Post: #351

The $9 bn figure is often mentioned, but who has actually lost money on this? Was it just a few idiotic venture capitalists, or were taxpayers and ordinary people involved at any level?

Post: #352

(03-14-2018 06:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  Heartiste just posted this vid. Those eyes and that voice are scary.

She's trying to imitate the speech patterns of Barack Obama. Definitely not natural-sounding for her. Obama had his speaking cadence that worked for him and he was good at (one of the few things he actually did well), and even his wasn't original (it was a derivative of other noted black speakers like MLK).

Now you have a lot of people (politicians and other random wannabes like Elizabeth Holmes) trying to directly copy Obama and they sound like they have an entire pouch of big league chew gum in their mouth when they talk. It's bizarre. Would honestly be way better for them to just talk in their normal voice or find their own 'public speaking' cadence that suits them.

Post: #353

(03-27-2018 05:07 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  who has actually lost money on this? Was it just a few idiotic venture capitalists, or were taxpayers and ordinary people involved at any level?

Venture capitalists gamble with other people's money, e.g., pension funds and university endowments. Great job if you can get it!

Post: #354

Is this normal? https://youtu.be/68qxsOaCTAM?t=40

A normal human will be shaken with the strong lightening if his pupil are that delated. Given the lightening, I'm not aware of anyone who can stay standing in front of that?

Post: #355

Another good answer on Quora: What has Theranos been doing for ten years if their tech doesn't work?

Quote:Drew Smith, Former Director of R&D at SomaLogic and MicroPhage
Answered Mar 8, 2016

Trying to make it work. Or more precisely, trying to make a plausible story of how it will soon be made to work. And creating a culture where asking discomforting questions is discouraged.

Their basic technical challenge is that the peripheral blood you get from a finger stick is not only different in composition from venous blood (it has more watery interstitial fluid), but also more variable. Tirumalai Kamala covered this issue admirably here: What's Tirumalai Kamala's view of Theranos today?

Although the new research explained by Tirumalai better defines the scope of the challenge, it's not news and has been a known issue for decades. It would have been one of the first things Theranos scientists would have worked on: find a way to calibrate peripheral blood to venous blood, and find an internal standard to control the sample-to-sample variation.

I've worked for companies that have charismatic and visionary leaders, and have been told to make something work - to solve a critical problem the leader assured investors was trivial or had already been solved. Failing to promptly produce the promised solution - or worse, finding new problems - leads to accusations of incompetence or even treachery, of secretly wanting the company to fail. It can be pretty ugly. You don't get fired, but you do get sidelined. Nothing is said to the other scientists, but nothing needs to be.

Soon, no one tells the leader any unpleasant truths that might challenge their vision. Experimental results are cherry-picked in order that one's work supports, rather than undercuts the vision. The leader continues to sell this vision, citing impressive results which indicate that the company is on track, that success is imminent. This can go on for years.

Sometimes this spinning out of the company story buys sufficient extra time and resources to cobble together a solution, and the leader's vision (and intransigence) are vindicated. But sometimes not. Theranos is starting to look like a "not".

Post: #356

(03-27-2018 06:43 AM)Icarus Wrote:  Another good answer on Quora: What has Theranos been doing for ten years if their tech doesn't work?

Quote:Drew Smith, Former Director of R&D at SomaLogic and MicroPhage
Answered Mar 8, 2016

Trying to make it work. Or more precisely, trying to make a plausible story of how it will soon be made to work. And creating a culture where asking discomforting questions is discouraged.

Their basic technical challenge is that the peripheral blood you get from a finger stick is not only different in composition from venous blood (it has more watery interstitial fluid), but also more variable. Tirumalai Kamala covered this issue admirably here: What's Tirumalai Kamala's view of Theranos today?

Although the new research explained by Tirumalai better defines the scope of the challenge, it's not news and has been a known issue for decades. It would have been one of the first things Theranos scientists would have worked on: find a way to calibrate peripheral blood to venous blood, and find an internal standard to control the sample-to-sample variation.

I've worked for companies that have charismatic and visionary leaders, and have been told to make something work - to solve a critical problem the leader assured investors was trivial or had already been solved. Failing to promptly produce the promised solution - or worse, finding new problems - leads to accusations of incompetence or even treachery, of secretly wanting the company to fail. It can be pretty ugly. You don't get fired, but you do get sidelined. Nothing is said to the other scientists, but nothing needs to be.

