Post by CheeringCharm on Mar 22, 2019 8:01:47 GMT -5
In retrospect the story is just so insane. WHY would anyone believe that a 19 year old with two semesters of college under her belt, no business background, no experience in medicine or creating medical technology, has the know how to create a new medical device that will *radically* change and disrupt diagnostics in the medical industry?
John Carreyou made the point that the people who win Nobel prizes in the field of medicine are generally in their sixties for a reason. I just don't understand how ALL these high profile investors and VC were totally duped by some pretty blonde hair and a deep voice. It is SO insane. The Walgreens part of it too was strange. The guy they hired to investigate told them he was certain the device didn't do anything and yet they went ahead anyway. People wanted to believe so badly that they were in on the ground floor of the next Apple or Microsoft.
Post by georgeglass on Mar 22, 2019 8:10:31 GMT -5
This was one of the weirder pieces I read on it, so I wanted to share. We should have known she (and others like her) was a fraud because of..... split ends.
John Carreyou made the point that the people who win Nobel prizes in the field of medicine are generally in their sixties for a reason. I just don't understand how ALL these high profile investors and VC were totally duped by some pretty blonde hair and a deep voice. It is SO insane. The Walgreens part of it too was strange. The guy they hired to investigate told them he was certain the device didn't do anything and yet they went ahead anyway. People wanted to believe so badly that they were in on the ground floor of the next Apple or Microsoft.
Yeah, this is what really baffles me. The technology didn't work, therefore they could not successfully demonstrate the technology. Must be nice to have so much money that you're like, "Oh, sounds cool, here's a million" with no research done on whether the damn thing actually works.
I was watching the 20/20 doc last night (which was pretty much just a summary of the podcast). It is pretty astounding that the Chait/Day advertising guys were talking about how they suspected this company was a front for the CIA because the board had so many well-regarded government/military leaders on it. It's amazing how duped they were as well. I guess people really wanted to believe that this technology was the wave of the future and Elizabeth Holmes was clearly someone who could convince all these VIPs that her technology works and would revolutionize medicine. Meanwhile there's that Stanford professor of medicine who told her which she was still a student that uhhhh, no that's impossible. Yet somehow, all this happened. I still don't quite get how it took until 2015 for Carreyrou to publish his piece (obviously his investigation took some time to do before he published, but still, that's several years since the company's founding of suspicion plus very visible people quitting Theranos and only a couple of people were brave enough to raise the red flags).
Post by Velar Fricative on Mar 22, 2019 8:27:29 GMT -5
jeaniebueller, hard to say since I likely won't watch the HBO doc since we don't have HBO. However, the 20/20 documentary seemed like nothing more than a summary of the more-detailed podcast (although it was nice for me to see the people who spoke in the podcast), and I can't imagine HBO's documentary not being super-detailed. So, I'm guessing you can probably skip it, especially if you've already listened to the podcast.
the 20/20 using the same audio as the podcast. I tuned out because it was all stuff I heard before on the podcast.
so did the HBO documentary! There was one additional guy in the HBO doc, some kind of behaviorist, but aside from him, the documentary was the same people, same interviews, etc.
It’s kind of odd that these 3 productions all seem to use the same material.
the 20/20 using the same audio as the podcast. I tuned out because it was all stuff I heard before on the podcast.
so did the HBO documentary! There was one additional guy in the HBO doc, some kind of behaviorist, but aside from him, the documentary was the same people, same interviews, etc.
It’s kind of odd that these 3 productions all seem to use the same material.
IIRC from the podcast, a lot of the folks involved did not want to be interviewed, so they used their depositions and other sound bites already out there. I guess that's why they were very similar?
so did the HBO documentary! There was one additional guy in the HBO doc, some kind of behaviorist, but aside from him, the documentary was the same people, same interviews, etc.
It’s kind of odd that these 3 productions all seem to use the same material.
IIRC from the podcast, a lot of the folks involved did not want to be interviewed, so they used their depositions and other sound bites already out there. I guess that's why they were very similar?
quite a few of the people were interviewed in front of a camera, seemingly very willingly.
