking to see what the heck happened.
luckydata 5y ago
Tim must be the single human being holding the most incorrect opinions on the face of the planet. I've never heard him being right about anything, it's kind of amazing really.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  His "University" is somewhat questionable as well. It was very much not a university when founded and only achieved legitimacy by proxy when ASU took them under its wing. And ASU seems to have dropped any reference to the ridiculous "Hero" pretentions in its marketing of the program-- I don't see any reference to it from ASU since 2018. It also doesn't appear to have produced many notable alumni in its (nearly) decade of existence: Some of the Alumni they feature are profiles of people with defunct products. The QTUM crypto currency may be an exception as a somewhat moderately successful coin w/ market cap ~$1B, although that's not quite the same as a Unicorn valuation since it doesn't really all belong to QTUM as an organization. It's possible I'm not being fair on the Alumni though: It does seem that fair number have gone on to modest success, and as I reflect on the above, the SV focus on multi-$billion valuations is possibly coloring my judgment. ASU-Draper doesn't necessarily have to be a Unicorn factory to be successful, so I'll temper my above judgement with that.

FuriouslyAdrift 5y ago

Holme's parents are very connected with regards to the federal government. Her father was a VP at Enron, CFO of the EPA, Director of US Trade and Development Agency, etc. Her mother worked as a lobbyist and at one point was a Congressional staffer.

jacquesm 5y ago
> Her father was a VP at Enron That's not exactly an endorsement.