Soon, no one tells the leader any unpleasant truths that might challenge their vision. Experimental results are cherry-picked in order that one's work supports, rather than undercuts the vision. The leader continues to sell this vision, citing impressive results which indicate that the company is on track, that success is imminent. This can go on for years.

Sometimes this spinning out of the company story buys sufficient extra time and resources to cobble together a solution, and the leader's vision (and intransigence) are vindicated. But sometimes not. Theranos is starting to look like a "not".

It is very well possible that certain blood tests can NEVER BE DONE by taking blood from your finger due to the fact that the blood is simply too different for humans.

I know that orthomolecular doctors do excessive blood, tissue and hair tests to find out what nutrients and vitamins your body requires, which are lacking and which need to go down for optimal tests.

Ortho-doctors are highly critical of the current tests as they are mainly good to find out certain infections and other conditions, but not prevent damage down the line or find out nutritional steps that need to be taken.

The tests done by those doctors are extreme - they take even small probes of tissues, take hair samples, then multiple blood samples that are tested far more diligently than meanstream medicine considers correct. The reason for this is that optimal health is different from not just sick right now.

The certainly highly competent lead scientist who took his life at Theranos certainly tried his best to make something work that is potentially simply not possible as of now.

Post: #357

I'm pissed off, this broad pays a fine, and no one will correct all their circlejerking from the past about her and her damn black turtleneck.

And Martin Shkreli is in fucking prison, despite the fact that none of his investors lost a dime. Martin Shkreli did nothing wrong.

Post: #358

Delete.

Post: #359

(04-08-2018 08:22 PM)Dragan Wrote:  I'm pissed off, this broad pays a fine, and no one will correct all their circlejerking from the past about her and her damn black turtleneck.

And Martin Shkreli is in fucking prison, despite the fact that none of his investors lost a dime. Martin Shkreli did nothing wrong.

Who says that no one lost money on this?

The investors, funds and companies which invested in this scam certainly are going to lose money. Has Theranos done investments in real estate or gold that might offset the investors' losses? Or do you think that anyone would buy that company at entry value?

It's not a victimless crime.

Also the class action lawsuit is pending - the patients who were misdiagnosed and may have incurred some health issues because of that. Walgreens is also not likely to let it go rolling out a scam product that even impacted their reputation.

But I do think that she will get away free und unscathed. Her connections are probably deeper than it seems.

Post: #360

(04-09-2018 01:24 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:22 PM)Dragan Wrote:  I'm pissed off, this broad pays a fine, and no one will correct all their circlejerking from the past about her and her damn black turtleneck.

And Martin Shkreli is in fucking prison, despite the fact that none of his investors lost a dime. Martin Shkreli did nothing wrong.

Who says that no one lost money on this?

The investors, funds and companies which invested in this scam certainly are going to lose money. Has Theranos done investments in real estate or gold that might offset the investors' losses? Or do you think that anyone would buy that company at entry value?

It's not a victimless crime.

Zel, I love you man, but I believe this is the second or third time you've misread someone and then disagreed because of that misunderstanding.

Post: #361

Zel, I think you misread what I said. I'm mad about shkreli, while so far Holmes chick has avoided serious consequences by virtue of being a STEM woman. I'm comparing the two. She certainly screwed people and has somehow avoided jail.

Post: #362

(04-09-2018 01:32 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 01:24 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-08-2018 08:22 PM)Dragan Wrote:  I'm pissed off, this broad pays a fine, and no one will correct all their circlejerking from the past about her and her damn black turtleneck.

And Martin Shkreli is in fucking prison, despite the fact that none of his investors lost a dime. Martin Shkreli did nothing wrong.

Who says that no one lost money on this?

The investors, funds and companies which invested in this scam certainly are going to lose money. Has Theranos done investments in real estate or gold that might offset the investors' losses? Or do you think that anyone would buy that company at entry value?

It's not a victimless crime.

Zel, I love you man, but I believe this is the second or third time you've misread someone and then disagreed because of that misunderstanding.

Now my reading comprehension skills may not be as high as they have been, but this is what it says.

Never mind - Dragan did not mean it that way. I will have to read through the lines:

"Kill all unbelievers!" means "Love your neighbor as yourself"

I have to really let the conditioning by the New York Times go fully through me.

Relaximus.

Post: #363

Post: #364

Down from 800 employees in 2015 to 25 as of now.

So - what are they hoping to do now with that Wunderteam?

It will be like the Fyre Festival: "Let's pull it off and be legends man!"

And 2 years ago it looked so bright - even another Hollywood cunt was about to do a movie on her glorious empowered life:



http://fortune.com/2016/06/10/jennifer-l...th-holmes/

The cuntening never happened.

