Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
PixelArmy wrote:Don't forget the media... Between all the woman tech CEO rah-rah-rah and disrupting the evil healthcare industry angles, I'm sure Holmes felt pressure to keep dog and pony show going.
just brew it! wrote:It takes two to tango... she could've dialed the media circus back or shut it down at any time.
Forbes wrote:The independent scientists Theranos recently added to its scientific advisory board say that they have seen promise in the data.
But Holmes and Theranos have dashed every opportunity they have been given to build trust. Way back in September, the company acted like an approval from the Food and Drug Administration for a single test, for herpes, validated its entire technology, when it did not.
gbcrush wrote:Forbes wrote:The independent scientists Theranos recently added to its scientific advisory board say that they have seen promise in the data.
But Holmes and Theranos have dashed every opportunity they have been given to build trust. Way back in September, the company acted like an approval from the Food and Drug Administration for a single test, for herpes, validated its entire technology, when it did not.
I don't think she's a cook or an idiot to try and do something impossible. In fact, I think in a founder's role, reaching for the impossible is admirable. And these comments say to me that not only was it possible (probably possible), it was desirable ...and the market as a whole desired a shakeup of the iron grip Lab Corp and company had on testing.
...but then she chose the company over the product, and when it comes to a product as personal and invasive and just plain serious as someone's PERSONAL HEALTH...or millions of someones' personal health, I've no qualms watching her go down in flames for that kind of fraud, however unintentional it may have started out as.
tanker27 wrote:
Of course, the 32-year-old’s eye-popping net worth was always just on paper. She was never sitting on piles of cash or dispensing thousands of dollars from her turtleneck at her leisure. The estimates of Holmes’s fortune were based on the value of her private company, in which she holds a 50 percent stake. If Theranos liquidates—which is a still a big if—money is first paid back to her investors, because of the way shares in the company are structured. Holmes, then, would be left with little more than empty labs and the embers of a company that flew close to the sun on an empty jetpack.
A Theranos PR Person wrote:As a privately held company, we declined to share confidential information with Forbes. As a result, the article was based exclusively on speculation and press reports.
tanker27 wrote:Vanityfair says this about the Forbes article:Of course, the 32-year-old’s eye-popping net worth was always just on paper. She was never sitting on piles of cash or dispensing thousands of dollars from her turtleneck at her leisure. The estimates of Holmes’s fortune were based on the value of her private company, in which she holds a 50 percent stake. If Theranos liquidates—which is a still a big if—money is first paid back to her investors, because of the way shares in the company are structured. Holmes, then, would be left with little more than empty labs and the embers of a company that flew close to the sun on an empty jetpack.
DrCR wrote:What percentage did she start with? If she started at, say, 75%, then she's likely still talking away with a ton of green, even if that present 50% stake ultimately yields zero.
About a week ago, just brew it! wrote:... IMO Walgreens is at least as culpable as Theranos, when it comes to subjecting consumers to the inaccurate blood tests. It would not surprise me to see them get hit with some sort of legal action too.
NovusBogus wrote:It's a classic example of collective stupidity. Holmes, her board members, Walgreens, media, regulators, etc. couldn't fail very big individually with their meager quantities of stupid, but by pooling the stupid they were able to accomplish something truly magnificent. Happens all the time.
NovusBogus wrote:It's a classic example of collective stupidity. Holmes, her board members, Walgreens, media, regulators, etc. couldn't fail very big individually with their meager quantities of stupid, but by pooling the stupid they were able to accomplish something truly magnificent. Happens all the time.
strangerguy wrote:NovusBogus wrote:It's a classic example of collective stupidity. Holmes, her board members, Walgreens, media, regulators, etc. couldn't fail very big individually with their meager quantities of stupid, but by pooling the stupid they were able to accomplish something truly magnificent. Happens all the time.
It's not stupid but a maliciously intelligent scheme that grew out of the corporate mindset of "Never admit any wrongdoing no matter what, even if was blatantly intentional"
just brew it! wrote:I still wanna know if she "knew", or was just the "booth babe". Either way, she should go back to complete her degree.That thumping sound you hear
ludi wrote:Uh, not smart enough to know the difference?Seems like more of a "believing your own hype" problem.
MarkG509 wrote:ludi wrote:Uh, not smart enough to know the difference?Seems like more of a "believing your own hype" problem.
ludi wrote:Since learning why, the hard way, I've tended to avoid women that have their own "harems".a cadre of yes-men