Jump to content

Theranos' Death Rattle


TwiceHorn

Recommended Posts

Just watched a 20/20 on this on Hulu. Is that the hbo doc or is it something new?

the idea that she doesn’t use her real voice is fascinating. 

Came off to me as overambition shifted into outright lies rather than admit failure. Lots of enablers along the way as she seemed to talk her way into things she should have been told no to from Stanford on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the doc on this.

Holy fuck her voice is deep for a woman.

The camera following her walking around the office with her black turtleneck trying to look like Jobs was so fucking weird.  I found it ironic that she was using that to probably document her great rise and it was used to show her eventual downfall.

She is clearly insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the HBO doc last night.  Bat shit crazy is an understatement.   Her facial expressions reminded  me of the Heaven's Gate cult leader from the 90's by name of Marshall Applewhite.   And that's a valid comparison because the organization looked like a cult itself and treated dissenters very much like cults do.

I'm just amazed by the number of supposedly smart people who were taken in by her BS.   The question I  had while watching this was why at least one of these wizards of smart didn't insist on looking at the technology in person and having it independently reviewed before dumping millions of dollars of cash into a bottomless pit?  Didn't any of them like Larry Ellison do this with other ventures they bought in to?   Maybe I shouldn't be surprised on second thought since we've seen all sorts of industries crash and burn over the last few decades who were largely influenced by the same group from Tech,  Banking, Real Estate, Government, Media and Academia?   Somehow they all manage to come back for more and rinse and repeat. 

 

Edited by Nueces River Rat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

Watched the doc on this.

Holy fuck her voice is deep for a woman.

The camera following her walking around the office with her black turtleneck trying to look like Jobs was so fucking weird.  I found it ironic that she was using that to probably document her great rise and it was used to show her eventual downfall.

She is clearly insane. 

You will be amused to learn that her deep voice was completely affected.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone think that was her real voice?  From just watching video clips of her speak it's immediately apparent that she's insane...and yet she raised tons of money from wealthy morons and had people like Schultz, Mattis, and Kissinger on the board of her company. lmao!  I love her.  

Edited by Fozzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Parliament said:

How does a person like me, with no HBO, watch this doc?

See if you can get a trial of HBONow.  Or borrow a login to HBOGo from someone who does.

https://subscribe.hbonow.com/?returnPath=%2Fpage%2Furn%3Ahbo%3Apage%3Ahome&origin=play&sessionId=f8147c58-3859-403d-ba87-e2a48109a2c0

7 days free, cancel anytime.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read a number of books on Enron and the name Christian Holmes doesn't ring any bells-- I'm not saying that proves anything, but I don't think he played any key role in Enron's frauds. The fact that he was employed there might be more coincidental than indicative. 

Then again their environmental group was pretty scammy, vid Kyoto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SwanderedTalent said:

I've read a number of books on Enron and the name Christian Holmes doesn't ring any bells-- I'm not saying that proves anything, but I don't think he played any key role in Enron's frauds. The fact that he was employed there might be more coincidental than indicative. 

Then again their environmental group was pretty scammy, vid Kyoto.

From what I have gathered, he is a bit of a ne'erdowell.  Not a prominent Enron executive.  Yes, coincidence, although I think he tried mightily to get a job there.  My sense of it is that, like his daughter, he kept seeking prominent, highly paid positions, without necessarily the right qualifications.  And he, like her, would pull it off for a period of time.

There's that whole weird deal where they lived in DC, got evicted/foreclosed and lived in their weird, rich neighbor's (Fuisz) house for several years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It found it interesting that this was supposedly this groundbreaking medical company but not one person involved with actual medicine was involved with it other than the doctor from Stanford they bought off.  Sure, Mattis and Schultz might be brilliant but they don't know dick about medical research.  

I like the comment from Schultz's grandkid about the divide between the carpeted areas at the tiled.  The business and marketing people on the carpeted side thought it was great, the scientists on the tiled side thought it was dog shit.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Came off to me as overambition shifted into outright lies rather than admit failure. Lots of enablers along the way as she seemed to talk her way into things she should have been told no to from Stanford on. 

I honestly think it's a Millennial trait -- she couldn't fathom failure because she never experienced it.  

So she'd get up every day and come into work, clinging to the belief that something miraculous would happen to make it all work out, ignoring the reality that the only possible outcome  at that point was failure.  Just like some of my students.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

It found it interesting that this was supposedly this groundbreaking medical company but not one person involved with actual medicine was involved with it other than the doctor from Stanford they bought off.  Sure, Mattis and Schultz might be brilliant but they don't know dick about medical research.  

I like the comment from Schultz's grandkid about the divide between the carpeted areas at the tiled.  The business and marketing people on the carpeted side thought it was great, the scientists on the tiled side thought it was dog shit.

 

That's nothing particularly unusual in a technical company.  At Texas Instruments, which is kind of the antithesis of Theranos, you can determine seniority/salary/connection to business end by the height of (and whether) cubicle walls and carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearing her describe how the Edison machine actually worked was interesting.  This isn't a case of "fake it until you make it."  She knew her product didn't work, wouldn't work, and passed it off as something else.  That's fraud.

Even Boies was in on it.  He tried using "trade secrets" to hide that they were using other machines.  

Edited by Aqua Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our super terrific technology lets us put this box anywhere and test for all kinds of stuff in minutes using one drop of blood. 

Opens clinics 

takes vials  of blood and sends them back to a central lab where testing is performed using traditional methods and machines, just the same way labcorp does it, except theranos tends to give erroneous results. 

