For me her technology would probably worked if she's no fraud and focus to improve or finished her technology rather marketing a prototype product and lots lies

Can I get a patent of time machine? I know how it'll look and I can hide the tech under trade secrects.

Maybe you can answer. I have a question. Ok so the mini lab had wireless capability. Was it capable of receiving a short diagnostic report? Was just curious. It was reported that the people going to Theranos left after their blood was drawn to visit with Elizabeth and then would go back to see the results. I do understand about the use of a computer but the machine itself made me wonder due to having to fool investors. These were people not aware that the machine didn't actually work properly but were sincerely convinced that the machine did work.

What I mean here is that the machine turned out to be one big lie so was it capable of receiving a file? I read in the book that it had a display screen. That question really drives me nuts because of wonder if it could or not.

I can’t help but read flatulence

I dunno. It seems like she just used the enron method, but then pretended it was a more streamlined and efficient form of fraud. 😉

Fraudanos

@@RatedFforFUGlenda BRAAAAAAAAPPPP

@@Thehouseoffail Her father actually worked for Enron. Not quite a big shot, but still an executive.

People w/ obscene wealth don’t always want to change or improve the world. They usually just want to grow their money as fast/ easy as possible.

I think that was her real crime, diverting money away from real research. I could care less about billionaire investors, they just want to make more money to add to a pile they couldn't spend in an entire lifetime anyway. Not to mention, a lot of what they lost ends up being a tax write off at the end of the year.

It was from private investors

@@moviesjean23 Thanks captain obvious. Whatever would we do without you?

Betsy DeVos never cared about the betterment of humanity anyway. It was inevitable that she would find an Elizabeth Holmes to take away her money.

Ask your millionaire lobbyist parents to introduce you to their friends in the same way she did.

How many investors have actually tried the products they're investing in? I'm in a startup incubator and none of my mentors even try startups' products.

@@DJVARAO Nailed it. Plus, Holmes is a talented con artist. She cultivated a persuasive cult of personality

herd mentality, lack of rational, critical analysis

There's more to it that meets the eye and the lawsuit won't disclose. She claimed harassment and sexual misconduct to protect herself. She always knew what she was doing.

Lol nah they just want to live in fantasy. One of the grandson came to explain how they cheat his test and he still choose to ignore it. U dun neeed science to know when someone took ur blood to other machine to realise that the machiine on display is not working.

They were Rupert Murdoch, Betsy DeVos family, the Koch brothers, the Walmart heirs, etc. They thought they were getting the inside track, the way they normally made money. Not by good judgment or good knowledge.

They dont get enough hemoglobin in tiny drop of blood.

I think they hoped it was going to be the next Amazon/Apple/Microsoft and they were getting in early. If you're rich and invest in lots of start-ups then maybe 1% (but probably less) do turn into something.

Nope, clueless investors have always been there. A few big ones would've dropped some money without thinking, but it would've died out eventually once experts got wind of it. It was the media's fault. They jumped on reporting this "amazing" tech, who didn't fact-check this and ignored the experts. I see it everywhere. The WaterSeer. Solar Roadways. Even Musk's Hyperloop (heck, most, if not all of his "inventions"). More clicks, right?

Where everyone wants to be the person who funds the next HUGE thing.

@@zuglymonster exactly

@Robert Lee, Countertenor lol, that's exactly what my wife said when I walked in the room while she was watching "The Inventor" documentary and I asked her what she was watching.

It was over-reliance on and blind faith in, the private market vs. actual government-funded research with significant oversight.

@@redadamearth yeah, it is in part the american culture of "government does thing = communism"

Unfortunately the debt is often paid by people other than the ones who told the lie.

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth” Vladimir Lenin

@@chrisconsorte7893 actually Goebbels famously said that

Wrong! Sun Tzu said that!

Chernobyl 😂😂

All her stupid investors ignored her Stanford professors too.

And raised almost 1B on the way...

She thought she was the protagonist of a movie and the physical laws of reality would warp to give her a happy ending.

They thought this was another IT company.

In their defense they were shown no real evidence it actually worked... wait.

