Post: #251

(02-12-2017 06:55 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  That reminds me of around the time I first heard of her. Take a look to the first few posts on this thread and you'll see even people here were succumbing to adulation and undue praise. I think it was Icarus who first raised the bullshit flag, and well before the press at large even opened their eyes once the scam became obvious.

I believe that is correct. From July 10, 2014:

(07-10-2014 05:59 PM)Icarus Wrote:  I find Elizabeth Holmes's story very, very strange. I am not demeaning her entrepreneurial accomplishments, but rather her scientific ones. Or, more to the point, I am not demeaning. I am merely extremely skeptical, which is the natural reaction to a story that sounds just too good to be true.

How does a sophomore know enough to solve a real-world problem? Even for a grad student, it is almost a miracle to be able to do work with serious real-world impact. Of course, grad students have to publish and are constrained by academia's straightjackets.

Prof. George Whitesides of Harvard, one of the most famous chemists in the world, has been working on paper-based low-cost diagnostics technology for several years, and his non-profit, Diagnostics for All, hasn't yet taken off, despite being funded by Bill Gates's foundation:





So, what does Ms. Holmes have that Prof. Whitesides does not? Is Ms. Holmes's father a partner at a venture capital firm, by any chance?

and:

(07-10-2014 07:21 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Kissinger was Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford. How is he qualified to judge the scientific quality of Ms. Holmes's work?

It's one thing to be groomed to be a CEO. It's another to be groomed to be an empire-builder. The article on Fortune is fascinating; I have never read such shameless hagiographic mythmaking in my entire life!

From the article:

Quote:In what respect, then, does Holmes’s first patent application–the wearable patch that would radio the doctor what is going on in your blood in real time–lead to Theranos, a player in the $73 billion diagnostic lab business?

See, even though she was just a chemical engineering sophomore, she was also a high-frequency engineer, a chip designer, an expert on bioengineering, an expert on biosensors, etc.

In grad school, I met a professor who was an expert on some of these topics, and he had over a decade of R&D work under his belt, yet the established professors mostly ignored his work, while waiting for him to get tenure and to establish a reputation. By contrast, as a sophomore, Ms. Holmes figured it all out, because those PhD's were all stupid, and it just happened that she, despite being too young to have read all the papers and books required, just bumped into the greatest idea of the 21st century!!!

This Ms. Holmes is a charlatan until proven otherwise...

Post: #252

(02-11-2017 07:10 AM)TheBoom Wrote:  When I first heard of her she was being referred to as the "female Steve Jobs" a mythical creature that is sighted on a regular basis in Silicon Valley and always turns out to be a bust. I knew immediately, without knowing about the fraud of the company, that she was an imposter.

Really the only similarity is their clothing style.




And a couple years ago guys mentioned how deep her voice is. Who is she imitating again?

Post: #253

(02-13-2017 07:45 AM)ivansirko Wrote:  And a couple years ago guys mentioned how deep her voice is. Who is she imitating again?

Her voice is deeper than Jobs's

Post: #254

Her voice almost sounds forced. Like she's trying to sound like a dude to be taken more "seriously". Too bad she can't "science" like a dude. Sad!

Post: #255

Icarus deserves some props there for being the first who called out that con-artist.

A reminder to all those here who believe the self-made myth.

It takes a family 400 years to descend from true upper class to middle class!!!!!

That is the power of true wealth. They did a study on British families and were surprised that it took that long despite some heirs being utter morons with their wealth.

Of course there are self-made successes out there or those who were smart, but also seized upon a good moment. However some of the lauded so-called whizkid self-made billionaires came with an enormous advantage - massive safety net in the form of a trust fund, immense advantage of numerous connections and the right kind of story. Of course you need still to perform even if you get all those advantages, but all those claims of who knows what being another Steve Jobs is just bullshit most of the times.

Look at Silicon Valley and look how most startups are created by trustfund kids while far more talented people labor away for peanuts. I would not even classify men like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg truly self-made. When your father is worth 100 mio. $ or your grandfather trillions, then it is not much of a surprise that given enough talent, drive and ideas you become a billionaire. I would expect nothing else at least for one heir. Sure - there are plenty of those who waste their time away on coke and models on a yacht, but there are millions of others who worked harder and had even better ideas, but zero capital and connections.

I guess the lesson with all this when we see another story like that blowing up is: HOW RELIABLE IS THIS FAKE NEWS STORY?

Women will never ever outperform men on this front no matter how much the media and the globalists push that narrative.


