61–70 of 88 posts
I'm guessing this is basic psychology. It's easier to blame a reporter for something you invested in so heavily than to admit on national TV that you screwed up. None of these big shot investors want to admit that they got defrauded, it makes them look foolish.
They only got defrauded because they couldn't flip their stake to the next fool..
Can't people stop beating this dead horse already. She screwed up, her company is dead, just let her be.
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…
Tim Draper understands the hype machine better than anybody else. He knows how it works, and when it will stop working.
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…
> Blood testing is not a field where people accept mistakes. I don't think this is true. There are blood tests that don't always work. Lyme disease is one that is not accurately detected.
False positives and false negatives will occur with all testing and there are protocols in place to detect false readings. While most tests are accurate, an inaccurate result is not considered a mistake since the tests themselves are not perfect. (Given that you followed proper procedure)
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…
This argument doesn't make any sense. It wasn't a beta, nor an alpha, nor anything.
It was just a marketing gag without any substance or technology. As part of an alpha or beta, you need an actual pathway to a full release.
There was literally nothing. If this were released as a beta after having raised lots of money, people would call this a scam outright, because it didn't do anything new or more efficient.
From what I understand about biology (which is little), there was no real way this was ever going to work. Am I missing something?
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.
Do you not see how the second half of this statement strictly contradicts the first?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the BBC, Russia has been funding and promoting the California secessionists, among other similar movements. See: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131 Edit: This is a direct explanation of why "just 'cause" is misleading or incomplete, based on public information from mainstream media.
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.
Because splitting up into multiple states is not the same as seceding.
The approach to achieving this vision, unfortunately, used the Silicon Valley "fake it till you make it" playbook that clearly crossed both ethical and moral lines.
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?
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/20/5952049...
Theranos' fraud endangered peoples' health. It's shameful that someone like Draper would defend that.