You mean 'still believe a pretty and charming 19 year old " . I reckon some of the investors were thinking with their little heads, not their big heads.

@@andersonomo597 It's just a reminder that having money =/= being smart.

Not really. If you went back 30 years and showed tech executives a modern iPhone, they would say that it isn't possible. And we know that there are some blood tests that can be run on a single drop of blood right now, so maybe Theranos just came up with a new sensor or spectrometer that could analyze blood without damaging it when doing multiple tests. Maybe there is a high resolution imaging sensor and microscope that just looks for infections or problems with computer imaging analysis? Then you get into the other side of the conspiracy, any "medical expert" wants to keep things the same and make lots of money from the expensive lab tests and investments in those companies.

Arghh l love working in a lab but ever since l graduated l haven’t landed a job yet 😭😭

@@TerryKay. how was the experience of lab work for you? And what did you work as if you don't mind me asking?

Right then and there should’ve had plenty of scientists from all over the world doubting and exposing her year one. Why very few even Didi also baffles me.

But she didnt know anything about that, she knows as much science as my dog does.

I think the only real way to achieve this technology might be with blood cloning of.some sort, however then you'd only be duplicating that particular sample so really I don't think there's any method to achieve all these tests without a standard level of blood samples sadly

That's an interesting point. If she had just made one improvement, one test, like the glucose test, that would have been great. Why she had to turn it into this "hundreds of test, one fingerprick, instant, and done on a machine the size of a desktop printer." Why couldn't she have improved one simple test or made them faster or something. If she could have improved just one aspect of blood testing that would have been a win. She is so stupid.

Good point

Because creating working technology was never her goal. She wants more money, quickly. She doesn't want to make something for the people

Don't really understand why she went from 1 million to 1 so quick. If she ex found out a way to use less than two full vials that would have been very revolutionary but nooooo let's use one drop of blood from your finger to test out diseases that you need vein blood for.

Exactly. Being able to do a battery of tests with quick results in a pharm setting would make it so many more people could and would have an annual blood analysis. It's ridiculous they didn't change their vision as it became clear what wouldn't be possible. It is ridiculous they didn't come up with something marketable with the level of money and expertise involved and I do think it was primarily EH and SB poor leadership and unwillingness to listen to their scientists.

Unfortunately, those where the prosecution’s best chances of actually getting her, because of the justice system, and capitalism, and all that as you say, instead of the human cost…

@@johannassburg, when I read the book, it wasn't just the best chance (as there are more/easier laws to prove guilt with financial stuff) but also where the pressure was coming from. Lots of big investors who were very concerned... about their money.

Monetary fraud are easily proven since it had paperwork trails and actual definitive numbers. Human cost, immaterial damage, not so much.

@@dimasakbar7668, I already addressed this point, but I'll repeat, it wasn't just about the ease of a case. The pressure for the prosecution was coming from those defrauded. No one cares enough about the other stuff to make those cases nor have the litigation frameworks to allow easier prosecution.

Exactly. It seems to me that endangaring people's health (and possibly lives) is a much bigger crime than defrauding a few rich dudes, but in reality it's the other way around. No one cares about regular ppl.

Not only that but also she turned women's leadership and independence in business decades back !!

@@fatmamohammad5505 I think there’s greater issues underlying women in business and leadership roles in modern society, but Elizabeth definitely altered the perception for the worse.

@@fatmamohammad5505 This part is really sad. But let me say to Jared.... The fingertip drop of blood has limited uses. It's more "polluted" than a regular draw. (Or so reporting tells me.) So she started with a premise that many blood science people agree is wrong. Or a bad place to start.

@@tommyswain3762 My snarky side wanted to post, "But most of those women aren't 19 yo college dropouts." As John Carreyrou pointed out in Bad Blood... Sure, Mark Zucker learned to code in his dad's basement during his teen years, and he created an empire. That's coding. That's software. It can be self-taught. It's not someone saying they have the medical knowledge to create massive medical breakthrough. That's entirely different.