For example I was dubious of the pushing of this Elon Musk especially since his business-ventures are so reliant on state subsidies (except the space venture which is actually more a long-shot than a great money-making machine).

Elon Musk has failed at the very thing others seem to believe he is good at: being an entrepreneur, innovator and business leader in a competitive market. His biggest “successes” (Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity) are almost entirely dependent on government subsidies, lobbying efforts and tax magic; they are not profitable in themselves and much of their business risk has been socialized. Rather than exemplifying the “American exceptionalism” Musk is always lauding, these enterprises are poster children for crony capitalism and taxpayer-funded ventures.

That one is actually true since the government adds hundreds of millions of dollars into those ventures - especially SolarCity is a financia destaster and the push for electric cars is massive - from subsidies to customers to propaganda laden desires to promote electric cars which theoretically could be awesome, but are specifically designed to be not that great.


Musk routinely sacrifices ethics on the altar of his personal vision. For example, SolarCity is probably the most unethical PV installation company in existence, using highly misleading sales tactics to persuade unknowledgeable consumers to commit to what is arguably the worst option available (in terms of bang-for-buck) for their residential solar power. Pro-capitalist folks might argue this is just “business as usual,” and that caveat emptor is the only relevant guideline where exploitation for profit is in play, but in my view ripping people off in the name of green energy is just a form of reprehensible carpet bagging.

https://www.quora.com/What-has-Elon-Musk-failed-at

The global warming agenda is a scam anyway so no surprise there. Even president Trump fell for this guy who supposedly already voiced the issue of carbon taxes to the president.

By the way - Elon Musk's father is far more connected than it seems - I read up on his bio and the father while a psychopath had massive top-tier connections.

Post: #256

Trump probably sat Elon down and laid it on straight. Musk has very little leg to stand on and is entirely dependent on the government for his business successes.

One small slip of the mouth and it's game over for musk. You won't hear him speak at all for the next 8 years on anything political.

Post: #257

(05-16-2016 05:08 AM)Buakaw Wrote:  As to whether uBeam has technology that actually works: one of its high-profile VCs Mark Cuban has admitted he has not seen it work. And no one has been shown a working prototype.

A cuck and his money are easily parted.

Post: #258

(02-13-2017 08:30 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Look at Silicon Valley and look how most startups are created by trustfund kids while far more talented people labor away for peanuts. I would not even classify men like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg truly self-made. When your father is worth 100 mio. $ or your grandfather trillions, then it is not much of a surprise that given enough talent, drive and ideas you become a billionaire.

Where did you find proof that Zuck the Cuck's great (great?) grandfather was a Rockefeller? From everything I can find (and I refuse to cite Snopes here), that's an urban legend.

Post: #259

From Philip Greenspun's How to become as rich as Bill Gates:

Quote:William Henry Gates III made his best decision on October 28, 1955, the night he was born. He chose J.W. Maxwell as his great-grandfather. Maxwell founded Seattle's National City Bank in 1906. His son, James Willard Maxwell was also a banker and established a million-dollar trust fund for William (Bill) Henry Gates III.

In some of the later lessons, you will be encouraged to take entrepreneurial risks. You may find it comforting to remember that at any time you can fall back on a trust fund worth many millions of 1998 dollars.

Post: #260

'SlickyBoy'

(02-13-2017 08:30 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Look at Silicon Valley and look how most startups are created by trustfund kids while far more talented people labor away for peanuts. I would not even classify men like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg truly self-made. When your father is worth 100 mio. $ or your grandfather trillions, then it is not much of a surprise that given enough talent, drive and ideas you become a billionaire.

Where did you find proof that Zuck the Cuck's great (great?) grandfather was a Rockefeller? From everything I can find (and I refuse to cite Snopes here), that's an urban legend.



Frankly - whether this Mark Zuckerberg is truly a Rockefeller grandson is almost irrelevant at this point. There is this one site that claims he is Jacob Michael Greenberg. There are Greenberg and Zuckerman connections to the board of Facebook though, but the guy who made most of the pics seems to not be able to see differences in faces of people.

What Facebook, Microseft and Google however have in common is massive governement backing - all those companies seem to be CIA fronts which is backed up by major investment parts of the usual companies - and now even leading CEOs in the companies.

Facebook is supposedly 0,8% owned by a Rothschild, but that is frankly only pocket-change for a family member there.

Personally I am usually very dubious of many of the "rags" to riches stories - especially when it later turns out that the families were not nearly coming from rags, but were extremely wealthy or highly connected.

