The Dropout on Hulu (Elizabeth Holmes story)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The line that they were “at least ten years away from a viable product” is repeated often in this series. Theranos was founded in 2003. So what’s happened since then? Is anyone working on this or something similar? Did they give up entirely? At least according to this series, the people working on it seemed to believe it was possible given enough time.

I’m curious about this too. It’s been a whole decade as of episode 5. Do the actual scientists still think this thing will work someday, and if so, when? And why aren’t their investors asking more questions at this point?

There aren’t any investors anymore?

PP here. My question specifically referenced episode 5, when it was 2013, a decade after the company started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you watch the HBO documentary it discusses why her idea and the tech is just not viable. The wet environment inside the machine; the tiny sample size, and a bunch of other issues. She was dead in the water from the start and was told that by experts. No medical or device experts on her board.

So everyone who worked in the lab and Ian Gibbons were all complicit? Or maybe just dreamers? Not trying to disparage them, just curious about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you watch the HBO documentary it discusses why her idea and the tech is just not viable. The wet environment inside the machine; the tiny sample size, and a bunch of other issues. She was dead in the water from the start and was told that by experts. No medical or device experts on her board.

So everyone who worked in the lab and Ian Gibbons were all complicit? Or maybe just dreamers? Not trying to disparage them, just curious about them.

I don't think they were involved in the business end and the false vainglorious promises she made. As other posters have mentioned, medical devices take decades to develop. She lied to her investors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you watch the HBO documentary it discusses why her idea and the tech is just not viable. The wet environment inside the machine; the tiny sample size, and a bunch of other issues. She was dead in the water from the start and was told that by experts. No medical or device experts on her board.

So everyone who worked in the lab and Ian Gibbons were all complicit? Or maybe just dreamers? Not trying to disparage them, just curious about them.

I don't think they were involved in the business end and the false vainglorious promises she made. As other posters have mentioned, medical devices take decades to develop. She lied to her investors.

+1. It's why she began siloing the company like crazy. Many people didn't know details of how far they were going. Ian was shocked when he found out they were talking to retail pharmacies but still didn't know all the details. I got the feeling he wanted to come back after she fired him because he thought he could do good and maybe even reel her in from making bad decisions. But the secrecy made that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The line that they were “at least ten years away from a viable product” is repeated often in this series. Theranos was founded in 2003. So what’s happened since then? Is anyone working on this or something similar? Did they give up entirely? At least according to this series, the people working on it seemed to believe it was possible given enough time.

This article explains why the drop of blood on a tiny device to test for tons of things might never be possible, but it does seem like they are making progress on blood testing in general and there might be a day where we are at least closer to what Theranos set out to do: https://www.theverge.com/22834348/theranos-blood-testing-innovation-drop-holmes

[Anonymous]

I worked in labs in my 20s and I work in research/licensing in Biotech. I am much like her Stanford professor who saw from the get-go that she had no concept of the science behind what she claimed she could do.

Diagnostics for different diseases/viruses/infections, etc. are all detected via different reactions and means. Different reagents and chemical reactions.

Her idea, of course, sounded absolutely wonderful! One drop of blood from a slight finger prick could test for 200 diseases/infections in one tiny cartridge...anyone who has basic chem/bio BS degree could see how that would not work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kate McKinnon as a teenager? lol, no. Amanda can still pull it off. Not for much longer, but for now.

Kate McKinnon is only like a year older than Amanda seyfried. But I don’t think either of them can pull off a teenager whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I worked in labs in my 20s and I work in research/licensing in Biotech. I am much like her Stanford professor who saw from the get-go that she had no concept of the science behind what she claimed she could do.

Diagnostics for different diseases/viruses/infections, etc. are all detected via different reactions and means. Different reagents and chemical reactions.

Her idea, of course, sounded absolutely wonderful! One drop of blood from a slight finger prick could test for 200 diseases/infections in one tiny cartridge...anyone who has basic chem/bio BS degree could see how that would not work.

Right--but maybe in the future it will be possible. Maybe she planted the seed for someone else? There was a time when catching a criminal based on DNA was impossible, or preventing polio, or sending a man to the moon. All of these things were once impossible, but now every day no bid deal occurrences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate McKinnon as a teenager? lol, no. Amanda can still pull it off. Not for much longer, but for now.