…or don’t invest in companies without having experts agree the product works? they got greedy & wanted dibs. the lemons principle is based on information asymmetry, not a lack of it.

Idk how accurate it is, but the documentary on her on Hulu shows how manipulative and charismatic she was

the stock market is a house of cards

I used to think her investors were incredibly stupid, but she went to very extreme measures to deceive people. She said she was working 18+ hours a day and I think the majority of that time was spent managing her hundreds of lies and deceptions and keeping the scam going. Also to have a really big score in investing requires you to go in early, if you wait until the company is proven everyone will be trying to jump in. Tim Draper really screwed things up by giving her the first investment because he’s one of the most famous investors in Silicon Valley and everyone followed his lead. But he only did that because she was a family friend. Of course they should have done more research before investing that much money, but there wasn’t much to research because Theranos kept everything secret. So they had to either have faith or not invest at all. And as far as they knew her technology was approved by Pfizer and was already being used by the military, and the military has extremely strict standards and go through extensive testing processes. And the media was going crazy over her and Walgreens made a deal with her, it definitely seemed completely legit at that point. If it was anything besides blood testing, people could have used common sense to see that something was off, but really only people in the blood testing business know anything about it. If she said she built a new computer or car that was 100x cheaper and more efficient than anything on the market, anyone could smell BS.

Most startups are fraud, Uber and doordash aren’t even profitable lol

Wolf of Wallstreet is a documentary now.

They reject it because if there is not enough blood the blood to anticoagulant ratio is off, which can impact results. That and the instruments require certain sample volumes.

To me, it sounds like your lab is inefficient. Your lab has a problem with 3 ml? Please, get a new lab. How can you trust someone who can't do anything with 3 ml? Had Theranos been given more time we would have had a medical breakthrough, but sadly we will never know. Holmes is a true visionary.

@@beckydoesit9331 Vision does not produce results. She was far, far away from any substantial evidence of her product working. When she was cornered, she lied to cover it up and committed fraud instead of coming forward. One drop of blood is not realistic for many tests regardless. Try getting a count for platelets in a single drop of blood.

@@beckydoesit9331 Depends on the test-- some tests, 3ml is too little, some it'snot. I'm a medical lab scientist. There are scientific limits. Very, very few people in the medical industry, doctors included, actually understand the science and reality of what goes on in the lab. That's why she got away with it.

The lab isn’t inefficient. It’s the person sending the inadequate specimens in the first place.

Depend. Blood sugar, uric acid n cholesterol. You could get a quick result with just several drop of blood. That being said, expect inaccuracy.

Yes they are, but this generation beleve more in a screen machine that tge science to made it work, so its easy to scam it

Not to mention venous blood composition is much different than a capillary draw

There are some tests that works decent enough. But to take 100s of tests from one drop? It would just not be enough material to go around.

@@goingslowlynowhere Not even to mention that some require clood components to be separated. First thing I thought as inexperienced pharmacy tech was how will they put that tiny bit of blood in a centrifuge??

It was the classical solution looking for a problem.

every major upcoming company with innovative idea was probably faced with skepticism like this

First its not a terrible idea. Its great idea. Problem is that the idea defy physics. Example small sample of blood will never be able to detect zika virus and anyway it would be better to detect it through sinus sample. But Elizabeth did not have brain to figure out what is reality what is fantasy and she does not have the flexibility of doing things the easy way. Basically she is not engineers .

Until Surgisphere entered, then even people in the medical community, including WHO and especially TheLancet editorial boards, failed to see the fabricated data Surgisphere propped up.

@@hirnfaser7245 This one defied physics. It's like saying "I'm building a spaceship that travels faster than light". It's just not possible.

Not really. They were also duped, just as the investors were.

@@cozinsky Yeah sacrifice 1 to save many. Salute to bonding of board members.

@@cozinsky if you watch the documentary some key board members knew exactly what was going on. there's a reason they were threatening everyone with litigation if they spoke out about the company. they had a lot to hide.

@@cozinsky it's their job to validate what CEO and managers are doing. And they failed

I'll be completely honest, I heard the name of Magic Leap for the first time today.