Post: #365

Post: #366

(03-27-2018 06:43 AM)Icarus Wrote:  Another good answer on Quora: What has Theranos been doing for ten years if their tech doesn't work?

Quote:Drew Smith, Former Director of R&D at SomaLogic and MicroPhage
Answered Mar 8, 2016

Trying to make it work. Or more precisely, trying to make a plausible story of how it will soon be made to work. And creating a culture where asking discomforting questions is discouraged.

Their basic technical challenge is that the peripheral blood you get from a finger stick is not only different in composition from venous blood (it has more watery interstitial fluid), but also more variable. Tirumalai Kamala covered this issue admirably here: What's Tirumalai Kamala's view of Theranos today?

Although the new research explained by Tirumalai better defines the scope of the challenge, it's not news and has been a known issue for decades. It would have been one of the first things Theranos scientists would have worked on: find a way to calibrate peripheral blood to venous blood, and find an internal standard to control the sample-to-sample variation.

I've worked for companies that have charismatic and visionary leaders, and have been told to make something work - to solve a critical problem the leader assured investors was trivial or had already been solved. Failing to promptly produce the promised solution - or worse, finding new problems - leads to accusations of incompetence or even treachery, of secretly wanting the company to fail. It can be pretty ugly. You don't get fired, but you do get sidelined. Nothing is said to the other scientists, but nothing needs to be.

Soon, no one tells the leader any unpleasant truths that might challenge their vision. Experimental results are cherry-picked in order that one's work supports, rather than undercuts the vision. The leader continues to sell this vision, citing impressive results which indicate that the company is on track, that success is imminent. This can go on for years.

Sometimes this spinning out of the company story buys sufficient extra time and resources to cobble together a solution, and the leader's vision (and intransigence) are vindicated. But sometimes not. Theranos is starting to look like a "not".

^ This sounds uncannily like the entire human caused climate change industry

Post: #367

< Almost - the climate change crap is coming from a global plan.

It is more akin to old negative systems that we observed. When the Bolsheviks asked for terror, then the comrades below overdid themselves to kill more than their share. They also took liberty to invent new creative tortures and killing methods.

I saw the same thing in lesser terms in corporate fields. When a company founder wanted an expensive expansion into a new market, then he did not want to hear any negatives - that the market in that area is too saturated, that there are huge competitors there and that it would be too costly to do. No - he wanted to have it done and wanted to conquer the bigger markets, show them how it's done. He did not realize that the success he had created was dependent on his smaller less developed market in which he could grow, it was also dependent on the time which helped him to grow. Replicating the same thing 10 years later would not have been possible. I remember that I argued with him that some legal lawsuits should not be taken as we would just lose valuable resources. Then as the judge gave a shitty 50-50 verdict he berated me for the loss of resources while I had to bite my tongue.

I remember how Walmart was so certain that they would kill it in Europe underestimating the competitive nature of the business. Instead they got slaughtered financially and it cost them billions.

Sometimes the 100%-can-do attitude of CEOs and founders can be beneficial as it eeks out the extraordinary - and the engineers and R&D make it happen - Steve Jobs being such an example. But luckily enough what he wanted was in the periphery of the possible.

When human biology is designed that way, then no one is going to tell them that it simply cannot be done. I feel that a lot we have going on in our world is done the Bolshevik way - feminism, male-female equality on all aspects, migration regardless of basic intelligence and fit for the previous tribes. It's as if the crapheads have come up with WHAT HAS TO WORK AND THEY ARE WILLING TO KILL MOST OF YOU TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. Sometimes - no matter how much you beat and train your little kid, he will never become a worldclass sprinter or NBA player.

Elizabeth Holmes may have gotten lies by some scientists, but it's hard to believe that no one told her that it's possible that finger-tip blood samples cannot be EVER be as reliable, because it's not possible with our basic genetic makeup. But I guess that is about realistic for her when you tell feminists THAT WOMEN WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH MEN IN TERMS OF SPEED, STRENGTH AND EVEN CREATIVITY, DRIVE AND UPPER TIER INTELLIGENCE. That is as preposterous as to expect dogs to come up with a better combustion engine. Some things simply cannot be done! It takes wisdom and humility to understand what may be possible and what simply is impossible at this time.

Post: #368

I was referring more to the "self fulfilling prophecy" nature of climate change research funding. If a researchers proposed thesis is in any way contradictory to the approved confirmation story lines then they aren't going to get the research grant. So hence relatively little non conforming research.

