Turns out she was a fake and a crook. As a worker bee I find these tales amusing. I couldn't serve on the jury since I'd say these dopes couldn't shovel enough money into a fake product that didn't have enough "research" behind it to get into a high school science fair. Good for her.

With her talents she should be running the NIH under the current administration.

Anonymous wrote:DC born!

http://fortune.com/2014/06/12/theranos-blood-holmes/

Impressive. I think she can become wealthier than Zuckerberg. A very useful and revolutionary service/technology she has pioneered. Potential to really eat away at lab fees.

LOL

Anonymous wrote:i don't think jobs and woz came from affluent families.

+1

I really enjoyed the podcast, The Dropout.

Her story is crazy. What’s equally crazy is her lack of shame and extreme flaunting of privilege.

I have blood work today and every time I do I think of Elizabeth Holmes.
She still has lawyers, apparently. In the last 6 weeks or so they have tried to allege bias in grand jury selection (using arguments partly based on the pandemic), dismiss most of the fraud charges (saying "what is an investor, anyway?" and challenging any duty towards investors), and have also filed papers indicating possible arguments based on mental disease. Mercury News has several articles in recent weeks, this is the most recent.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/29/theranos-case-feds-hit-back-at-elizabeth-holmes-bid-to-nix-charges/

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.

Lol

The real reason why people were so willing to invest, champion and get behind her.

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.

Lol

Anonymous wrote:Her lawyers want to quit, not getting paid.

Is she still living with her un-housebroken dog in that house in Palo Alto she doesn't pay for?

Girl, nah! She's doing what she's always done- scamming a rich guy. Honestly, ladies, look at Ms Liz. If she can do it, anyone can.

Anonymous wrote:Her lawyers want to quit, not getting paid.

Is she still living with her un-housebroken dog in that house in Palo Alto she doesn't pay for?

She married a hotel heir last year. No idea why he agreed to say I DO to someone who’s facing prison and the largest bankruptcy in history but there you go.

Her lawyers want to quit, not getting paid.

Is she still living with her un-housebroken dog in that house in Palo Alto she doesn't pay for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I listened to the podcast, and watched both the ABC and HBO docs. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone explain this. Thank you! This is such a simple explanation of the challenge. Why didn’t anyone make this point in the aforementioned stories?

Part of the reason why is most reporters and even some scientists don't know this. Many scientists are laser focused on one area and don't know specifics about other areas. If I work on cancer, I may no nothing at all about Diabetes or if I work as a molecular biologist I may no nothing about lab tests.

ah, but that's because american education allows you to claim a major with about 20% of the classes you would need to pass at a real university. then, you get into a phd program and start publishing research in your first year. no wonder science is screwed up.

American universities are real universities.

they are a joke. most graduates wouldn't be able to pass an entrance exam at real schools.

Somebody link to a thread about the huge imbalance between foreign students at American Universities and the crickets at the real ones.

rich dumb foreigners want it easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing to go back to page 1 of this thread and read the posts.

I hope this thread has taught some people about the value of some healthy skepticism.

+1

LOL

Monday morning quarterback.

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I think she was a Stanford medical researcher. You make an excellent point. The men were definitely taken in with her physical presentation and storytelling.

I am not saying this to be snarky, but genuinely want to know about the bolded:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I listened to the podcast, and watched both the ABC and HBO docs. This is the first time I’ve heard anyone explain this. Thank you! This is such a simple explanation of the challenge. Why didn’t anyone make this point in the aforementioned stories?

Part of the reason why is most reporters and even some scientists don't know this. Many scientists are laser focused on one area and don't know specifics about other areas. If I work on cancer, I may no nothing at all about Diabetes or if I work as a molecular biologist I may no nothing about lab tests.

ah, but that's because american education allows you to claim a major with about 20% of the classes you would need to pass at a real university. then, you get into a phd program and start publishing research in your first year. no wonder science is screwed up.

American universities are real universities.

they are a joke. most graduates wouldn't be able to pass an entrance exam at real schools.

Somebody link to a thread about the huge imbalance between foreign students at American Universities and the crickets at the real ones.