I should add - they don’t appear to be from a camera in a deposition. I could be wrong. But a couple were also clearly interviewed comfortably, in a comfortable setting, etc. like the female professor from Stanford who told Elizabeth this wouldn’t work.
If you only do one of the three, I recommend the podcast, just for the amount of detail they're able to include. The HBO doc provides a few additional things here and there and is good for visuals. The 20/20 piece was two hours of "Promo for what you're about to see! Three minutes of content! Promo as we go to commercial! Commercial!" over and over. Worst of the bunch.
In retrospect the story is just so insane. WHY would anyone believe that a 19 year old with two semesters of college under her belt, no business background, no experience in medicine or creating medical technology, has the know how to create a new medical device that will *radically* change and disrupt diagnostics in the medical industry?
All the VC funding in Silicon Valley is like that. There is such a romanticism about the wunderkind college drop out type. The funding goes to young, white men who bullshit well. Her voice was an attempt to be that.
In retrospect the story is just so insane. WHY would anyone believe that a 19 year old with two semesters of college under her belt, no business background, no experience in medicine or creating medical technology, has the know how to create a new medical device that will *radically* change and disrupt diagnostics in the medical industry?
All the VC funding in Silicon Valley is like that. There is such a romanticism about the wunderkind college drop out type. The funding goes to young, white men who bullshit well. Her voice was an attempt to be that.
I work with investors at a start up (but our tech works!) and I have found that once you have one rich dude willing to throw money at you, you can get more. They all just assume that other dude did the background work.
All the VC funding in Silicon Valley is like that. There is such a romanticism about the wunderkind college drop out type. The funding goes to young, white men who bullshit well. Her voice was an attempt to be that.
I work with investors at a start up (but our tech works!) and I have found that once you have one rich dude willing to throw money at you, you can get more. They all just assume that other dude did the background work.
I can't get over the fact that Walgreens fell for it. I think it's downright criminal that they didn't do their due diligence.
I've stopped shopping there since I read Bad Blood.
We are watching the HBO documentary. I don't plan to listen to the podcast and I think it's telling the full story. I have two thoughts. First I was thinking "Fyre Festival" when that one scientist was like "Um, can we make the box bigger?" Then I keep seeing so many parallels to Smile Direct Club, a "disruptor" in my industry that we professionals all know is garbage - regular people wanting to direct their own orthodontic treatment at home that is traditionally done under close supervision of a dentist/orthodontist. We all want to watch it go down in flames except it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Post by Velar Fricative on Mar 23, 2019 7:55:11 GMT -5
sent’s example above reminded me. It seems like there are different classes of “disrupters.” There are experts who come up with great ideas, and there are people who just want to disrupt and think they are brilliant enough to do it. Elizabeth Holmes falls in that latter class. She wasn’t an MD or other type of medical expert. She was someone who just had an idea and fell into the trap of thinking that a great idea is always possible to execute. And she also has the hubris that is likely prevalent in SV that made her believe she didn’t need to know anything about blood testing to revolutionize that field.
I mean, is the Smile Direct founder a dentist? Or do they just think they know more than dentists do about dental care?
We are watching the HBO documentary. I don't plan to listen to the podcast and I think it's telling the full story. I have two thoughts. First I was thinking "Fyre Festival" when that one scientist was like "Um, can we make the box bigger?" Then I keep seeing so many parallels to Smile Direct Club, a "disruptor" in my industry that we professionals all know is garbage - regular people wanting to direct their own orthodontic treatment at home that is traditionally done under close supervision of a dentist/orthodontist. We all want to watch it go down in flames except it just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I have a colleague who is doing Smile Direct and holy hell he's already having issues and refuses to believe he wouldn't if he was, ya know, actually going in regularly to a dental professional. It's infuriating!
I mean, is the Smile Direct founder a dentist? Or do they just think they know more than dentists do about dental care?