@@wasir3703 - We AR nerds are all very familiar. We would have _Rainbows End-_ style AR by now if it were merely an issue of electronics and optics, but there's a stubborn, squishy bio-issue to contend with -- comprising eyeballs, optic nerves, the visual cortex, etc.

The headline shows furthermore that anglophone media struggle to create compelling headlines without tumbling into vulgarity. Couldn't this message be conveyed in a better way? Coming from a non-anglophone person.

Yeah wtf happened with magic leap anyway

@@mapakern3979 - You mean "pissed"? The American sense of the word isn't considered particularly vulgar these days.

Very often, people become overconfident if they had a lot of success in one specific field and overestimate their ability to accurately judge what is going on in other, unrelated fields.

...Software solves real world problems.

@@someoneyouprobablyknowandl9964 Software solves information processing and information management problems. Many problems are not related to information.

@@someoneyouprobablyknowandl9964 No, they help solve real world problems.

@@jukio02 sigh, that's nitpicking. There are millions of things which just CANNOT be done without software, even with humans in charge. And also, not gaining exposure for creators, not earning enough money and not having access to education are all real world problems software helps solve directly. So yeah, if you care about semantics, go ahead. I don't. Just because one CEO came out rotten doesn't mean we all need to go full boomer on technology.

Anyone can have some good ideas, but are those feasible at this point? How many people have had the idea of a time travel machine? That is a great idea, but is it feasible? No? In regards to blood testing, honestly I think it would be much more revolutionary and innovative to have some sort of "nano robot" injectable into your blood stream that can continuously your blood and provide alerts in real time if any changes or illnesses are detected. That way you just need the nano robots injected once but never had blood drawn and you would always have real time results, without leaving your house. or anywhere you are.

It's not greedy to make a good investment. They genuinely thought it was a good invention. Even Silicon Valley investors are fallible

@@joenichols3901 Part of making an investment is due diligence. Checks and balances. I have no problem with investors taking a risk and making a profit but make at least some effort.

@@TheAppleLoadout checks and balances are a concept that us used for politics not business lol. And the investors assumed the other, extremely well known, investors before them had done the due diligence. That was clearly a mistake. She started this domino process by being the girlfriend of the first investor

@@joenichols3901 you do see how that leads to the conclusion that they didn’t care about efficacy or due diligence and instead saw it as a “safe investment” because the other big boys invested? And therefore was less about what was really being invested-into and more about the clout, the media exposure, and the idea it would lead to an explosive company growth.

Professional investors do not blindly follow the herd of other investors. Theranos investors were very, very sloppy. At least this time they were.

That's a great analogy

So what if it was 10 drops of blood? Or even a vial of blood for a certain batch of extra tests? I would like to see some company actually make the machine or group all of the existing lab machines (regardless of if it fills an entire floor), along with the necessary blood amount to complete the tests successfully.

1:55

@@ryancappo This is already in use in every ordinary hospital

A key issue is also that every potential disease will not show up in every drop of blood. The titer may be much larger. So the first step is to discover the titer required for each disease tested. Theranos simply assumed that every disease they wanted to test for WOULD be in every drop.

But in Silicon Valley that is considered a successful CEO.

@@AgentGG1967 Well, money hoarders in general. In Scientific companies is almost impossible to ignore the scientific background of a CEO.

Well she was competent in other things

@@tabeabussmann Like bullshitting investors?

@@DJVARAO shes genius

i thought I was the only one,

@@xsais I thought they found a way to replicate what Thanos did and do it better LMAO

+1

Because there's a dark side to you that I hope you will never comprehend 🤣just joking, be cool

He could not live with his own failure.

You mean “Nooooo, I… am your father !! One of the biggest misquotes of all time…

There are PLC temperature controllers and thermoelectric plates that could be made pretty small. Vacuum insulated containers would help too.

That's not a big deal in the slightest. PCR machines do that quite easily. That's one of the most minor issues at play here. The much larger issue is that some tests require irreversible reactions with reagents, and many other tests destroy the sample. In order to accomplish what they want, they need to be able to clone the exact blood sample, which is impossible currently. Not to mention that a larger blood sample is needed to get an accurate view of the molecules and blood cells in the sample.

