This title is ridiculous. He's Holmes's husband, not her "lover". They were married in 2019.
Agreed, & flagged the submission. The actual article is of interest, but I really don't want to reward inflammatory titles.
Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#32[dead]
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#33Awful title; this is her husband, not her "lover."
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#34Doesn't look like any smart money on this one yet, but there's something bold about it. It's like Nassim Taleb's thing that you hire the ugly surgeon. This is one hideous surgeon. Fraud seems near impossible here. [Edit: a lot of thoughtful responses but downvoting?]
Taleb took payment to promote cryptocurrency scammer Craig Wright and his BSV scamtoken. If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud.
What are you talking about? The conference where he talked as a critic of digital assets? Confused
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Federal parole may not be possible, but a pardon definitely is.
Yes, and given the current administration’s pardon practice, being shamelessly unrepentant and flagrantly likely to be a recidivist looks more like a positive than a negative consideration.
A thought just came to me, that the selling of indulgences triggered the Reformation.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#36Here is the nyt article
https://archive.is/20250511164818/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
Here is the patent
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/10/business/Haem...
Both are mentioned but not linked in the article above.
Are there some knowledgeable people who would like to comment on the patent?
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#37This title is ridiculous. He's Holmes's husband, not her "lover". They were married in 2019.
As clickbait trash, it is nevertheless sublime.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#38Rather than focusing on Holmes and her lover, I'd like to posit some other questions I have with this approach. Let's assume for just a minute that Holmes wasn't trying to rug pull and that she genuinely wanted Theranos to succeed in it's stated mission. Wouldn't a foundational invention like this 20-30 years ago come out of a university lab? It feels like VC funding is not the right vehicle for the kind of developme…
[deleted]
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#39This title is ridiculous. He's Holmes's husband, not her "lover". They were married in 2019.
The title is: "Elizabeth Holmes’s partner reportedly raises millions for blood-testing startup"
It was modified in the HN submission to replace "partner" with "lover", probably as an ill-conceived attempt to distinguish from him being just her business partner.
It's a great example of why not to change titles, though, because "lover" carries wildly different implications than "partner" and makes the title seem much more salacious.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes's partner raises millions for blood-testing startup
#40Just wow. I think it's an uncomfortable truth that there was some good in Theranos in terms of the unfulfilled needs of society and the potential of diligent work toward realizing those needs with technology. I don't know how often it's been said by others, but I often think that Theranos would have had an easier time if they hadn't falsified anything. Faking things takes effort too, and aiming a little lower and bei…
If Theranos hadn't falsified anything, would they have had a product? My recollection, having read _Bad Blood_, is that they would not. Good intentions to save the world, without any working (or even possible!) technology, are not investment-worthy.
Having read the same book (while on the fourth floor of MDC Brooklyn of all places) I believe the conclusion I read was that they were trying to make it all work with one drop, which was impossible, because of the number of tests they were promising and the low solute concentrations some of those tests had to work with.
But there's a wide gulf between a drop and a 20mL vial. Requiring three drops and claiming half the battery of tests would still be a substantial improvement. That's what they should've done. And I think this new startup can do that.
I interviewed with Theranos toward the very end. I have never been in a place with a bigger show of security, and I've previously worked for years in nuclear weapons laboratories. If this new startup ditches the demonic-possession voice and the arch-military security schtick, and the Wizard of Oz curtain, I might not consider an investment in them as foolhardy as one in Theranos.