Elizabeth Holmes, 30 year old self-made billionaire woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Seems like they used David Boies law firm to intimidate a lot of would-be critics. No scientist is upending their lives and their own careers to take on these clowns. Hence why it took a WSJ health care reporter to publish the dirty deeds.

Exactly. Who would have a vested interest in blowing this up (i.e., who should have figured this out?)

Anyone could figure it out... The first time I read a blurb about her I knew she was a fraud. I guess I can see her intimidating her underlings but how exactly would she ruin someone's career that's established in an industry when she isn't.

Um, there were a lot of scientists who wanted to get in on this sweet VC money train. Promote her "tech" and get research dollars. It's an incestuous money circle.
And the VCs goal is to hype the shit out of these new businesses and then be the very first to cash out. They let the employees (with their RSUs), tertiary non-public investors (think: surgeons and dentists with $800K HHI), and acquiring companies take the risk. VCs goal is to hype and get paid, either through a private acquisition or a public offering. But even the rise of private placement markets almost negate the need for these sharks to face the scrutiny of going public.

It also disturbs me that mutual funds made the bulk of her investors. WTF are the fund managers thinking?!? Just a sign that interest rates may be too low.

Yeah I get the investment strategy and "cashing out first", I just don't get how the basic premise of technology wasn't laughed at more openly.

It kind of was. But no one takes out an ad saying that the technology is crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Seems like they used David Boies law firm to intimidate a lot of would-be critics. No scientist is upending their lives and their own careers to take on these clowns. Hence why it took a WSJ health care reporter to publish the dirty deeds.

Exactly. Who would have a vested interest in blowing this up (i.e., who should have figured this out?)

Anyone could figure it out... The first time I read a blurb about her I knew she was a fraud. I guess I can see her intimidating her underlings but how exactly would she ruin someone's career that's established in an industry when she isn't.

Then why didn't you stop her?! Same reason no one else did.

Well my reason is because I'm a peon who works in a lab with no outlet. I can't say the same for many of my respected colleagues in the industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Seems like they used David Boies law firm to intimidate a lot of would-be critics. No scientist is upending their lives and their own careers to take on these clowns. Hence why it took a WSJ health care reporter to publish the dirty deeds.

Exactly. Who would have a vested interest in blowing this up (i.e., who should have figured this out?)

Anyone could figure it out... The first time I read a blurb about her I knew she was a fraud. I guess I can see her intimidating her underlings but how exactly would she ruin someone's career that's established in an industry when she isn't.

Then why didn't you stop her?! Same reason no one else did.

Well my reason is because I'm a peon who works in a lab with no outlet. I can't say the same for many of my respected colleagues in the industry.

I don't understand who you think should have done something. Specifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Seems like they used David Boies law firm to intimidate a lot of would-be critics. No scientist is upending their lives and their own careers to take on these clowns. Hence why it took a WSJ health care reporter to publish the dirty deeds.

Exactly. Who would have a vested interest in blowing this up (i.e., who should have figured this out?)

Anyone could figure it out... The first time I read a blurb about her I knew she was a fraud. I guess I can see her intimidating her underlings but how exactly would she ruin someone's career that's established in an industry when she isn't.

Um, there were a lot of scientists who wanted to get in on this sweet VC money train. Promote her "tech" and get research dollars. It's an incestuous money circle.
And the VCs goal is to hype the shit out of these new businesses and then be the very first to cash out. They let the employees (with their RSUs), tertiary non-public investors (think: surgeons and dentists with $800K HHI), and acquiring companies take the risk. VCs goal is to hype and get paid, either through a private acquisition or a public offering. But even the rise of private placement markets almost negate the need for these sharks to face the scrutiny of going public.

It also disturbs me that mutual funds made the bulk of her investors. WTF are the fund managers thinking?!? Just a sign that interest rates may be too low.

Yeah I get the investment strategy and "cashing out first", I just don't get how the basic premise of technology wasn't laughed at more openly.

I had read in other articles that many firms approached Theranos about an acquisition and then had to walk away, as Holmes would not allow them access to proprietary information in order for them to complete their due diligence. Many in the sector knew that something wasn't right with Theranos, but they can't go out and start leveling accusations without proof. My guess is that competitors started tipping off regulators and the media.

She was a precocious snowflake who got in way over her head at too young of an age, without the proper checks and balances that more seasoned start-up founders would face. She's charming and young, and these dumb old white men couldn't see past that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Sure. She had lots of angels. And a few people who call themselves VCs who aren't. But read the article I posted.

Yeah I'm not a finance person so I don't know the particulars of what makes one a VC or not. All I know is a lot of people gave her a lot of money she didn't deserve.

I know this area pretty well. Investing in start up companies is risky. But generally (at least in healthcare), the VCs know the science. In things like tech, much more is driven by consumer demand which is a whole different game to play and there are a lot of companies that get funded because of some irrational exuberance. The player that surprises me here is Walgreens. I would have assumed they would have done quite a bit of diligence.

But it is easy now, with hindsight, to say how this should have been caught earlier. But when there isn't a regulatory agency that watches this sort of thing and no private player is going to do more than walk away and shake their head, a fraud can get away with this kind of stuff for a while.

I wasn't that worried about Walgreeens because I knew they probably weren't even using her supposed technology which they weren't in most cases. They were just being used to say, "hey we are in your neighborhood pharmacy". When they really weren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Seems like they used David Boies law firm to intimidate a lot of would-be critics. No scientist is upending their lives and their own careers to take on these clowns. Hence why it took a WSJ health care reporter to publish the dirty deeds.

