Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 1001 posts

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#841

Post by dathinab »

xdennis wrote: post #680
dathinab wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> defrauding patients about their test results Because und test results where in general correctish, they where just not gotten in exactly the way it was claimed, which was also not noticable less reliable or anything. And what the user bought was the test result. As far as I understood, with my very limited understanding of US law it seems hard to sue as a consumer as you where deceived but not hurt/damaged in any w…

> test results where in general correctish They diluted the blood. They couldn't possibly be correct.

I might also have gotten the wrong information.

The maybe not right information I got was:

During the trial phase they get full sized blood samples + finger prick to do cross validation.

The results they send back where "from the validation" as it was basically the only test done.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#842

Post by AlbertCory »

Hard sciences are hard. We have it easy in software.

That's why her "lesson" from SV entrepeneurs about "fake it til you make it" did not apply. They weren't doing medicine.

Revolutionizing an industry where there are already standards, laws, people's health at stake, and government bureaucracies is WAY harder than what most of her heroes did.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#843

Post by smm11 »

Zero sympathy from me. I hope she burns.

Far, far too many of these charlatans out there. I used to admire many, thinking I wasn't working hard enough, trying enough, so I busted my rear for decades, career-wise and activity-wise.

They're all bluffing. Lying. Stealing. Cheating. Eff them all.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#844

Post by minitoar »

baby wrote: post #840
ineedasername wrote: post #792

Ironic that her board of directors-- one of the most praised aspects of Theranos-- probably hurt her when it came to going after her with criminal charges. These were some of the most well-connected people in the country, and making them look like fools did her no favors. Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. (which I think she deserved anyway.) Espe…

Reminds me of magic leap. What happened to itv

Magic Leap still exists. I think they pivoted a bit?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#845

Post by ineedasername »

MiscIdeaMaker99 wrote: post #804
leroy_masochist wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. You're saying that Mattis, Cohen, etc had the ability to influence decisions within Trump's DoJ and exerted that ability in order to ensure that charges were filed against Holmes in 2018? If so, why do you think this?

Because it sounds like a much better story than what probably really happened.

Could be! Because regardless of outside influence, this is the sort of high-profile case that can boost the career of anyone working on prosecution.

But I also don't think it's unrealistic or unreasonable to speculate that people who were on the board of directors due to their connections and influence could have used that same influence when things went sour.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#846

Post by [deleted] »

blackboxlogic wrote: post #383
tptacek wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the guidelines are kind of explicit about this for basic economic crimes. Ken White's the lawyer, though, not me! They're actually even more specific for fraud cases, beyond the general 2B1.1 basic economic crime rule of sentencing according to the most severe count; for fraud, you apparently sum up all the losses from all the counts, which has the net effect of bumping Holmes up 2 additional levels.

Taking note: parallel crimes are more efficient than serial crimes.

[deleted]

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#847

Post by ineedasername »

leroy_masochist wrote: post #813
kesselvon wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even have to influence. DoJ is naturally going to take interest when a huge startup that has the Secretary of Defense on the board goes belly up.

Mattis left the Theranos board when he became SecDef and as such was not a board member when charges were filed in 2018.

I think you can change "has" to "had the current" in that comment and it still makes a reasonable point.

I was in a job once where there was a snafu with a relative of a local politician. It didn't take a call from the politician for the CEO to issue an all-hands with a mandate to find out what the heck happened.

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#848

Post by rc_mob »

1cvmask wrote: post #814
ineedasername wrote: post #792

Ironic that her board of directors-- one of the most praised aspects of Theranos-- probably hurt her when it came to going after her with criminal charges. These were some of the most well-connected people in the country, and making them look like fools did her no favors. Once it was clear this wouldn't go away quietly, I'd bet they pushed hard to ensure criminal prosecution. (which I think she deserved anyway.) Espe…

Kissinger is known for his war crimes and Nobel Peace Prize. Being associated with this fraud is not a stain on his reputation at all. They joined because they thought they were going to make a lot of money. Kissinger also has the fame of being the first Nobel Peace Prize recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombi... More on Kissinger war crimes…

I'm fairly sure that Hitler and some other really bad peoples have won a NPP. They didn't bomb any other winners?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#849

Post by biztos »

anthony_romeo wrote: post #828
cormacrelf wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said: > writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure. The only assertion is that she was married to a Visionary Tech Entrepreneur and doing puff pieces for Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs. Like seeing an article by Michelle Obama about how democratic politicians these days are great. Nothing deeper than that I think. It was an eye ro…

My main point from above: > I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

I did clarify, but I'm curious what specific accusation you read from my comment.

I re-read it a few times and I don't see one regarding Theranos other than sloppy writing. My "gut plausibility of a scenario" that the author is pumping up her husband's portfolio company in an NYT article is pretty easy to validate by reading the article itself, it just happens to not be Theranos.

Are you seeing something that's not there, or am I failing to see something that is?

Re: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty

#850

Post by Wistar »

AlbertCory wrote: post #831
bb101 wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do feel sorry for her in a way. She was riding a treadmill of expectations. Started off slowly, probably thinking "yeah, we can do this" and by the time the treadmill was moving at light speed, it was too late to get off. Even TED has removed her talk from YouTube. What responsibility do the media bear when their shallow hype turns out to be false and damaging to all parties?

> riding a treadmill of expectations ... which she started up herself. Read about the Stanford prof who saw through her before she even started the Theranos journey.

Stanford Prof. Phyllis Gardner

Mercury News: "She saw through Elizabeth Holmes. Now Stanford professor is star in Theranos saga."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/03/she-saw-through-eliza...

Post reply on HN