Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find a finger prick worst than a well placed IV? Just my opinion. I hate when they have to squeeze your finger tip!

Non-idea poster here, its not really about the finger prick in my view. You could do an IV and take a fraction of the amount and do all kinds of testing. That would be the beauty of such a technology. How you get the blood could vary, its the quantity that's a game changer.

I don’t get this, really. As long as I’m getting poked with a needle I don’t really care if a few drops or a few vials are taken. It’s the needle going in that is painful.

The only game changing aspect I saw to this theoretical device was the portability. Being able to use it in remote places, or frequently at home if you have some special need.

Yeah, I see your point, but you are looking at it from the consumer vantage point. The problem with diagnostic testing is that the blood has some much stuff on it, protein, fat, etc that interferes with any test you would like to run that large amounts are needed to increase sensitivity for just one DIAGNOSTIC test not a screen. People spends years developing ONE assay. So to have a company come out and say with a drop you can do dozens of tests, is something that immediately attracted my attention because it is something I was working on at the time every day and it was challenging.

The comfort of getting a pin prick is really a side story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great role model for young girls and STEM as there are virtually now STEM founders that are women that make it this big.

Didn't age well...

It's that thinking that made the media overhype her and ignore a hundred red flags.

Right. I wish I could remember her name but their was an older lady in the docu whom Holmes brought the idea too very early and simply said "thats impossible, thats not how it works." And she was right. But Holmes was smart and went to powerful MEN who weren't in the sciences. She left women and scientists out of it while she pretended to be a woman scientist!

actually her Stanford professor (a scientist - but probably himself not quite familiar with the issues she was addressing ) was instrumental in hyping up this garbage.

it turns out medicine is not like coding. you can’t just inventing life saving drugs and technologies in your basement

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find a finger prick worst than a well placed IV? Just my opinion. I hate when they have to squeeze your finger tip!

Non-idea poster here, its not really about the finger prick in my view. You could do an IV and take a fraction of the amount and do all kinds of testing. That would be the beauty of such a technology. How you get the blood could vary, its the quantity that's a game changer.

I don’t get this, really. As long as I’m getting poked with a needle I don’t really care if a few drops or a few vials are taken. It’s the needle going in that is painful.

The only game changing aspect I saw to this theoretical device was the portability. Being able to use it in remote places, or frequently at home if you have some special need.

But alas that was never invented!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find a finger prick worst than a well placed IV? Just my opinion. I hate when they have to squeeze your finger tip!

Non-idea poster here, its not really about the finger prick in my view. You could do an IV and take a fraction of the amount and do all kinds of testing. That would be the beauty of such a technology. How you get the blood could vary, its the quantity that's a game changer.

I don’t get this, really. As long as I’m getting poked with a needle I don’t really care if a few drops or a few vials are taken. It’s the needle going in that is painful.

The only game changing aspect I saw to this theoretical device was the portability. Being able to use it in remote places, or frequently at home if you have some special need.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else find a finger prick worst than a well placed IV? Just my opinion. I hate when they have to squeeze your finger tip!

Non-idea poster here, its not really about the finger prick in my view. You could do an IV and take a fraction of the amount and do all kinds of testing. That would be the beauty of such a technology. How you get the blood could vary, its the quantity that's a game changer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great role model for young girls and STEM as there are virtually now STEM founders that are women that make it this big.

Didn't age well...

It's that thinking that made the media overhype her and ignore a hundred red flags.

Right. I wish I could remember her name but their was an older lady in the docu whom Holmes brought the idea too very early and simply said "thats impossible, thats not how it works." And she was right. But Holmes was smart and went to powerful MEN who weren't in the sciences. She left women and scientists out of it while she pretended to be a woman scientist!

Anonymous wrote:Great role model for young girls and STEM as there are virtually now STEM founders that are women that make it this big.

Didn't age well...

It's that thinking that made the media overhype her and ignore a hundred red flags.

She’s living her best year.

Anyone else find a finger prick worst than a well placed IV? Just my opinion. I hate when they have to squeeze your finger tip!

She is one of those people who could look pretty and put together and also look really goofy and unattractive. It's hard to explain. but her clothes were ill fitted and her posture terrible.

Anonymous wrote:Really un-imporatnt side note. I could not STAND how dried out her hair was in the movie. All the clips they used were from conferences or photo shoots (so obviously she had help getting ready) and her hair looks fried and frizzy and lots of fly aways.



Another terribly vain side note. I found her body type very very strange and her mannerisms even stranger. She has off posture or something. Can't put my finger on it.

Reviver of this thread here. Yes, the hair was insanely distracting to me. It’s not just that it looked terrible— which it did— but it was mystifying to me as well. She crafted a very specific, meaningful wardrobe, and deliberately lowered her voice and avoided blinking. In every encounter! How could someone put that can’t of attention and energy into their physical presentation and ignore the worst hair I’ve ever seen? It doesn’t make sense to me. Her wardrobe was supposed to be sleek and no nonsense, so why would she not make her hair the same? It was totally “off-brand” for her. And if you look at her childhood photos, she was blond as a little girl. Her hair naturally darkened as she aged, but it shouldn’t take too much abuse highlight it blond as an adult, so why so dry? And it’s not like she went thoroughly platinum, either. The top layers are blonde but she kept her dark hair beneath. Again, the process to do that is not that harsh.

I just don’t get it.

Anonymous wrote:She has mental illness. In a very scary capacity. I can't believe how many lab workers knowingly sent back false reads. You would think that shit would not go one for YEARS!!! Ive read she now has "re done" her persona. I wish I could find the article. But it talks about how she has a new BF, a higher voice, and now wears workout clothes as her signature thing. She is a con artist.

as well as a sociopath

Really un-imporatnt side note. I could not STAND how dried out her hair was in the movie. All the clips they used were from conferences or photo shoots (so obviously she had help getting ready) and her hair looks fried and frizzy and lots of fly aways.



Another terribly vain side note. I found her body type very very strange and her mannerisms even stranger. She has off posture or something. Can't put my finger on it.

She has mental illness. In a very scary capacity. I can't believe how many lab workers knowingly sent back false reads. You would think that shit would not go one for YEARS!!! Ive read she now has "re done" her persona. I wish I could find the article. But it talks about how she has a new BF, a higher voice, and now wears workout clothes as her signature thing. She is a con artist.

Anonymous wrote:How much jail time is she looking at?

Up to 180 years! 20 years for each count - there are nine - of the indictment. How much she gets will depend on the judge. She would get 20 years served concurrently or 20 years served consecutively, at which point, she dies in prison.