Exactly. Who would have a vested interest in blowing this up (i.e., who should have figured this out?)

Anyone could figure it out... The first time I read a blurb about her I knew she was a fraud. I guess I can see her intimidating her underlings but how exactly would she ruin someone's career that's established in an industry when she isn't.

Um, there were a lot of scientists who wanted to get in on this sweet VC money train. Promote her "tech" and get research dollars. It's an incestuous money circle.
And the VCs goal is to hype the shit out of these new businesses and then be the very first to cash out. They let the employees (with their RSUs), tertiary non-public investors (think: surgeons and dentists with $800K HHI), and acquiring companies take the risk. VCs goal is to hype and get paid, either through a private acquisition or a public offering. But even the rise of private placement markets almost negate the need for these sharks to face the scrutiny of going public.

It also disturbs me that mutual funds made the bulk of her investors. WTF are the fund managers thinking?!? Just a sign that interest rates may be too low.

Yeah I get the investment strategy and "cashing out first", I just don't get how the basic premise of technology wasn't laughed at more openly.

I had read in other articles that many firms approached Theranos about an acquisition and then had to walk away, as Holmes would not allow them access to proprietary information in order for them to complete their due diligence. Many in the sector knew that something wasn't right with Theranos, but they can't go out and start leveling accusations without proof. My guess is that competitors started tipping off regulators and the media.

She was a precocious snowflake who got in way over her head at too young of an age, without the proper checks and balances that more seasoned start-up founders would face. She's charming and young, and these dumb old white men couldn't see past that.

Okay I can see that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80 patents in 10 years. I call BS.

I came in to say this.... The whole platform is suspect and they haven't released any data to be publically scrutinized. They are running LDTs which do not have to go through FDA clearance. You can have all the patents you want but let's see if the have a viable product.

The idea that one can do 30 assays from 25 uL of whole blood is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I posted this two years ago... Even the most junior of scientists could tell you the bolded. This type of thing is happening everyday. Its actually quite easy to put numbers on a screen a convince a bunch of VC's who don't know science to put up money. I'm baffled that they don't have bonafide scientists as consultants before jumping into this but everyone wants to be in on the next big thing...

Well, to be fair, a bunch of VCs didn't invest. Only one did. And he wasn't a healthcare investor. He did tech. Run when you see tech inventors doing this kind of stuff and no healthcare investors!

My search shows they had numerous investors. But that's besides the point. I'm wondering why there wasn't more backlash from the scientific community. It seems she got her press machine going for several years with no real push back when it was so evident this was all smoke and mirrors.

Seems like they used David Boies law firm to intimidate a lot of would-be critics. No scientist is upending their lives and their own careers to take on these clowns. Hence why it took a WSJ health care reporter to publish the dirty deeds.

Exactly. Who would have a vested interest in blowing this up (i.e., who should have figured this out?)

Anyone could figure it out... The first time I read a blurb about her I knew she was a fraud. I guess I can see her intimidating her underlings but how exactly would she ruin someone's career that's established in an industry when she isn't.

Um, there were a lot of scientists who wanted to get in on this sweet VC money train. Promote her "tech" and get research dollars. It's an incestuous money circle.
And the VCs goal is to hype the shit out of these new businesses and then be the very first to cash out. They let the employees (with their RSUs), tertiary non-public investors (think: surgeons and dentists with $800K HHI), and acquiring companies take the risk. VCs goal is to hype and get paid, either through a private acquisition or a public offering. But even the rise of private placement markets almost negate the need for these sharks to face the scrutiny of going public.

It also disturbs me that mutual funds made the bulk of her investors. WTF are the fund managers thinking?!? Just a sign that interest rates may be too low.

Yeah I get the investment strategy and "cashing out first", I just don't get how the basic premise of technology wasn't laughed at more openly.

I had read in other articles that many firms approached Theranos about an acquisition and then had to walk away, as Holmes would not allow them access to proprietary information in order for them to complete their due diligence. Many in the sector knew that something wasn't right with Theranos, but they can't go out and start leveling accusations without proof. My guess is that competitors started tipping off regulators and the media.

She was a precocious snowflake who got in way over her head at too young of an age, without the proper checks and balances that more seasoned start-up founders would face. She's charming and young, and these dumb old white men couldn't see past that.

This. The Finance and Science/Technology sectors are a sausage fest. Those men will be easily swayed by a pretty face that can use "scientician" jargon. I am not so sure the finance people care as long as it is making money.

[Anonymous]

I wonder though will this reverberate in the field and make it harder for new legitimate biotech companies to get funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder though will this reverberate in the field and make it harder for new legitimate biotech companies led by 21 year-olds to get funding.

Yes.

Biotech start-ups led by seasoned vets with real reputations will be fine, as long as they meet the usual due diligence requirements and prove their technology. Like most start ups that make it past the angel round.

[Anonymous]

How much debt did Elizabeth Holmes accrue? Most of these start-up founders borrow against their paper stock valuations prior to going public to fund their lifestyle. No way she was buying a house in Palo Alto without borrowing against her stock options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-blood-holmes/

Impressive. I think she can become wealthier than Zuckerberg. A very useful and revolutionary service/technology she has pioneered. Potential to really eat away at lab fees.

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Isn't this the woman whose company Theranos was called a total sham and got tons of bad press in the summer? The woman who dresses like Steve jobs?

[Anonymous]

Any new news on this story? Fascinating fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any new news on this story? Fascinating fraud.

Reminds me of another supposed billionaire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any new news on this story? Fascinating fraud.

Reminds me of another supposed billionaire.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/25/technology/marissa-mayer-186-million/