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]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]

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

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.[/quote]

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.  [/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