6 ms·

In the current environment I doubt Elizabeth Holmes would go to prison. She would be saying the machine would work by early next year. After all a drop of blood

by Zigurd 2mo ago

In the current environment I doubt Elizabeth Holmes would go to prison. She would be saying the machine would work by early next year. After all a drop of blood is just a smaller quantity. Making the machine work is just an engineering problem. If she were really clever she would recruit a social media army of all the weird conspiracy theorists who think "medbeds" are real. Of course now we know that a drop of capillary blood containing interstitial fluid and a random mix of venous and arterial blood is unsuitable for most blood tests. At least you will have googled that if you're an Elon stan preparing to tell me how they're not comparable.

umpalumpaaa 2mo ago
The big difference was that she was in the medical field. She used her machines that worked unreliability on patients and caused actual damage to humans. Then she noticed that this could be a problem and switched to blood analyzer from Siemens. But she still continued to say that the machines do work. She lied to investors. I still feel her case is a lot different to what musk is doing. I think you can definitely say “coming next year” and actually needing 5 years. You cannot blatantly lie and harm people along the way
- Zigurd 2mo ago
  Are you a biochemist? Would the Theranos machine have worked with new tests using new reagents? Is the needed blood volume not similar to, for example, payload capacity? Are we discriminating against people who affect an unusual voice?
  - akiselev 2mo ago
    It wouldn't have worked, period. You can't use capillary blood for the kind of blood tests they were claiming to. It's statistically impossible because the sample isn't big enough and drawing more capillary blood doesn't improve the SNR. Two samples taken at the same time from different spots on the same finger can yield wildly different results. Everyone in diagnostic medicine knows this (they've been dealing with this problem since the glucose finger prick test). That's why no biotech VC ever invested in Theranos and they had to get tech VCs and fancy board members like Henry Kissinger. A cursory glance at the proposal by someone qualified would have shut that down immediately, but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore.
    - close04 2mo ago
      > but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore They hope they can cash out before the bubble bursts, whatever that bubble is.
      - purplemoonx 2mo ago
        Exactly, like the VC is benevolent making sure all ventures are legal and pure lol Half the time the scam was their idea and the “founder” is placed
    - ikiris 2mo ago
      It’s not a lack of due diligence, it’s a lack of prosecution of fraud. They think they can just unload to some sucker for a big payday. See also the entirety of cryptocurrency.
      - akiselev 2mo ago
        > They think they can just unload to some sucker for a big payday. See also the entirety of cryptocurrency. That's also the entirety of the biotech VC industry, except even more so. Biotech startups require far more capital to make it to market than tech startups, so biotech VCs take the role of early stage funding for R&D. Then the startup IPOs (with zero revenue and unlimited scientific risk) and uses that to fund its clinical trials, while the investors dump their stock. Then, because ramping up manufacturing and quality control takes even more money, the biotech startup sells out to a pharmaceutical company once its passed its trials or the results are promising enough to take the risk, closing the financing loop. Most of these startups stop existing before they even earn a single dollar in revenue, either because they fail or they're acquired by someone who can actually manufacture and distribute their product at scale. This has been the way of the industry for at least the last 20-30 years ever since the small molecule cliff hit like a brick wall. So, the VC industry whose standard operating procedure is to unload companies onto public investors long before anyone even knows whether the drug or device would work, wouldn't touch Theranos with a thirty foot pole.
    - Zigurd 2mo ago
- qwery 2mo ago
  > caused actual damage to humans You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans. They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands. Just to take, take, take. You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.
- hansvm 2mo ago
  But what if you say that FSD is actually here and that the only reason you can't fully use it is regulations and then need an extra decade (at least -- still pending)? As one of many examples....
- duped 2mo ago
  The medical field is filled with charlatans and quacks. Elizabeth Holmes went to jail because she defrauded the wrong people.
- lubujackson 2mo ago
  Tell that to Kyle Shanahan, whose Tesla got into a big accident while on autopilot...
ryandrake 2mo ago
Cool thought process, but the real reason Elizabeth Holmes would not go to prison if she pulled that shit today is much, much simpler: She would know to make a nice sized donation to the current administration (or a sweet business deal for one of his family members), and the justice system would simply be completely hands-off her. She'd give 5% equity to Jared Kushner or something, and go on committing fraud with confidence. It's not complex anymore. Pay to play.

by Zigurd 2mo ago

umpalumpaaa 2mo ago

The big difference was that she was in the medical field. She used her machines that worked unreliability on patients and caused actual damage to humans. Then she noticed that this could be a problem and switched to blood analyzer from Siemens. But she still continued to say that the machines do work. She lied to investors. I still feel her case is a lot different to what musk is doing. I think you can definitely say “coming next year” and actually needing 5 years. You cannot blatantly lie and harm people along the way

Zigurd 2mo ago
Are you a biochemist? Would the Theranos machine have worked with new tests using new reagents? Is the needed blood volume not similar to, for example, payload capacity? Are we discriminating against people who affect an unusual voice?
- akiselev 2mo ago
  It wouldn't have worked, period. You can't use capillary blood for the kind of blood tests they were claiming to. It's statistically impossible because the sample isn't big enough and drawing more capillary blood doesn't improve the SNR. Two samples taken at the same time from different spots on the same finger can yield wildly different results. Everyone in diagnostic medicine knows this (they've been dealing with this problem since the glucose finger prick test). That's why no biotech VC ever invested in Theranos and they had to get tech VCs and fancy board members like Henry Kissinger. A cursory glance at the proposal by someone qualified would have shut that down immediately, but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore.
  - close04 2mo ago
    > but tech VCs don't do due diligence anymore They hope they can cash out before the bubble bursts, whatever that bubble is.
    - purplemoonx 2mo ago
      Exactly, like the VC is benevolent making sure all ventures are legal and pure lol Half the time the scam was their idea and the “founder” is placed
  - ikiris 2mo ago
    It’s not a lack of due diligence, it’s a lack of prosecution of fraud. They think they can just unload to some sucker for a big payday. See also the entirety of cryptocurrency.
    - akiselev 2mo ago
      > They think they can just unload to some sucker for a big payday. See also the entirety of cryptocurrency. That's also the entirety of the biotech VC industry, except even more so. Biotech startups require far more capital to make it to market than tech startups, so biotech VCs take the role of early stage funding for R&D. Then the startup IPOs (with zero revenue and unlimited scientific risk) and uses that to fund its clinical trials, while the investors dump their stock. Then, because ramping up manufacturing and quality control takes even more money, the biotech startup sells out to a pharmaceutical company once its passed its trials or the results are promising enough to take the risk, closing the financing loop. Most of these startups stop existing before they even earn a single dollar in revenue, either because they fail or they're acquired by someone who can actually manufacture and distribute their product at scale. This has been the way of the industry for at least the last 20-30 years ever since the small molecule cliff hit like a brick wall. So, the VC industry whose standard operating procedure is to unload companies onto public investors long before anyone even knows whether the drug or device would work, wouldn't touch Theranos with a thirty foot pole.
  - Zigurd 2mo ago
qwery 2mo ago
> caused actual damage to humans You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans. They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands. Just to take, take, take. You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.
hansvm 2mo ago
But what if you say that FSD is actually here and that the only reason you can't fully use it is regulations and then need an extra decade (at least -- still pending)? As one of many examples....
duped 2mo ago
The medical field is filled with charlatans and quacks. Elizabeth Holmes went to jail because she defrauded the wrong people.
lubujackson 2mo ago
Tell that to Kyle Shanahan, whose Tesla got into a big accident while on autopilot...

ryandrake 2mo ago

Cool thought process, but the real reason Elizabeth Holmes would not go to prison if she pulled that shit today is much, much simpler: She would know to make a nice sized donation to the current administration (or a sweet business deal for one of his family members), and the justice system would simply be completely hands-off her. She'd give 5% equity to Jared Kushner or something, and go on committing fraud with confidence. It's not complex anymore. Pay to play.