And they defend this first as normal, then after the fraud claims as just an unfortunate investment gone badly. 

I guess Holmes would be fine making it with a legitimate game changer, but faking it was just as well as long as she made it. 

Though it sounds like the secrecy and compartmentalizations were there from the start, so maybe she never planned on having working technology. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Millennial/rich spoiled brat thought that the fraud she was committing is actually how business gets done and believed she was some reincarnation of Jobs. Nobody technical in the blood/medical device field thought it would work and nothing released by the company showed a hint of innovation to overcome the believed impossibility. She probably still thinks she’s some kind of entrepreneurial savant and the man is keeping her down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial impression was similar to beau vines, that she never thought she would fail and it started out with a small lie and ignorance, then it got out of hand and kept snowballing the deeper in they got. However by the end I was convinced that she’s a sociopath. She stuck to the lie and even after she was busted she still came out swinging. She has no remorse, which made it easy to dupe other investors. She surrounded herself with political appointees and millionaires/billionaires which just helped the con. Why would a would be investor like Larry Ellison go out of his way investigate, when the shultzes are buying in, Obama’s doing speeches about her, and the company was gaining in the market at the time? He’d probably assume if the presidents singing her praises, then surely nothing crazy could be going on, right? I mean he has people to look into this sort of thing right? If not him the maybe Kissinger, Walgreens, or somebody would’ve noticed by now, etc.

The reason I asked the question about where she would be in five years is because she’s exposed now, but has no real skills other than the ability to lie to people convincingly. While that may be enough, I don’t see any real investors getting back in business with her now, and I think she’s banned from running a publicly traded company by the sec. She had it all and fritted it away all by 30. Now she has a long life ahead of her, and I imagine the lawsuits and legal fees are going to pretty much bankrupt her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book and movie complemented each other well, although if a person was only going to consume one I would recommend the book.  The book actually goes into how many people and organizations walked away after they couldn't validate the tech, or weren't at all impressed by the results.  She duped a lot of people, but there were a lot who saw right through her shit too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the kind of interesting things you can tell from the patents  The earliest ones, back to early-mid 2000s, pretty much all name Holmes as an inventor.  After about 2010, she is no longer a named inventor on most.  Also, the later patents focus on peripheral things like transmitting data via wifi from a sampling machine (e.g. Walgreens) to processing machines located elsewhere, and the "look" of the blood collection device.  There is almost nothing on analyzing a tiny sample, or even collecting it, because in retrospect, that is where it all fell apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Though it sounds like the secrecy and compartmentalizations were there from the start, so maybe she never planned on having working technology. 

 

You might be surprised at how paranoid some legit small inventors/small businesses get when they thing they have valuable IP.

By the same token, you also sometimes see big corporations with significant technology that get very lax with trade secrecy if not everything about their IP.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

My initial impression was similar to beau vines, that she never thought she would fail and it started out with a small lie and ignorance, then it got out of hand and kept snowballing the deeper in they got. However by the end I was convinced that she’s a sociopath. She stuck to the lie and even after she was busted she still came out swinging. She has no remorse, which made it easy to dupe other investors. She surrounded herself with political appointees and millionaires/billionaires which just helped the con. Why would a would be investor like Larry Ellison go out of his way investigate, when the shultzes are buying in, Obama’s doing speeches about her, and the company was gaining in the market at the time? He’d probably assume if the presidents singing her praises, then surely nothing crazy could be going on, right? I mean he has people to look into this sort of thing right? If not him the maybe Kissinger, Walgreens, or somebody would’ve noticed by now, etc.

The reason I asked the question about where she would be in five years is because she’s exposed now, but has no real skills other than the ability to lie to people convincingly. While that may be enough, I don’t see any real investors getting back in business with her now, and I think she’s banned from running a publicly traded company by the sec. She had it all and fritted it away all by 30. Now she has a long life ahead of her, and I imagine the lawsuits and legal fees are going to pretty much bankrupt her.

Senator representing Northern California...no CR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

The book and movie complemented each other well, although if a person was only going to consume one I would recommend the book.  The book actually goes into how many people and organizations walked away after they couldn't validate the tech, or weren't at all impressed by the results.  She duped a lot of people, but there were a lot who saw right through her shit too.

That's also a thing with investing.  If everyone was buying into the idea, then the person more or likely wouldn't be selling it to begin with.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Deej said:

Watching her and her employees attempting to dance to MC Hammer was awkward. 

Best part is that is they played MC Hammer to end the documentary right after stated they had been charged with fraud. Nice irony at the end by the documentary makers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Parliament said:

How does a person like me, with no HBO, watch this doc?

Here is a summary if you can't get HBO:

Old guys and investors get infatuated:

money-bath.jpg

They are actually looking at this and they suspect it:

hqdefault.jpg

Then they act surprised when it turns out to be this:

cryinggame3.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The reason I asked the question about where she would be in five years is because she’s exposed now, but has no real skills other than the ability to lie to people convincingly. While that may be enough, I don’t see any real investors getting back in business with her now, and I think she’s banned from running a publicly traded company by the sec. She had it all and fritted it away all by 30. Now she has a long life ahead of her, and I imagine the lawsuits and legal fees are going to pretty much bankrupt her.


There’s a reason you’ve never seen a decent looking homeless woman. They all can find someone to support them. The level of crazy does not matter. Sure, she won’t get a Brad Pitt but there’s plenty of homely rich dudes who’ll support her well for sex.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...