101–110 of 264 posts
The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are companies (at least one anyway) that make rapid testing panels that include COVID, plus a dozen plus other respiratory diseases, in a single test that is profitable at $200 and costs $20 in consumables. I heard that they disabled all the other tests so they could get approved as a COVID test sooner, or something like that. The problem is you can't ask for such a test as a patient, hospital billing departmen…
If the regulators get out of the way it would be great to make these available direct to consumer with an app companion, and the consumer can share the results with their physician.
Coronavirus (COVID-19): Press Conference with Michael Mina, 02/24/21
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/coronavirus-covid...
“Touring the machine shop” is an old trick when you want to waste time and not show anyone anything. Technically naive people don’t realize that modern machines each have a computer attached to them, and there is little proprietary in most shops.
The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…
> What just amazed me is how gullible all the investors were, and how they didn't do due diligence, hire outside experts, or anything. Weird. When you're sat on stage next to Bill Clinton people assume someone somewhere has done some due diligence already. Turns out there are a lot more jobs out there to do with marketing, hype, and event planning than there are doing fact checking.
The modern wisdom, "fake it till you make it", requires you to make it, otherwise you'll pay for lying to us.
I'm curious, does this case get so much publicity because it touches upon all the tropes of Silicon Valley? 'Fake it till you make it', 'move fast and break things', 'disrupt the markets', etc. IMHO, this business model is fine when the only things at risk are venture capital and you're trying to sell more widgets, but when it comes to life and safety - bad news.
Can't wait to see who they cast in the inevitable Netflix series.
The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…
You don't invest in something that's changing the world, you're investing in something that gains value, changing the world is just the narrative to get the sucker downstream to jump on board
EDIT: to add something less controversial, i can recommend the book "the key man" of a similar bluff in the impact investing space
The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…
> how they didn't do due diligence "due diligence" processes are in practice a lot less stringent or rigorous than an outsider would expect them to be given the amount of money involved. Companies get bought based on glorified sales pitches and nobody looks too hard at what they're buying is the unfortunate truth of the matter. Investors are no better.
We happend to know one of the newer investors and asked who did technical due dilligence, because from what we could tell the primary product was just a bunch of outdated open source software glued together and general build on 15 year old tech. We got a very angry call from the CEO telling us “to mind our own fucking business”. We don’t work for them anymore.
The crazy thing about Theranos is that so many people with experience in microfluidics (developed mainly for DNA sequencing although there are other uses) knew that their claims were impossible, technologically speaking. Working with such small volumes to obtain quantitive estimates of blood chemistry is so implausible, as you are introducing uncontrollable variability - micro-evaporation, even tissue localization is…
These people may be accomplished in their own right, but they know little about business. They are there for lunch, the fat fee, and to pose.
And when a big company has a NUMBER of these types, i.e. two or more, they have an authoritarian/secrecy problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide any examples of a high-profile company, ultimately shown to be dishonest, where the early investors were able to “cash out” before this dishonesty became known?
Uber Explanation, since this is being downvoted. Uber might not have lied about their business, but it surely looks like investors never cared about the businesses viability and rather only cared about being able to turn a profit on their investment (which was the point being made by the gp). To this day, it is still not clear if Uber’s business model is viable. Also not to mention the original CEO/founder’s reputati…