Elizabeth Holmes, 30 year old self-made billionaire woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of us did read it and knew about her years ago. She ever clearly states how her father choose to devote to public service, choose being a great word, not worked as a public servant, she is clearly from a wealthy background. But, still her achievements are inspiring, she could have spent her time like Paris Hilton...

What is so inspiring about fraud with the potential to jeopardize people's lives?

I guess I didn't read the whole thing. I just read about her fraud, that is worse than other scams by far as it endangers people's lives. I take back everything I said.

[Anonymous]

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...

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

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!

Pp from above. The VCs aren't to blame! http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/opinion/dont-blame-silicon-valley-for-theranos.html

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?)

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Kind of ironic that who father, who she loved to make part of this narrative about being raised to have interest in public service, blah blah, blah, worked for Enron first. Not saying he was involved in the scam in anyway, just that it was another company that media and investors loved despite an opaque, confusing business plan before it all came crashing down in a house of cards. What are the odds?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.