As for Bill Gates - his father was worth over 100 mio. $ and a leading member of Eugenics USA, so he certainly hobnobbed with the super elite.

Post: #261

(02-13-2017 03:44 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Facebook is supposedly 0,8% owned by a Rothschild, but that is frankly only pocket-change for a family member there.

There is a guy named Rothschild involved, but it doesn't look like he's got connections to the family everybody knows about.

Zuck the Cuck isn't even a rags to riches story - that I could respect, or the child of extreme wealth. His is the the tale of a twerp who ripped off his friends and essentially got lucky of the backs of others. Nothing coming out of his mouth is to be trusted.

Post: #262

(02-12-2017 07:15 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  The only way she gets on with another start up is if the same political cronies come on board and arrange to get her government funding in the early stages.

Alas, you are wrong. You misjudge how the game works because you are applying solid business decision making to it. All you need to know is that she is CEO after being banned from running a lab for 2 years.

Why is she still CEO?

1. She is a woman and well they need their women CEOs. Obviously there aren't enough future failures in the pipeline.

2. She is in the club. Last I saw 82% of all founding CEOs who get venture funding fit a very specific profile:
a. Stanford or Harvard
b. under 32
c. worked at a brand name company such as Google.

Bonus points if:
d. Not a white male. Jew is preferable to goy by the way. Black, female, lesbian Muslim immigrant would just be so cool
e. got promoted at the brand name company
f. comes from a connected family
g. knows the right people

Or, the above can get overridden if a loser had a big success with a past start-up and/or is a top exec of a sexy brand name company. However, they still don't really want that type of person unless the success was huge.

Oh, yeah, having a great idea and some demonstrated ability to run a company is really cool too.

Why this profile? Silicon Valley has joined Hollywood as one of the go-to places for the children of the elite where they can cash in on their connections to get a start doing something glamorous and cool and have a strong possibility of making a shitload of money. They don't want the rabble to take up any spaces more than absolutely necessary.

Holmes is a good fit with the profile so she is in the club. If you are in the club you are judged glass half full. You get multiple chances to fail. If instead of a her, Theranos had been founded by some perceived loser like some white boy who went to a second tier liberal arts college and dropped out - you know, like a young Steve Jobs - he would have been shown the door a long time ago and the VC who funded him would have vowed to never fund such a loser again. Of course, they would have probably either never funded Jobs these days in the first place or, if they did, they would have sidelined him earlier on.

If they canned Holmes when they found that she had run a scam they would have been presented with three big problems and they don't like problems. They want their lives to be 80 degrees and sunny each day.

1. How in the hell did she get in the club? That might suggest that the entrance requirements are not a good gauge of future success and who wants that?

2. They would have to admit that they were morons to fund her and not to catch on earlier. Well, who needs that?

3. They would get extra flack for not supporting a female CEO. This would be not be fun either. Of course, if there is another female club member they can replace her with that is easier but there is always a shortage of future failed female CEOs.

So, will she get another opportunity to get venture funding and/or be a CEO? Maybe. Depends on how strong her connections are and what the pipeline of female CEOs looks like. At the very least she will land in a cushy job somewhere. The club looks out for their own.

Post: #263

Excellent takeaway The Boom.

Once you are in the club, then you are well taken care.

A true modern underdog similar to Steve Jobs isn't allowed the same level of errors than one who is accepted as one of the club.

There is also another level you reach when you become a CEO of an important company - unless you do a incredibly bad job, then you are still given others. Conning the public by the way is not viewed as bad by the big boys - getting caught is another matter, but even that can be turned around. She is still young and will get her chance again - maybe not making billions, but tens of millions or hundreds of millions.

As I mentioned before - her board members were crazy good and she grew up with billionaires being frequent guests to her parents house. Even if she bankrupts 3 companies, then she won't be poorer.

Post: #264

She may be in the club, but who would want to be associated with her?

Suppose she starts a new tech company. She must hire a CTO. Who will do it? Money is nice, but people who matter don't spend decades building a reputation to throw it all away for a nice salary and stock options that most likely won't be worth anything.

Post: #265

She's still CEO because theranos still has around 200 mil in the bank and she controls the board (iirc). 200 mil is plenty to pay the lawyers that drag out the lawsuits while you play CEO.

Post: #266

VCs dump CEOs all the time. If you're not in the club they kick you to the curb or demote you and bring in a club member. She is in charge because she is in the club.