Investors aren't scientists tho and clearly most of them didn't have scientists advising them.

@@MRLONG758 Totally fair point - I'm just still surprised again based off how these Verge videos are telling the narrative that no scientific publication wiped the floor with Theranos when they first announced their company & "confirmed" prospects.

@@MRLONG758 I would make calls to real scientists first. Didn't they not have friends as doctors? lol

Elon musk is the biggest fraudster today yet nobody is taking him down, why would an investor ruin a multi billion dollar company when he can profit from it

@@piotrtchaikovski6674 He has definitely deceived people & delayed many things - but he's also brought many technologies & products to the market over the years at least, compared to Holmes.

Not just companies; even academics would have found it more difficult to secure grants working on similar problems

You can't compare EV yo medical fields.

Or when he pumped up the "Autonomous Tesla Taxi", or the semi, or the rooftop solar tiles. The guy's Holmes x10.

@@nevarran as bad as Elon is he has a track record of delivering. Holmos is a complete different beast. She claimed everything was ready while Tesla is know for their delays to get the tech they promised working

@@plus0 He has a track record of delivering parts of the vision that excite people, while leaving major pieces unsolved. They have no track record of refinement and details. I bought FSD 4 years ago and its still vaporware. Where'd my money go? Lol

Holme's real crime is she didn't deliver _just enough pieces_ to stay alive. This is what Elon knew how to do or he'd be joining her.

This should have been done. That is standard practice in labs to compare instruments and to complete proficiency testing to make sure your tests are accurate. I’m sure they realized that their instrumentation was faulty when they failed those tests.

Part of the problem was that Theranos would send the samples they received out to real testers and then submit the results as their own.

@@oliviastratton2169 Which is fraudulent and constitutes medical malpractice. gg wp Elizabeth Holmes

@@halfbakedproductions7887 Yes? I didn't say otherwise?

@@oliviastratton2169 You would need to have both machines work side by side, the theranos one and the commercially available one and then compare the results.

"Cargo Cult"? How do you compare Theranos to these South Pacific religious activities?

@@JohnSmith-eo5sp this has nothing to do with the south Pacific. Let's focus on Theranos

@@JohnSmith-eo5sp - The copying of superficialities associated with successful startups or corporations, without any underlying comprehension or substance. Wearing a black turtleneck all the time does not make you Steve Jobs, etc, any more than building runways in the jungle causes cargo delivery.

@@DJcyberslash - It does in that I called Theranos a "cargo cult." See: college freshman anthropology textbooks.

One point that I come back to, time and again, is that Silicon Valley unicorns don't go public. They aren't held up to the scrutiny of a public company. So... things happen, right?

Greed driven investors??? Should start up companies ask for money from the Salvation Army instead???

AGREED. Their conversations should look like this: Elizabeth Holmes: I have an amazing idea for a revolutionary blood testing that would require only a drop of blood. Investors: sounds great! What are your qualifications? E: 0. I: do you have a working prototype, or anything that suggest that idea is even remotely possible? E: no. I: good luck and goodbye!

Still dont believe it. Why do you need so much actually?

@@andik70 Like the video said, blood varies extremely in concentration of white blood cells, haemoglobin, etc. etc. from drop to drop. In order to get a holistic view of blood composition, you need a larger sample size. It's like statistics.

@andik70 House M.D.: If I go to the ocean and scoop out a cup but don't catch a fish, does that mean there aren't any fish in the ocean?

What political backing?

@@monkiram Feminism.

And 8 vials is nothing unfortunately. I had a patient that they needed over 20 tubes of blood plus two sets of blood cultures just to figure out a mystery illness the patient suffered from. When I say they used every drop, I mean it

Yeah I remember getting my blood drawn for allergy tests and the nurse had to sit me down and tell me “you may need to call someone to take you home if you get lightheaded when you lose blood” and I was like oh!!!! Okay then and sure enough it was like 4 vials. they had to give me graham crackers lmao but more importantly I’ve never ever heard of testing an amount of blood that small???like maybe it’s because im from a medical family but it’s insane

Counselling??? She needs to be locked in a jail for the rest of her life!

