Reply to Elizabeth Holmes, 30 year old self-made billionaire woman

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Elizabeth Holmes, 30 year old self-made billionaire woman"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]80 patents in 10 years.  I call BS.[/quote]

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.

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

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...[/quote]

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![/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics