4 ms·

I think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I ca

I think you ought to actually explain the conflict of interest. I'm trying to find a clear connection between Theranos and Andreessen-related investments. I can't find evidence of an actual investment in Theranos. I'm not trying to dismiss you -- your theory[^1] could very well be totally right and there truly was a conflict [my duck-duck-go-ing skills only go so far]. And yeah, perhaps a person married to a wealthy tech investor ought not write high-profile articles possibly related to their partner's investments, and that publishers should be more wary of publishing such articles. Yet I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying specific accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information. It's easy to throw bread crumbs into a forest and connect them to make a path, but that doesn't mean you've found a useful path. EDIT: Here is a somewhat-arbitrarily-selected article I found which discusses this topic: https://www.vox.com/2015/10/29/11620186/nyt-public-editor-blasts-arrillaga-andreessen-magazine-feature-for https://www.vox.com/2015/10/29/11620186/nyt-public-editor-bl... [^1]: Technically you wrote that you were sure there was no conflict of interest whatsoever, but surely that was in jest.

mywittyname 5y ago
I'm sure the author has no business relationship at all with Theranos and merely knows her socially. Plausible deniability is useful in this kind of situation.
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    We got it and I couldn’t possibly agree more if you didn’t obnoxiously cut and pasted the same criticism for every subsequent message that failed to satisfy your standards. Sometimes people don’t get our point, so we just move on
    - anthony_romeo 5y ago
      Understood. I admittedly got slightly miffed when the first few replies I received in a short time were conjecture. As an aside, one reply had mentioned plausible deniability… perhaps ‘plausible accusability’ also exists, wherein any hypothetical crime one can imagine is presumed to have factually occurred unless 100% disproven.
cormacrelf 5y ago
They said: > writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure. The only assertion is that she was married to a Visionary Tech Entrepreneur and doing puff pieces for Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs. Like seeing an article by Michelle Obama about how democratic politicians these days are great. Nothing deeper than that I think. It was an eye roll in text form. It’s not an entirely pointless exercise, though, because people should know how powerful figures are related, and why they are motivated to do what they do. Journalists and billionaires are regular people who when exposed to a spouse’s daily ideas and reactions will soon bend in their direction. We should expect this from Laura. And we should be better equipped to dismiss it, because she was wrong.
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
  - cormacrelf 5y ago
    I edited in a response to that, to the effect that this kind of vague accusation is not that vague, people are predictable, and we should know who we get our information from.
    - anthony_romeo 5y ago
      Understood -- I can agree with that in general. BTW I totally understand that HN is not Debate Club, and that comments aren't required to be formal, rigorous, evidence-based arguments. Occasionally I just feel compelled to point out times when beliefs about people in general are used to justify accusations against specific people in specific circumstances -- even when I can empathize with the original sentiment, as was the case with the OP.
  - biztos 5y ago
    I did clarify, but I'm curious what specific accusation you read from my comment. I re-read it a few times and I don't see one regarding Theranos other than sloppy writing. My "gut plausibility of a scenario" that the author is pumping up her husband's portfolio company in an NYT article is pretty easy to validate by reading the article itself, it just happens to not be Theranos. Are you seeing something that's not there, or am I failing to see something that is?
AlbertCory 5y ago
I don't think there's a literal "conflict of interest" but there's definitely a "protect your friends" thing going on. Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well.
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
  - cercatrova 5y ago
    It really is amusing that you have to keep posting this comment as I don't think anyone gave you an actual answer to what you're asking for, even after you clarified that you wanted specific, concrete accusations rather than vague ones. It's like people are wanting to reply to you but keep simply glossing over what you wrote.
- anamax 5y ago
  > Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well. What support did Holmes have in SV? Yes, Draper put in some early money and Ellison put in some money, but the vast majority of Theranos' money seems to have come from outside the valley. (Yes, George Schultz lives in SV, but he's part of the SV investor "scene.")
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    You're thinking of the Sand Hill Road VCs, I guess. You're right: not much if any. However, Schultz was in the Hoover Institute (on the Stanford campus), and he introduced her to lots of other government / defense heavyweights. James Mattis actually testified at the trial, for instance. Once you have a prestigious backer, the others fall in line like sheep. I actually met Laura once, before she married Marc. Those people all know each other, believe me (I'm not one of them, in case you were wondering; it was some charitable thing).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bumby 5y ago
>based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information. What meets your threshold for a conflict of interest? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but this seems to meet my personal threshold. It's like if a politician heads a committee that has large sway in government contracts and they are close to someone who happens to invest in companies that bid on those contracts. It's easy to see a conflict exists even if a straight-line to a crime does not. Ethics often boils down to managing these conflicts so there isn't even a perceived avenue for impropriety. A politician breaches ethical boundaries irrespective if there’s unequivocal evidence they let the relationship impact their decision. There does not need to be a smoking gun.