Most of them invested no more than 1% of their net worth, and they end up suing her and recovering part of that money, in the end they end of losing probably 0.2% of their net worth, so if you had a net worth of 500k it would be like losing 1K in a bad investment. For them this wasnt a big loss or deal.

There are similar things out there, like Genalyte. Except their machine is like 10x or more bigger (fridge sized) and it needs way more blood to run less than half the tests. Because what she envisioned is just not possible in this universe.

Well, it depends, you cant go from the current technology to what she envisioned in one single step, this type of scientific and technological advancements require multiple iterations. In IT we didnt go from the mainframe to the iPhone in one single iteration, we had to go through multiple iterations that included gigantic desktops with big floppy disks, to smaller desktops to gigantic laptops to smaller laptops to regular phones to mobile devices. Anyone smart enough would try to achieve this through multiple iterations over the next several decades.

Holmes knew just enough about hematology to sell her idea to leaches. She didn’t want to talk to investors who wanted to see peer reviewed studies and probability analysis. She sold it to other scoundrels who thought they were getting inside information and getting in at the bottom. Then the first scoundrels sold it to others by giving them the impression they were getting inside information. All they had to say was you can’t even see the machine because it’s locked up in a lab. It’s a corporate secret. But it’s a technology breakthrough. Before the first drop of blood was taken, you can bet some body fluids were exchanged.

Not anymore.

and yet many investors put in millions and millions of dollars - only because she was young and blond

@@lauralangham9657 No, one thing she did was carefully avoid any investor with real knowledge of medicine and biology.

Ian Gibbons was their chief scientist. He was a renowned scientist, with more that 60 US patents to his credit, including patents related to blood testing methods. And he believed in what Theranos was trying to achieve. Even when he realized that Holmes was lying, he kept working to achieve it, believing it was possible. Just like the other scientists at Theranos. So, I don't believe that a 5 minute convo with a doctor would debunk everything of Theranos. It's easy to say that the fraud was obvious, years after all the media massively informed the entire world about it. What's less easy is to say something when it's the right time, when investors are putting tons of money into the company, when Holmes is praised by all the media.

I can't believe that she is free until her sentence in Sept. Steal $100 from a bank and go to jail right now, steal 100 million or more from investors and you are free for the next 9 months.

Ehhhhhh, she didn't kill anyone........ directly at least.

She will get around 3.

why, for taking a bunch of rich people for a ride? they'll get over it

Imagine if this china....just saying....or russia. The law might not catch her...but justice would be served...

She wasn’t charged with endangering patients’ lives, she was charged with defrauding them. She was found not guilty, presumably because it would have been harder to prove than the charge of defrauding investors. The government may have decided not to charge her with endangering patients for the same reason. But it leaves the impression that the justice system values profit more than public health.

She's certainly guilty of fraud but there's no indication that any patient was ever in danger. They were actually running tests, just mostly in the traditional way. They just lied and said they did it with their magical machine.

For a single, common test (like a hemoglobin) you can sometimes get by with half a milliliter. The lab will always prefer a nearly full tube, particularly because multiple tests can be run on one tube. Your average phlebotomy tube holds between 3 and 6 milliliters.

My dads a doctor he never believed it either for exactly the same reason.

As liar (me) I made an invisible machine, that can test blood pressure & its worths Zillions.

Its a good...idea. Kinda like star trek. But perhaps show result first? Some random test and controlled test?

@@eleethtahgra7182 It baffles me that none of the investors looked at results or data. I mean did the scientist working for her forged results? Weren’t e there test run? Another thing is did FDA not approve or review anything? The clinical trials that diagnostics companies have to run and prove, did they even exist? I mean, how did a product get marketed and show any clinical trial data? Clearly nothing worked should be pretty obvious

@@Nymeria0 the power of smooth talking and being charismatic

They make you think they're the smartest but honestly they aren't because they mostly rely on insider trading and have zero knowledge when it comes to doing their proper due diligence before investing.