Same thing at Theranos. There was no money in being a naysayer as they all were getting shit canned


But I get your point

Post: #369

(04-10-2018 06:13 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I was referring more to the "self fulfilling prophecy" nature of climate change research funding. If a researchers proposed thesis is in any way contradictory to the approved confirmation story lines then they aren't going to get the research grant. So hence relatively little non conforming research.

Same thing at Theranos. There was no money in being a naysayer as they all were getting shit canned


But I get your point

It was actually much worse than that. They drove a poor guy to suicide:

"One of Holmes’s first major hires, thanks to an introduction by Channing Robertson, was Ian Gibbons, an accomplished British scientist who had a slew of degrees from Cambridge University and had spent 30 years working on diagnostic and therapeutic products. Gibbons was tall and handsome, with straight reddish-brown hair and blue eyes. He had never owned a pair of jeans and spoke with a British accent that was a combination of colloquial and posh. In 2005, Holmes named him chief scientist.

Gibbons, who was diagnosed with cancer shortly after joining the company, encountered a host of issues with the science at Theranos, but the most glaring was simple: the results were off. This conclusion soon led Gibbons to realize that Holmes’s invention was more of an idea than a reality. Still, bound by the scientific method, Gibbons wanted to try every possible direction and exhaust every option. So, for years, while Holmes put her fund-raising talents to use—hiring hundreds of marketers, salespeople, communications specialists, and even the Oscar-winning filmmaker Errol Morris, who was commissioned to make short industrial documentaries—Gibbons would wake early, walk his dogs along a trail near his home, and then set off for the office before seven A.M. In his downtime, he would read I, Claudius, a novel about a man who plays dumb to unwittingly become the most powerful person on earth.

While Gibbons grew ever more desperate to come up with a solution to the inaccuracies of the blood-testing technology, Holmes presented her company to more investors, and even potential partners, as if it had a working, fully realized product. Holmes adorned her headquarters and Web site with slogans claiming, “One tiny drop changes everything,” and “All the same tests. One tiny sample,” and went into media overdrive. She also proved an effective crisis manager. In 2012, for instance, Holmes began talking to the Department of Defense about using Theranos’s technology on the battlefield in Afghanistan. But specialists at the D.O.D. soon uncovered that the technology wasn’t entirely accurate, and that it had not been vetted by the Food and Drug Administration. When the department notified the F.D.A. that something was amiss, according to The Washington Post, Holmes contacted Marine general James Mattis, who had initiated the pilot program. He immediately e-mailed his colleagues about moving the project forward. Mattis was later added to the company board when he retired from the service. (Mattis says he never tried to interfere with the F.D.A. but rather was “interested in rapidly having the company’s technologies tested legally and ethically.”)

At around the same time, Theranos also decided to sue Richard Fuisz, an old friend and neighbor of Holmes’s family, alleging that he had stolen secrets that belonged to Theranos. As the suit progressed—it was eventually settled—Fuisz’s lawyers issued subpoenas to Theranos executives involved with the “proprietary” aspects of the technology. This included Ian Gibbons. But Gibbons didn’t want to testify. If he told the court that the technology did not work, he would harm the people he worked with; if he wasn’t honest about the technology’s problems, however, consumers could potentially harm their health, maybe even fatally.

Holmes, meanwhile, did not seem willing to tolerate his resistance, according to his wife, Rochelle Gibbons. Even though Gibbons had warned that the technology wasn’t ready for the public, Holmes was preparing to open “Theranos Wellness Centers” in dozens of Walgreens across Arizona. “Ian felt like he would lose his job if he told the truth,” Rochelle told me as she wept one summer morning in Palo Alto. “Ian was a real obstacle for Elizabeth. He started to be very vocal. They kept him around to keep him quiet.” Channing Robertson, who had brought Gibbons to Theranos, recalls a different conversation, noting, “He suggested to me on numerous occasions that what we had accomplished at that time was sufficient to commercialize.”

A few months later, on May 16, 2013, Gibbons was sitting in the family room with Rochelle, the afternoon light draping the couple, when the telephone rang. He answered. It was one of Holmes’s assistants. When Gibbons hung up, he was beside himself. “Elizabeth wants to meet with me tomorrow in her office,” he told his wife in a quivering voice. “Do you think she’s going to fire me?” Rochelle Gibbons, who had spent a lot of time with Holmes, knew that she wanted control. “Yes,” she said to her husband, reluctantly. She told him she thought he was going to be fired. Later that evening, gripped and overwhelmed with worry, Ian Gibbons tried to commit suicide. He was rushed to the hospital. A week later, with his wife by his side, Ian Gibbons died.