mywittyname 5y ago

I'm sure the author has no business relationship at all with Theranos and merely knows her socially. Plausible deniability is useful in this kind of situation.

anthony_romeo 5y ago
My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  We got it and I couldn’t possibly agree more if you didn’t obnoxiously cut and pasted the same criticism for every subsequent message that failed to satisfy your standards. Sometimes people don’t get our point, so we just move on
  - anthony_romeo 5y ago
    Understood. I admittedly got slightly miffed when the first few replies I received in a short time were conjecture. As an aside, one reply had mentioned plausible deniability… perhaps ‘plausible accusability’ also exists, wherein any hypothetical crime one can imagine is presumed to have factually occurred unless 100% disproven.

cormacrelf 5y ago

They said: > writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure. The only assertion is that she was married to a Visionary Tech Entrepreneur and doing puff pieces for Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs. Like seeing an article by Michelle Obama about how democratic politicians these days are great. Nothing deeper than that I think. It was an eye roll in text form. It’s not an entirely pointless exercise, though, because people should know how powerful figures are related, and why they are motivated to do what they do. Journalists and billionaires are regular people who when exposed to a spouse’s daily ideas and reactions will soon bend in their direction. We should expect this from Laura. And we should be better equipped to dismiss it, because she was wrong.

anthony_romeo 5y ago
My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
- cormacrelf 5y ago
  I edited in a response to that, to the effect that this kind of vague accusation is not that vague, people are predictable, and we should know who we get our information from.
  - anthony_romeo 5y ago
    Understood -- I can agree with that in general. BTW I totally understand that HN is not Debate Club, and that comments aren't required to be formal, rigorous, evidence-based arguments. Occasionally I just feel compelled to point out times when beliefs about people in general are used to justify accusations against specific people in specific circumstances -- even when I can empathize with the original sentiment, as was the case with the OP.
- biztos 5y ago
  I did clarify, but I'm curious what specific accusation you read from my comment. I re-read it a few times and I don't see one regarding Theranos other than sloppy writing. My "gut plausibility of a scenario" that the author is pumping up her husband's portfolio company in an NYT article is pretty easy to validate by reading the article itself, it just happens to not be Theranos. Are you seeing something that's not there, or am I failing to see something that is?

AlbertCory 5y ago

I don't think there's a literal "conflict of interest" but there's definitely a "protect your friends" thing going on. Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well.

anthony_romeo 5y ago
My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  It really is amusing that you have to keep posting this comment as I don't think anyone gave you an actual answer to what you're asking for, even after you clarified that you wanted specific, concrete accusations rather than vague ones. It's like people are wanting to reply to you but keep simply glossing over what you wrote.
anamax 5y ago
> Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well. What support did Holmes have in SV? Yes, Draper put in some early money and Ellison put in some money, but the vast majority of Theranos' money seems to have come from outside the valley. (Yes, George Schultz lives in SV, but he's part of the SV investor "scene.")
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  You're thinking of the Sand Hill Road VCs, I guess. You're right: not much if any. However, Schultz was in the Hoover Institute (on the Stanford campus), and he introduced her to lots of other government / defense heavyweights. James Mattis actually testified at the trial, for instance. Once you have a prestigious backer, the others fall in line like sheep. I actually met Laura once, before she married Marc. Those people all know each other, believe me (I'm not one of them, in case you were wondering; it was some charitable thing).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bumby 5y ago

>based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information. What meets your threshold for a conflict of interest? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but this seems to meet my personal threshold. It's like if a politician heads a committee that has large sway in government contracts and they are close to someone who happens to invest in companies that bid on those contracts. It's easy to see a conflict exists even if a straight-line to a crime does not. Ethics often boils down to managing these conflicts so there isn't even a perceived avenue for impropriety. A politician breaches ethical boundaries irrespective if there’s unequivocal evidence they let the relationship impact their decision. There does not need to be a smoking gun.