She targeted non medical Industry people cuz they have no clues.

The world is going crazy. Theranos, Nicola Motors and now this Rivian bs. The government printed so much cash goddamn.

Most of those rich freaks are super ignorant and stupid. The current economy and society rewards steping on heads, not being smart

Perhaps they arent thinking with their brain.

Unless the judge decides to make an example of her she will walk. From reports the jury was very sympathetic to her. She was found mot guilty of patient fraud charges. She's got a new baby.

@@redmed10 yeah, Ive been told, she is "fine" right now because the baby

@@edokid She's already walked. Sentencing not due until September 2022. Some people just live a charmed life. Text me back next year and we'll see who was right.

No more than 10 of the tests out of the 200+ ever worked. But those tests already work with a drop of blood, so she didnt do anything innovative in that regard.

I would think something like this will be possible in 40-60 years, it requires some significant scientific advancements.

It really doesn't matter that the concept is "ground breaking". Only the implementation matters. Words are cheap

Everyone in Silicon Valley wants to be ahead of everyone trying to be the next Steve Jobs. I mean this is great if you’re dealing with techs, just not with medicine.

This assumes she has a conscience - I want to see the data on that.

People have called her a sociopath. So for all we know, the damage she has caused doesn’t register in her brain

@@BunnyFlowers you are probably right. It’s too bad we can’t figure out from birth who is predisposed this way. It would sure spare humanity.

Ha! That is a great, great story. The hitler diaries fraud

They were trying to figure out how this could eventually work.

Her parents had good connections, she convinced a notable staff from Stanford to vouch for her “ genius”, and she made sure to have absolutely no scientists on her board of directors only very ignorant old men.

She also had a hypnotic, unblinking gaze capable of mesmerizing otherwise logical people.

Years and years of having the myth of the college dropout that started a tech company, launched an app, and be hailed a world-changing genius on the level of Da Vinci shoved down our throats by popular media have primed investors to think that "visionary" and "disruptive" youngsters with little to no actual training can easily solve complex problems.

There is, it’s call the FDA. Medical devices need their approval before it can be used by the public. Medicine is highly regulated in the US and Theranos outright avoided the FDA or used loopholes to get around them.

@@PungiFungi highly regulated and being able to avoid FDA approval contradict each other. I am aware FDA is reponsible for medicines and health inspections, was not sure for the medical devices that legally fall in another category than medicines. It is both a loophole in the health system and a fraud.

@@dasblondesauerkraut5869 The FDA only approved one test towards the end (I believe for a form of hepatitis) for use on Theranos devices. Theranos "avoided approval" by not using Theranos devices and using already FDA approved devices by legitimate manufacturers in their labs. They didn't tell their investors, partners, and consumers that they were in fact NOT using Theranos technology for bloodwork results; but the FDA knew they weren't because they weren't approved to. Now, why the FDA didn't rat them out is a different question.

There are two agencies in the US that regulate medical devices for efficacy and safety: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which regulates devices that are sold and used by patients (e.g. implants), and the Center for Medicare Services (CMS), which regulates devices that are sold and used by healthcare providers (e.g. lab testing equipment). The problem was that Theranos exploited a loophole in the regulations for what are called lab-designed tests, as in lab tests that are developed by a research lab for their own use only and not to be sold to patients or healthcare providers. Those tests are not regulated by either the FDA or CMS.

Oh, snap! Oh no you didn't!

she probably needed 50-100 years!

Mansplaining at its best

I think the answer is that she's not as brilliant as she made herself out to be after all

Holmes believed that it would be possible to create a tiny adhesive patch that you would apply to your skin, that would diagnose diseases and automatically deliver the right drug to your body to cure the disease, without you doing anything. She filed a patent for that in 2003. Are you sure she's brilliant?

@@brinckau thats so funny lmao middle school competitive science fair kids could come up w better and more realistic ideas bcs they probably research more than her

I think she was lying to herself as well - she had an overinflated sense of her own capability.