81–88 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted. It's true, and it only adds to the Drapers being enormous assholes; it doesn't contradict that. The leader of the #calexit campaign was an American who was living in Russia. Plus Russia's been funding far-right parties in Europe.
Dunno why you're getting downvoted Because splitting up into multiple states is not the same as seceding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "screwing up" has an incorrect connotation that she didn't commit fraud deliberately. People who have never been anywhere near a coal mine express anger at Don Blankenship for contributing to the deaths of dozens of people via deceiving inspectors. So it doesn't seem strange that people would continue to be angry at Holmes, when everybody depends on medical services such as blood tests that they can trust. Or…
I thought they didn't release products?
The basic issue is that drawing a pin prick of blood from the fingers results in a lot of "interstitial" fluid. The combination of a very small sample and poor quality made it hard to create reliable tests. In reality Theranos labs were mostly taking vials of blood from veins for standard tests, instead of the pin pricks they were touting. Once this became public the bottom fell out.
Edit: The worst part of what they did was that they would take smaller samples than normal and then run them diluted on standard machines . This is because the standard machines needed a larger volume. This gave patients less reliable results than they would have had a larger sample been taken in the first place. And i think this is really unforgivable, because it has real life consequences for people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reason the underlying idea of nanotainers being used for blood analysis is fundamentally impossible but it is a hard problem because the volume of blood is so small there can easily be statistical fluctuations that affect the classifier. That said, it's strictly correct that, if engineered properly, it could have provided additional actionable medical data.
> There is no reason the underlying idea of nanotainers being used for blood analysis is fundamentally impossible but it is a hard problem because the volume of blood is so small there can easily be statistical fluctuations that affect the classifier. Do you not see how the second half of this statement strictly contradicts the first?
It does not "strictly contradict".
The Drapers are weird. I guess the family has been rich for a long time and they've made a lot of investments, but I don't really see a clear track record of being particularly good at picking winners. I was at a Bitcoin trade show a few years ago and his son was there pumping his Bitcoin specific venture fund. Quite honestly, he struck me as an enormous asshole. He was on a few panels with people who actually knew h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no reason the underlying idea of nanotainers being used for blood analysis is fundamentally impossible but it is a hard problem because the volume of blood is so small there can easily be statistical fluctuations that affect the classifier. That said, it's strictly correct that, if engineered properly, it could have provided additional actionable medical data.
> There is no reason the underlying idea of nanotainers being used for blood analysis is fundamentally impossible but it is a hard problem because the volume of blood is so small there can easily be statistical fluctuations that affect the classifier. Do you not see how the second half of this statement strictly contradicts the first?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow I like the way you think! Hit me in a blind spot I never knew I had.
that people have public and private opinions and they know when and where to express both?
I think its more a combination of the fact that he was simultaneously saying things to both parties, and the fact that he was willing to look foolish in the process. I'm not expressing it well.
> “Why is [Theranos] worthless? It’s worthless because this writer was like a badger going after her, like a hyena going after her, and then it became a bigger and bigger thing,” he said. “She got bullied into submission,” Draper explained, adding that if it weren’t for Carreyrou and other opponents, Theranos “could have been one of these big, huge winners.” And we would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for…
I'm also irritated by the condescending, misogynistic undercurrent of claim. It seems doubtful the same assertion would have been made if Theranos had been founded/chaired by a man. This belief that women are without agency is stubbornly persistent and omnipresent.
Listen to the full interview here: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/early-theranos-investor-tim-... As the founder of a healthcare company, Tim's statement here is the one that I found the most dangerous "If all she had to do was say this was a beta or whatever and all of us would be using it, would be loving it." When it comes to people's health you must have concrete evidence that your product works and is robust. B…