Nope, two guys who are not dentists. Their spiel is that SDC is cheaper because you eliminate the visits to the dentist/orthodontist and just move your teeth by yourself at home. No, their product is cheaper because they have VC $$$$$$$$ behind the curtains.
The parallels were astounding when the Naturopath doctor woman was explaining that people were getting their blood tested without a prescription from a medical professional, getting results that were not within the range of abnormal, and then turning to Google to figure out what was wrong with them. This is so similar to how SDC operates except they have a small group of licensed dentists who "approve" all the smile scans & molds taken by amateurs without ever examining the patient. Their operations break many laws of practice in many states but the state boards are too small to effectively fight them (3 states have lawsuits brewing). The consumer just signs some papers attesting that their dental health is good, no professional actually confirms this. The consumer can give their dentist a paper to sign before starting the whole thing but dentists have been refusing to sign the papers and SDC will sell them trays anyways. Scan shops are all over the place and kits to take molds are sold on CVS and Amazon. Also the consumers have to sign these documents that any complaints if the trays don't work and worse, you damage your teeth, the complaint can only be taken to arbitration, not a lawsuit.
Dentists have been seeing very bad and scary results of people who moved their teeth into dangerous positions where they will now lose their teeth, but besides encouraging the patient to report the "approving dentist" to the licensing board where the patient lives, there is not much else we can do.
I heard a big NYC bank is involved in preparing an IPO. This thing is a disgusting monster.
I work with investors at a start up (but our tech works!) and I have found that once you have one rich dude willing to throw money at you, you can get more. They all just assume that other dude did the background work.
I can't get over the fact that Walgreens fell for it. I think it's downright criminal that they didn't do their due diligence.
I've stopped shopping there since I read Bad Blood.
Well that's the bizarre thing. They did do it and then chose to ignored it for some unknown reason! I guess the lure of all the who's whos on her board?
I agree that they play a big part in duping patients who might have made decisions based on inaccurate testing and diagnoses.
I agree that they play a big part in duping patients who might have made decisions based on inaccurate testing and diagnoses.
Theranos got a law changed in Arizona so that patients could order their own blood tests. Where does the liability fall if patients order their own blood test but they get the test from a really inaccurate blood testing company?
Yes another eerie similarity to Smile Direct. They had their hand in redefining some laws tipped in their favor in New Mexico recently.
Post by Velar Fricative on Mar 24, 2019 21:21:32 GMT -5
Also, the other connection between some of these SV folks is the desire to “democratize” something, to make it more accessible to all. That’s a noble goal, but it’s bullshit. It’s bullshit because what people who need access to healthcare don’t need is something that doesn’t even work. But I am sure they moment they talk about democratizing something, the money flows in.
Oh and the scene with the MC Hammer dance party and suddenly she smugly announces “How about that FDA clearance?” That was some serious delusion. The FDA approved some obscure rare test to run on your machine that’s going to help like 8 people in America, but carry on with the dance party.
I agree that they play a big part in duping patients who might have made decisions based on inaccurate testing and diagnoses.
Theranos got a law changed in Arizona so that patients could order their own blood tests. Where does the liability fall if patients order their own blood test but they get the test from a really inaccurate blood testing company?
Yes another eerie similarity to Smile Direct. They had their hand in redefining some laws tipped in their favor in New Mexico recently.
I wanted to scream at that scene where she grifted her way into the AZ legislature and was testifying and the rep was falling all over himself to praise her. WTF, dude.
Theranos got a law changed in Arizona so that patients could order their own blood tests. Where does the liability fall if patients order their own blood test but they get the test from a really inaccurate blood testing company?
Yes another eerie similarity to Smile Direct. They had their hand in redefining some laws tipped in their favor in New Mexico recently.
I wanted to scream at that scene where she grifted her way into the AZ legislature and was testifying and the rep was falling all over himself to praise her. WTF, dude.
I remember thinking "So, really, all you have to be is blond and relatively cute and men will literally fall all over themselves to help you??".
I think humans are much more "base" creatures than we all want to believe sometimes.