Why Elizabeth Holmes Was Convicted (and Also Acquitted)

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos was convicted on some charges but no others. Why?
--Get your first $5,000 managed free by investing with today’s sponsor Wealthfront legaleagle.lin...
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.lin...
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.lin...
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: [e-mail]
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.lin...
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.lin...
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.lin...
Facebook: legaleagle.lin...
Tik Tok: legaleagle.lin...
Instagram: legaleagle.lin...
Reddit: legaleagle.lin...
Podcast: legaleagle.lin...
OnlyFans legaleagle.lin...
Patreon legaleagle.lin...
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at [e-mail]
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Legal Eagle receives cash compensation from Wealthfront Advisers LLC (“Wealthfront Advisers”) for sponsored advertising materials. Legal Eagle is not a client and this is a paid endorsement. Legal Eagle and Wealthfront Advisers are not associated with one another and have no formal relationship outside of this arrangement. Nothing in this communication should be construed as a solicitation, offer, or recommendation, to buy or sell any security. Any links provided by Legal Eagle are not intended to imply that Wealthfront Advisers or its affiliates endorses, sponsors, promotes and/or is affiliated with the owners of or participants in those sites, or endorses any information contained on those sites, unless expressly stated otherwise. Investment management and advisory services are provided by Wealthfront, an SEC registered investment adviser. All investing involves risk, including the possible loss of money you invest, and past performance does not guarantee future performance.

[@LegalEagle]

⚖What should I cover next? 💲Start investing with Wealthfront today! legaleagle.link/wealthfront

[@seosamh1605]

@@mozolejos goo on

[@nogtname123]

4th

[@PsychoMuffinSDM]

Thunderf00t criticizes Elon Must a lot from a science perspective. Is there anything you can talk about Must from the legal perspective?

[@ignitionfrn2223]

So the CEO of *T* *h* er *a* *n* *o* s* has been convicted...in a snap 👌

[@nobodynowhere7163]

I want to know exactly what happens by law if you defy a congressional subpoena.

[@scifisyko]

It’s wild that the person known for being adept at manipulation absolutely did the exact same thing to the jurors and it totally worked.

[@herethere2091]

People don’t wanna believe they’re being conned

[@donmiller2908]

She'll still have a major felony conviction on her record, many years in a federal prison and irreparable damage to her reputation. No wonder she married William Evans, a 29-year-old heir to the Evans Hotel Group, who would hire her after this? But if you consider that to be successful manipulation...okay then.

[@theendofit]

@Don Miller who needs to get hired after you scamed 100+ million? Further she will get 15 years at most she will charm the sentencing same way she charmed the jury

[@pablodelsegundo9502]

White girl magic.

[@BlueProphet7]

You aren't good at manipulation if you can't manipulate people who already know you are going to try.

[@StrongMed]

Here is the truly crazy thing about the Theranos scandal. Holmes was from Stanford, and the Theranos headquarters is a mile from campus. Yet there is not one physician or scientist here who believed her technology was legit. How investors got played for millions without even talking to an independent scientist, when there were 1000s of local scientists to choose from within spitting distance from Theranos is beyond me. It's hard to feel too much sympathy for someone so wealthy who is that reckless with their wealth. EDIT: Another comment here mentioned Ian Gibbons as a counterexample. (KZbin is not letting me directly reply the comment) Gibbons was not affiliated with Stanford, and as he worked for Theranos, he was hardly in a position to give investors an independent opinion on the technology.

[@WhirledPublishing]

It was a scam - from the start - just like the Bernie Madoff Scandal, the Mortgage Scandal, the Enron Scandal and thousands of others that the public is oblivious to - the WHO, the IMF, NASA, NOAA, the USGS, the NSF, the CDC, the EPA, the FDA ... on and on and on and on... the rigged stock markets - worldwide - the corrupt politicians - worldwide .... the lies printed in schoolbooks and university textbooks, the lies printed in the fake science magazines and in the idiotic peer-reviewed journals that maintain compliance among the unintelligent fake science gods that graduated with their C average from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements ... When will the public smarten up - the IQ's of the "scientific community" are online - uploaded by Psychologists who tell us that the 85 to 115 IQ's of geologists are, at best, the intellectual equivalent of the smart kids in fifth and sixth grades, so while the general pubic gets their history of Earth from those with the mind of a child, very few notice the insanity... The scam, the sham, the farce, the fraud, the intentional disinfo, the epic psy-op extends across politics and economics, across the military forces, military weaponry, advanced technologies, etc., and all across the medical mafia, the fake healthcare and fake nutrition... all across the fake history and fake chemistry... on and on and on while the public is oblivious to the deception ... they love imagining that the billionaires that have siphoned 99% of the world wealth into their control actually cares about them. What is with this "disconnect": Billions of babies and children suffer and die from malnutrition and curable disease in horrific poverty - worldwide - while the ignorant gullible public clings to their desperate hope that the billionaires have been telling the truth about science and history and politics and economics ... The public thinks they have democracy and freedom and equality while their television news and television "programming" is dumbing them down as their air, water, food, beverages and medicines are poisoned - but they want to believe in the lies they've been indoctrinated to cling to and defend...

