
Elizabeth Holmes is finally presenting her technology to scientists - rcarrigan87
https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/01/elizabeth-holmes-is-finally-presenting-her-technology-to-scientists-including-a-mini-lab/
======
vonklaus
Before the for loop starts printing out the same beleagured points about
Holmes, I think it is important to recognize how many people work hard at
Theranos.

The medical indistry has been dodgy as fuck (no excuse) but also technically
illiterate. My personal hypothesis is that because America and many other
nations require so much education to become a doctor, there is little time to
learn about programming/tech.

However, the point is, they made some pretty bad mustakes but this is why we
have venture capital. Theranos is 13 years old. It irritates me when outrage
manifests as an I told you so. So much has been learned between 03 and now,
that to come in at the height of an obvious scandal and pour on like they are
building angry birds pisses me off. I hope they succeed.

If Holmes did something horrible and the internals of the company rot out, and
the tech fails, that sucks. BUT, I hope VCs still step up and take big bets
like this because these are gge ideas that change the world. In fact, if on
balance, the company only fails because of bad bysiness and ethical decisions,
the outpouring of talent and tech into the space could be great.

tl;dr I would rather try and miss on a big bet, than win on a tiny one.

~~~
existencebox
Let me take a counterpoint, since unfortunately you've started said loop (at
least for me) by saying some things I can't honestly agree with.

Primarily, "I would rather miss on a big bet than win on a tiny one" Since I
see this not as "winning a big bet" so much as e.g. "winning a big bet on
Enron." The fact that you summarize "if holmes did something horrible and the
internals rot out" as "that sucks" demonstrates the difference in our views.
That's not a "that sucks" to me, that's a "bring down the goddamn hammer."
I've seen techs I respect and look up to leagues beyond anyone involved in
theranos leadership, not even just speaking of Holmes, but they aren't given a
FRACTION of the leeway I think Theranos has gotten for consistent breaches of
trust, integrity, and legality.

Theranos is not an "I told you so" for me, it's an example of how different
the playing field is for different people, and _THAT_ pisses me off far more
than any amount of angry birds rebuilding. This next statement won't earn me
any allies here, but after significant contemplation I've come to the
conclusion I hope they fail, because otherwise conveys (yet again) the message
that you can start with one foot in a reprehensible place and still profit
enormously.

To be very clear, I agree with your hope that it does not poison future VC,
but I hope it causes people to both look deeper and more comprehensively
before leaping. I also agree that there are good people there, and I dislike
the thought of them taking part in the pain, but this is part and parcel with
my "there should have been more due diligence", since otherwise Theranos would
likely not have scaled as far, as fast, or touched as many people as it did
when it came time for that bubble to pop. To forgive such a level of misdeed
because the recompence has collateral seems to me taking one step forward and
two steps back.

~~~
bmer
> it's an example of how different the playing field is for different people

I really liked your response, and am curious to know if you'd be able to
comment more specifically on that little bit I quoted above.

What exactly is the playing field? Getting VC funding? Managing regulatory
agencies' demands?

Who has an advantage on the playing field? Who doesn't?

~~~
existencebox
The philosophical answer would be "yes"; the pragmatic answer isn't that far
off, at the risk of a cop out. All the things you suggest and more, by
"playing field" I meant life, or less broadly, success in enterprise.
Advantage in this case seems broadly wrought by connections and
political/financial clout. (citing early Theranos board composition, funding,
etc) To make my comparison stark by drastic example, many years ago I watched
a friend go under trial for minor possession. Although in relative terms, the
hits Theranos/Holmes will receive if some of the current investigations pan
out may be larger, it seems unlikely to assume that she won't still derive
such a significant windfall from her tenure in the interim and the publicity
that comes along with it (good AND bad) to put her in a position in life that
I assure you said friend would gladly trade for. The types of outcomes derived
for these two people don't even seem to be in the same game, if we're talking
playing fields. (this made even more comical given the potential breadth of
impact of the respective crimes, a comparison I hope I can leave as an
exercise to the reader)

------
driftsumi-e
Found a video of the full presentation, including the surprisingly lengthy Q&A
session:

[https://youtu.be/n6JRG733ReQ](https://youtu.be/n6JRG733ReQ)

