Ask HN: Elizabeth Holmes has 200 patents – if tech didn't work, why not noticed?

Post by bscphil » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #25

bagels wrote: post #16

People were skeptical of Theranos' claims before the WSJ expose from Oct 15, 2015. Here are some examples that predate that article: http://www.businessinsider.com/scientist-skeptical-thranos-b... http://www.businessinsider.com/science-of-elizabeth-holmes-t... This discussion from 2013 talks about Theranos doing full blood draws which they wouldn't need to do if their technology worked: https://forums.studentdoctor.n…

I brought this up in a comment downstream, but it was a Dec. 17, 2014, blog post by the now defunct Pathology Blawg that arguably led to the downfall of Theranos. The Blawg author was contacted by someone feuding with Holmes at the time. The Blawg author eventually contacted the WSJ reporter in secret: http://archive.is/BGtRJ One of the compelling things the Blawg author did was note this passage in the New Yorker st…

Post by hotdog97 » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:33 PM UTC

detaro wrote: post #67

hotdog97 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is that in the alternative timeline where Theranos had a male founder they would never gotten their initial founding. Holmes and Theranos rode the perfect wave built by the media being thirsty for a young, smart (blonde) female. It's so obvious when you look at it in hindsight. Hilariously, even after the total collapse this topic is often taboo. I can't help but feel for sorry for the young women out there…

Theranos's first funding was in 2004, it had already raised $90M at $1B valuation in 2010, and started filling its board with defense bigwigs in 2011. What media wave had happened at that point? From what I've seen, serious media coverage appeared in 2013, when they left "stealth mode" with the promise of the droplet testing, almost a decade after the initial investment.

Post by glenstein » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:35 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #60

jpizzle wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holmes figured out a pathway to violate the trust of old man wisdom. Sounds like she just fished the right old men. One of those that that’s incredibly mature in one aspect of life and threw all her effort in that direction naively ignoring the rest of of what “trust” actually facilitates. Poo poo for the men who were fished... don’t s*!t where you eat.

Many of the board members of Theranos were retired military officials, which seems especially interesting in the context of how Theranos was originally planning on selling the technology that we now know to be non-working to the military. I recall that the sale was originally blocked by low-level military regulators. Holmes may not have scammed as many people as we thought - the window is open on the idea that some o…

Post by itronitron » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:40 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #34

danso wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I brought this up in a comment downstream, but it was a Dec. 17, 2014, blog post by the now defunct Pathology Blawg that arguably led to the downfall of Theranos. The Blawg author was contacted by someone feuding with Holmes at the time. The Blawg author eventually contacted the WSJ reporter in secret: http://archive.is/BGtRJ One of the compelling things the Blawg author did was note this passage in the New Yorker st…

Ouch, the quote from Elizabeth Holmes on how the machine worked: > "A chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel."

Post by nraynaud » Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

owenversteeg wrote: post #41

_rpd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She could try, but the patents might be found to be 'non-enabling' and thus invalid. Patents are supposed to teach a reader how to make the invention. In particular, it seems that the microfluidics stuff needs new inventions to make it work in practice. So presumably those aren't described in the patents. Although it wouldn't be the first time that management overlooked solutions provided by their own researchers.

Are patents _required_ to teach a reader how to make the invention? That seems like an interesting requirement that I hadn't heard of before, and I've got a patent with my name on it myself.