Post: #267

(02-22-2017 08:02 PM)TheBoom Wrote:  VCs dump CEOs all the time. If you're not in the club they kick you to the curb or demote you and bring in a club member. She is in charge because she is in the club.

I don't dispute that she might be part of the Club (I don't know whether she is), but she hasn't been kicked to the curb because no one can. She controls the board. VCs can get rid of CEOs because they tend to have more board seats than the CEO, something they usually demand in return for investing. There are exceptions when the company looks sufficiently promising that the CEO can get money without relinquishing control (e.g. Snapchat).

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/25/elizabeth...probe.html

Post: #268

(02-22-2017 08:02 PM)TheBoom Wrote:  VCs dump CEOs all the time. If you're not in the club they kick you to the curb or demote you and bring in a club member. She is in charge because she is in the club.

I forgot that the US corporate structure is even more centered on pedigree than the European one.

Don't get me wrong - in Europe pedigree matters too since they found out in a recent survey that the majority of CEOs came from the upper class anyway. What mattered less except for countries like UK and France - were what university you studied at. Especially in Germany, Austria, Switzerland - it was close to irrelevant. If you came from the upper class, then it had a bigger deciding factor for your future in a corporation.

Also I personally met some CEOs who changed jobs often (mostly getting fired) and they usually got another gig as a CEO so long as their brand was not tarnished.

Post: #269

(02-23-2017 01:52 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-22-2017 08:02 PM)TheBoom Wrote:  VCs dump CEOs all the time. If you're not in the club they kick you to the curb or demote you and bring in a club member. She is in charge because she is in the club.

Don't get me wrong - in Europe pedigree matters too since they found out in a recent survey that the majority of CEOs came from the upper class anyway. What mattered less except for countries like UK and France - were what university you studied at.

In the US it is interrelated. If you are from the right family, you go to the right school. 25 years ago I worked with someone who was a graduate of Stanford. At the time, if you donated 100K to the uni your kids were guaranteed to go to it. I imagine that price point is higher now but the deal is still the same.

Post: #270

There is truth to this. I know a Stanford graduate who, upon the birth of his sons, donated a good chunk of change to the university to plant the seed of acceptance for later down the road.

Post: #271

The latest - Holmes still owes Theranos $25 million dollars. Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

Quote:Holmes owes $25M to Theranos

Apr. 6, 2017 2:34 AM ET|About: Theranos (THERA)|By: Yoel Minkoff, SA News Editor

Theranos (Private:THERA) founder Elizabeth Holmes, whose once-$5B stake in her blood-testing firm has shriveled amid regulatory and legal challenges, still owes her company about $25M, WSJ reports.

The disclosure was included in a deal document circulated to a group of current investors, which noted that Theranos has the ability to release Holmes of the debt or cancel her stock options.

Post: #272

They still have stocks worth canceling?

Post: #273

New developments? Yes, no? * :

...
This comes to mind in considering last week's news from the Wall Street Journal that Theranos has $54 million in cash remaining and is burning through $10 million a month on legal fees. Unless Theranos can raise more cash, it will bleed out by the end of 2017.
...
The bad news is that after about 14 years in business, Theranos does not have much to show for its efforts to develop a product for that market. "I have no inside knowledge about Theranos but if it is worth anything it's the value of its intellectual property (IP). The problem is that the IP has been discredited. Last August CEO Elizabeth Holmes gave a presentation about its miniLab at a conference in Philadelphia but it was not embraced by the conference attendees," said Greeley in a June 30 interview.

He also draws a pessimistic conclusion from the decision by Walgreens to settle its $140 million claim for $30 million. "Normally such litigation is protracted and goes on for years. Walgreens's decision to settle for $30 million after a few months suggests that they looked at Theranos's IP and saw nothing of value. Therefore they decided to settle more rapidly," he explained.
...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco.../#7b1df9b85304

Quote:
... Theranos’s already-dwindling cash reserves down to about $54 million before the Walgreens' payout, according to the Journal. The company is spending about $10 million a month, now mostly on legal fees since cutting much of its staff from 900 employees to 170:

Quote:
The company also spent about $5 million to settle allegations by the Arizona attorney general that it had misled consumers, and $10 million in connection with an agreement with another investor, legal records show. It settled a lawsuit by former investor Partner Fund Management for an undisclosed amount in May, the company said. People familiar with that confidential agreement said the amount was between $40 million and $50 million.
Neither Walgreens nor Theranos returned requests for comment about the deal or Theranos’s finances. But according to shareholders who spoke with the Journal, Theranos is planning to ask some of its existing investors for about $50 million more, with a funding round of between $150 million and $200 million expected to take place next year. Whether anyone will open their pocketbook again for C.E.O. Elizabeth Holmes is another story.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...ng-out-of-cash


*Note, links are straight text copies & therefore not complete.