Kate McKinnon is only like a year older than Amanda seyfried. But I don’t think either of them can pull off a teenager whatsoever.

I thought Amanda was easily believable as an 18-year-old.

[Anonymous]

Hahahahaha

Watching this now. I love how they glorify biomedical science research.

Reality: biomedical science research is terrible, soul sucking, abusive, very low paying, and just awful.

Been there, done that for many years. People always get sucked into the field because they think they'll cure diseases and there is no amount of low pay that they won't take because they want to help people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kate McKinnon as a teenager? lol, no. Amanda can still pull it off. Not for much longer, but for now.

Kate McKinnon is only like a year older than Amanda seyfried. But I don’t think either of them can pull off a teenager whatsoever.

I thought Amanda was easily believable as an 18-year-old.

+1

She has a face that reads young no matter what (it’s the big eyes and high forehead with otherwise small/delicate features— literally baby faced). Kate McKinnon has a very adaptable face for many characters, obviously, but her face has more balanced features that are easier to age than make look younger.

I also think given the importance of the voice work, Siegfried was a better choice. McKinnon’s natural speaking voice is already lower and huskier, so while I’m sure she could do a great impersonation of Holmes’ fake voice she created, you’d lose the contrast with her higher natural voice, which is important to the character arc. Especially in the Mayer episodes when, for instance, you see her shifting her voice between conversations with Sonny or the Walgreens guys, and her mom or brother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I worked in labs in my 20s and I work in research/licensing in Biotech. I am much like her Stanford professor who saw from the get-go that she had no concept of the science behind what she claimed she could do.

Diagnostics for different diseases/viruses/infections, etc. are all detected via different reactions and means. Different reagents and chemical reactions.

Her idea, of course, sounded absolutely wonderful! One drop of blood from a slight finger prick could test for 200 diseases/infections in one tiny cartridge...anyone who has basic chem/bio BS degree could see how that would not work.

Right--but maybe in the future it will be possible. Maybe she planted the seed for someone else? There was a time when catching a criminal based on DNA was impossible, or preventing polio, or sending a man to the moon. All of these things were once impossible, but now every day no bid deal occurrences.

Scientific advances don’t work that way. Historically, science is advanced by revolutionary new models that completely change the paradigm. Not by chipping away at an unsolvable problem. In other words, here we have Holmes who wanted to take the fear and pain out of blood testing. Her solution, which was largely illogical, was to take only one drop of blood. Better paradigms are to find a means of testing that doesn’t involve blood. But as we see, she lacked the education and grounding in science to have truly revolutionary and functional ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I worked in labs in my 20s and I work in research/licensing in Biotech. I am much like her Stanford professor who saw from the get-go that she had no concept of the science behind what she claimed she could do.

Diagnostics for different diseases/viruses/infections, etc. are all detected via different reactions and means. Different reagents and chemical reactions.

Her idea, of course, sounded absolutely wonderful! One drop of blood from a slight finger prick could test for 200 diseases/infections in one tiny cartridge...anyone who has basic chem/bio BS degree could see how that would not work.

Right--but maybe in the future it will be possible. Maybe she planted the seed for someone else? There was a time when catching a criminal based on DNA was impossible, or preventing polio, or sending a man to the moon. All of these things were once impossible, but now every day no bid deal occurrences.

Scientific advances don’t work that way. Historically, science is advanced by revolutionary new models that completely change the paradigm. Not by chipping away at an unsolvable problem. In other words, here we have Holmes who wanted to take the fear and pain out of blood testing. Her solution, which was largely illogical, was to take only one drop of blood. Better paradigms are to find a means of testing that doesn’t involve blood. But as we see, she lacked the education and grounding in science to have truly revolutionary and functional ideas.

Look at how many different ways we can take a temperature today, compared to using a thermometer with mercury.

[Anonymous]

Did she have narcistic personality disorder or was she a sociopath?

[Anonymous]

It’s a good series. I don’t find Elizabeth brilliant. She and her brother got into Stanford because they had money.