[@Bijoubix]

@@WhirledPublishing Are you writing a book?

[@WhirledPublishing]

@@Bijoubix I've been a researcher for over 50 years and a prolific writer for nearly 40 which has resulted in nearly 500 book manuscripts, dozens of screenplays, a dozen musicals, hundreds of original songs, inventions, and architectural designs, including a design for a self-sustaining eco-village, etc. Since the true timeline for our human history - and the true timeline for the history of our Earth - are documented, by our ancestors, in hundreds of independent historic documents, written in dozens of languages from all across our Earth, and since that timeline is corroborated by thousands of other independent sources, the deception - by the "billionaires" and their minions - is conspicuous. Thank you for asking.

[@Bijoubix]

@@WhirledPublishing Excellent, I've subscribed to your channel.

[@WhirledPublishing]

@@Bijoubix Thank you - if you see a video title on my channel that seems interesting, let me know.

[@jonahfalcon1970]

Juror #6: "She seemed so nice, so I couldn't convict." Juror #6, that's what a con artist does. That's why "con" is short for CONFIDENCE.

[@tinman3586]

This is why I'm losing confidence both in the idea of universal suffrage and the idea that requiring completing a test in order to be eligible to vote is a bad thing.

[@partlycloudy7707]

As someone who works in a lab, this whole case annoys me to no end. They asked doctors and investors, not pathologists and laboratory staff. Her claims of being able to perform a large battery of tests on a few drops of blood are a pipedream. She annoys the ever loving hell out of me.

[@The5lacker]

"She genuinely believed she was helping people." No she didn't. She might genuinely believe she COULD EVENTUALLY help people, but if you knowingly lie about WHETHER OR NOT YOU USED YOUR OWN TESTS you probably don't genuinely believe your tests CURRENTLY help anyone.

[@wizard7314]

Great point.

[@ArtemisScribe]

Yes! If someone drops out of college as a Freshmen and then sets up a hospital claiming to be a neurosurgeon because they do want to one day *eventually* qualify as a neurosurgeon that doesn't make them any more qualified or their victims any less dead!

[@alexblake5369]

I take this one step further. She's a highly functional Psychopath and extreme narcissist. I believe that she believes she's the smartest person in the world and that all her problems are caused by the stupidity of others. I believe that she has no problem lying through her teeth, and no shame about what she's saying. If she thought she could get away with it she would probably make up larger lies to draw sympathy for herself, like being the survivor of a terrorist attack or something crazy like that. What makes her incredibly dangerous is that she does have a silver tongue. She can say all the right things to a person and talk them into giving her all of their money while literally stabbing them in the chest and yet people will believe it's somehow their fault for walking into her knife.

[@jameshobbs9180]

Someone that genuinely believe in helping others would NOT obsess with modeling themselves after famous rich people (Steve Jobs) and trying to portray herself in the same vein. I think what happened ultimately is that she aimed for something she thought she could revolutionize, blood draws, and thought she could arrive at the answer. And the idea she had would be revolutionary for sure and despite it being for her own self gain, if she actually accomplished it would have been something to improve the lives of virtually everyone. The problem is that it just isn't possible. There's enough there to make it statistically better than a coin flip, but that's no where near what you actually need to be able to realistically use it in the medical field. And this is how you can tell she is just a charlatan. Instead of addressing it and maybe moving the goal posts of what they were doing to still make use of what they were doing, she instead double downed on it and just made outrageous lies and used cover-ups to hide the faultiness of her product.

[@tattooeddragon]

Jim Jones thought he was genuinely helping people as well. And we all see how that turned out.

[@johnalbert2102]

The takeaway: you can get away with fraud if you're a good enough con-man to convince a jury that you really believed you weren't doing anything wrong. Seems like a pretty big loophole to me.

[@connoc5078]

Yep, It shows that the jury did not analyse the actual facts of what she did and instead based their verdict on emotion

[@MrMarinus18]

It's actually been the largest criticism of the American legal system pretty much since it's inception. That a jury is too easily swayed by charismatic defendends.

