77 ms·

Please don't dilute what she did because of who one member of her board was. She didn't just lie. She ran a con that affected people downstream who used the ser

by jamra 3y ago

Please don't dilute what she did because of who one member of her board was. She didn't just lie. She ran a con that affected people downstream who used the service. Who knows what kind of damage she caused with her fake tests. She belongs in jail and all of her money has been made through fraud. That's on her.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
29athrowaway 3y ago
That is not too different to what the food industry is doing. Soon there will be 100 million people with diabetes.
- theRealMe 3y ago
  Yes. It is actually too different to what the food industry is doing.
voisin 3y ago
Shouldn’t Walgreens execs be on trial for not having done proper due diligence before rolling out the tech?
- candiodari 3y ago
  Well, no. Half the US secretaries of State both invested in Theranos and helped the company. Such a thing would lead to asking the same questions about them.
  - voisin 3y ago
    The difference is Walgreens took the tech and held it out to the public, implicitly stating that they had done appropriate due diligence and the outcome was that they were backing it. Being a Secretary of State or other politician and investing and sitting on the board only means that they thought it presented a reasonable investment opportunity and that they believed they could execute board governance requirements. I don’t think anyone believes Henry Kissinger could do due diligence on technology.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      I think what people believe about Henry Kissinger and all other Secretaries of State is that they could and would hire people who would, correctly, do due diligence for them, and wouldn't be fooled as a result. You would expect them to have both a lot of experience doing this, and being able to sniff out problems. I mean, that is what they've done their entire life, isn't it? You'd expect them to be half-decent at it. Instead it very much looks like they backed this startup because of family and government ties, and one wonders if you'd look, would you find they backed it against advice by reasonable and knowledgeable people? You know "Trump stuff". Worst part of this is, when it comes to testing many biomarkers simultaneously in a single small sample, there's a metric boatload of startups with credible stories (and testing 1 biomarker in a small sample is a difficult but solved problem. Any hospital can do that now). These startup aren't seeing investment ... and weren't seeing investment before Theranos either, but a lot of them aren't outright scams! They're trying to make it work, and slowly, very slowly advancing the state of the art. These startups have to scrape together funds that come from testing crime scenes (if you can test very small samples, you can test blood found at a crime scene because only the top layer coagulates, there's a "liquid core" of a few cl inside ...)

by jamra 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

29athrowaway 3y ago

That is not too different to what the food industry is doing. Soon there will be 100 million people with diabetes.

theRealMe 3y ago
Yes. It is actually too different to what the food industry is doing.

voisin 3y ago

Shouldn’t Walgreens execs be on trial for not having done proper due diligence before rolling out the tech?

candiodari 3y ago
Well, no. Half the US secretaries of State both invested in Theranos and helped the company. Such a thing would lead to asking the same questions about them.
- voisin 3y ago
  The difference is Walgreens took the tech and held it out to the public, implicitly stating that they had done appropriate due diligence and the outcome was that they were backing it. Being a Secretary of State or other politician and investing and sitting on the board only means that they thought it presented a reasonable investment opportunity and that they believed they could execute board governance requirements. I don’t think anyone believes Henry Kissinger could do due diligence on technology.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    I think what people believe about Henry Kissinger and all other Secretaries of State is that they could and would hire people who would, correctly, do due diligence for them, and wouldn't be fooled as a result. You would expect them to have both a lot of experience doing this, and being able to sniff out problems. I mean, that is what they've done their entire life, isn't it? You'd expect them to be half-decent at it. Instead it very much looks like they backed this startup because of family and government ties, and one wonders if you'd look, would you find they backed it against advice by reasonable and knowledgeable people? You know "Trump stuff". Worst part of this is, when it comes to testing many biomarkers simultaneously in a single small sample, there's a metric boatload of startups with credible stories (and testing 1 biomarker in a small sample is a difficult but solved problem. Any hospital can do that now). These startup aren't seeing investment ... and weren't seeing investment before Theranos either, but a lot of them aren't outright scams! They're trying to make it work, and slowly, very slowly advancing the state of the art. These startups have to scrape together funds that come from testing crime scenes (if you can test very small samples, you can test blood found at a crime scene because only the top layer coagulates, there's a "liquid core" of a few cl inside ...)