When Rochelle called Holmes’s office to explain what had happened, the secretary was devastated and offered her sincere condolences. She told Rochelle Gibbons that she would let Holmes know immediately. But a few hours later, rather than a condolence message from Holmes, Rochelle instead received a phone call from someone at Theranos demanding that she immediately return any and all confidential Theranos property."

Bold and Italics mine. The entire Vanity Fair article is worth reading, if for nothing else to see the utter mass delusion that resulting from excess capital getting pushed into tech bubbles. I think this Holmes lady truly believed her own story, and too many others were just dying to believe it as well.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/...-exclusive

Post: #370

^She didn't drive him to suicide. He didn't have a spine. He should have been honest and been a whistle-blower rather than trying to keep the job. It seems he killed himself for very little reason.

edit: He probably did it because he was racked with guilt that he didn't have the balls to do the right thing.

Post: #371

I think that the Holmes bitch is the usual psychopath willing to murder and kill for ego and net gain.

She should be behind bars for years.



Ian Gibbons was afraid of losing his job, but I wonder why? Did he buy a giant McMansion at top 2008 prices? And yes - the man needed a lifting hobby and some Red Pill awareness. Life would have been much better with it.

Post: #372

I see the Theranos story as more of a "fake it until you make it" than anything else. Elizabeth Holmes clearly believed, or managed to convince herself to believe, that she could make this technology work even though her professors at Stanford said it was impossible.

She clearly idolized Steve Jobs and sought to become like him as much as possible, in terms of attire, office furnishings, and even the way she talked. She designed her test instrument to look like the NeXT black box. All of this suggest serious psychological issues. She actually wants to "become" Steve Jobs.

All of this suggests she did not start out with the intention of committing a con job. She believed she could make it work, and tried in a half-assed way to make something that was impossible to work. Overtime, she came to believe more and more deeply that her idea had to work in order to fulfill her fantasy of becoming Steve Jobs.

Now that it is all over, her suicide would not surprise me.

Many here have compared Skereli with her, in terms of crime. Having read the Vanity Piece, I no longer consider this accurate. I see Holmes as more delusional than as an outright criminal. She clearly engaged in criminal behavior. But she was driven more by a delusional fantasy than as an outright intentional criminal. In some ways, she actually a figure of pity.

I believe Skireli, who was sentenced to 7 years for a crime of relative minor magnitude, is much more analogous to Jon Corzine, who stole far more money than Skireli and has gotten away scot-free. You talk to any financial adviser (say at Morgan Stanley) and they will tell you that Jon Corzine should be in prison. He is not. Jon Corzine is the outright criminal (and democratic party heavyweight).

Holmes' crazy eyes and artificially deep voice makes clear she is not psychologically normal. She is actually quite scary in some of her videos.

Post: #373

Latest on Holmes and Theranos:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/theranos-foun...48906.html

You will note from the article that she got financing from Fortress Investment Group. This is a very bad sign and indicates the expectation of default sale in bankruptcy.

Remember it was this same Fortress Investment Group that bought the 50% ownership of the Michael Jackson song collection from BofA when it was clear he was swirling around the black hole of bankruptcy prior to his death. Sony owned the other half. This tells me that Fortress is a sleazy "vulture" fund that buys assets with the expectation of sale by default.

Post: #374

Quote:"Based on our present projections, we believe we will have sufficient liquidity through 2018, by which point we hope to have secured regulatory approval for miniLab testing for the Zika virus and begun submissions for additional assays,"

Her next best product development is a pure con. The Zika virus was found repeatedly to NOT CAUSE micro encephalitis, but there is a strong correlation between certain pesticides that pregnant women are exposed and micro encephalitis.

Does not surprise me that the only thing they have left is the usual WHO health scare con.

Quote:Development of the Zika test has taken longer than expected, and getting its approval was a contingency to getting more funding from Fortress that had been tranched. By the end of July, Theranos will fall below the $3 million liquidity line it needs to maintain or else it will default on its agreement with Fortress. Should that happen, Fortress can take control of Theranos's assets.

In this case I am on the side of the vulture fund - let them devour this abomination and gut the assets.

Post: #375

(04-11-2018 05:27 PM)Abelard Lindsey Wrote:  I see the Theranos story as more of a "fake it until you make it" than anything else.

"Fake it till you make it" is a social hack. Nature does not care about that.