Post: #274

And she's running out of cash. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.....

Quote:The pharmacy giant Walgreens was once Theranos’s most prominent partner, lending a sheen of legitimacy to the blood-testing company even as it faced mounting scrutiny about the accuracy of its diagnostic technology. But the relationship—which Walgreens kicked off in 2010 with a party at its corporate headquarters, featuring one excitable executive singing a Theranos-themed rendition of John Lennon’s “Imagine”—quickly soured. (BTW, if you own any Walgreens stock, now might be a good time to dump it. These people are fools.) Walgreens became frustrated that Theranos limited access to its labs, data, and devices, and was alarmed when Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou began raising questions about the company’s blood-testing devices in 2015, prompting a number of federal investigations and civil lawsuits. Walgreens itself sued Theranos in 2016 for $140 million in damages, alleging that Theranos had misled the drugstore chain about the effectiveness of its devices, and about its legal and regulatory problems.

Now, Theranos has reportedly reached a settlement with Walgreens. But the agreement comes at a steep price for Theranos, which is hemorrhaging its cash reserves as it works to close a series of disputes and lawsuits with investors and partners. “Today we announced that Theranos has entered a confidential settlement agreement with Walgreens,” the company said in a statement Tuesday. “The agreement will result in the dismissal of Walgreens’ lawsuit against Theranos, with no finding or implication of liability.” A Walgreens spokesman told the Journal that “the matter has been resolved on mutually acceptable terms.”

While the Walgreens settlement reportedly cost Theranos more than $25 million, it is not clear how much of the money will be paid by the company itself, or when the payments might be made. The Journal notes that Theranos may have insurance policies to help cover lawsuits and settlement agreements. Still, between the Walgreens settlement and a series of other agreements Theranos has made with regulators and investors over the past year, the company’s cash reserves are dwindling. Earlier this year, the company settled with the Arizona attorney general and the main U.S. lab regulator, and reached an agreement with investor Partner Fund Management. Theranos reportedly had just $187 million in the bank in January, after burning through much of the nearly $700 million it had raised since its 2003 founding. (so much for the "billionaire" bullshit - all fluff.)In June, Theranos had told its investors it had $54 million and had been burning through about $10 million a month, now mostly on legal fees since cutting much of its staff from 900 employees to 170, though it would work to reduce its burn rate. Theranos put its Palo Alto headquarters up for rent last month (LMAO!)

The downsizing process caps a remarkable arc for Theranos and its 33-year-old founder and C.E.O. Elizabeth Holmes, who became, at one point, the youngest self-made female billionaire in the world. (no, she never had that kind of cash, only stupid valuations) For a number of years, Holmes held a singular position in the Silicon Valley firmament, lauded by the media as the second coming of Steve Jobs—an impression Holmes cultivated by mimicking the Apple co-founder’s sartorial style. Now, after nearly two years of scandals, Holmes is trying to rebuild Theranos as a smaller, more grounded company, free of the mythologizing and hyperbolic claims that were her downfall (you mean lies? Oh yeah, that....). “Over the past 16 months, the Company has built a new senior management team, changed the composition and structure of its Board of Directors, installed an expert technology and scientific advisory board, and implemented a new quality and compliance program,” Theranos said in a statement. “Theranos recently closed on a recapitalization of its recent investors (i.e., paid back the people we defrauded), unifying their support as the Company moves toward commercializing its innovative technologies.”

Theranos, which was once valued at about $9 billion (by idiots), is reportedly planning to ask some of its existing investors for about $50 million more in funding, a year after pivoting to the commercialization of its new miniLab platform. It remains to be seen who, if anyone, would put more money into the embattled company. But it seems Theranos will need the cash

Still no criminal charges in sight for that bitch, nor will there be, given the political connections of the board.

Post: #275

She is an affirmative action diversity purse puppy. They will likely rename the company - if they have some marketable product, then the new company led by competent men can actually make some cash, but frankly I doubt if she will find the Steve-Jobs kind of treatment again.

The overwhelming number of women will still make their money via marriage or at least child-birth:


Studies of high-net-worth individuals still show this clearly and it won't change.