[@blueflameSM]

It blows my mind she got away with fraud. She still took their money. The entire idea that, she did it in good faith? What? She still believed in her own creation, that's not a picture of someone who cares. That's a picture of a psychopath who would fake her own voice, commit fraud and get away with it.

[@nicholasforrester8587]

Agreed 👍🏻 I was thinking the same thing

[@Saltience]

While the Judge may be a representative of the law, the Jury are representatives of the people. And people created and bought pet rocks.

[@KeeliaSilvis]

I'm a former neuroscience lab tech, and I can confirm that EVERYONE in lab science knew this was nonsense from the beginning. But of course no one listened to the actual technicians until far too late during this saga. 🙄

[@stoppit9]

I'm not even a scientist and I thought it was bs from the beginning. You don't get new techniques all at once. Going from a gallon needed for a thousand tests to one vial? It doesn't survive the slightest thought

[@carletpierre1895]

I’m just confused how she got a directors sit at Harvard medical school

[@sequoiaz]

@@carletpierre1895 most likely money

[@andybaldman]

Because technicians are peons. Money gets you power.

[@foxymetroid]

The suits like to ignore the eggheads. If the "suits" believed the eggheads actually understood the things they spent years learning and working on, Theranos would have collapsed years and billions of dollars sooner and Elizabeth Holmes wouldn't be going to prison.

[@steveherman9419]

I was directly affected by Theranos so this is interesting to me. My doctor suggested I use Theranos for a blood test because money was tight and my high deductible insurance meant I had to pay most of my health costs out of pocket. I got the test. It seemed impressive with the phone app they had. I was excited. Except the test was completely wrong and I had made health decisions based on the bogus test I received. I kind of wish I could sue Theranos and I suppose I could have tried, but mostly because I was angry that I was duped. I feel like if you get duped by a store selling you something that doesn't work it's different when you are purchasing something that is part of the public trust like health care.

[@richardaversa7128]

Your doctor was a damn fool. I spent one semester in pharmacy school and could easily see that Theranos' claimed technology was unrealistic compared to current technology. Having spent years in medical school and residency, your doctor should have known this immediately. Shame. I hope you don't don't still see him.

[@Jose-gc8rl]

Was there never a class action lawsuit against theranos?

[@roodiger]

@@richardaversa7128 I mean, she fooled bigger people than his local family doctor... Pretty easy to say all that in hindsight

[@steveherman9419]

​@@Jose-gc8rl if there was I was never contacted. I never went out looking for it. In general I pretty much forgot about Theranos until it pops up in the news an then I get annoyed again and move on. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but it seems like those class action lawsuits end up paying out very little to each person. I figure if I tried to sue I might be able to get the cost of the test back. I think it was less than $50. I'm not sure what sort of pain and suffering there is for giving someone inaccurate lipid panels that causes them to go out and try to make healthier choices. Probably not a lot of sympathy for the "victim" there.

[@SharkAcademy]

@@richardaversa7128 do you think doctors do complete deep research on the thousands of things they recommend? They just look whether there were tests showing that it works, there were, just fake

[@AHeroAlmost]

Someone can still be “likeable” and guilty … She really made a fool of the jurors involved …

[@azynkron]

Ted Bundy was extremely charming. He also wanted to have sex with your dead body, but that's a different story.

[@bobbyt2012]

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that the jury heard that her product was essentially as accurate as a coin flip and yet they still believed she was genuine based on her testimony. That is incredible. Imagine how effective she could have been if she wasn't a fraud.

[@jonathancampbell5231]

Basically, they thought she was delusional rather than purely trying to scam people for money, and that her lies and everything else were based on what she thought "could" work even if it didn't work right now. Probably helps that the jury a) probably knows very little about BioTechnology, and b) really, really want this sort of tech to exist as much as her investors did

[@Lady_Vengeance]

Because she’s a woman. It’s that simple. Were she a man they would have thrown the book at her. And I suspect they will do just that with her business partner in the upcoming prosecution.

[@Chuckakhan]

When you’re a conman or conwoman in this case you need to believe the lie

[@pitsticm]

"Imagine how effective she could have been if she wasn't a fraud." - Largely not possible. The traits that make you have those levels of sky-high confidence and charisma are the same ones that lend themselves to the dark traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. When you're knowledgeable but not convincing, that is more normal. She stands out because she's extreme, but it's very rare for someone with these problematic psychological traits to be a force for good. They're nearly always a force for themselves at best and for the destruction of others at worst.

[@alphanerd7221]

You people make it look like she got off. She's in prison.

[@danb3337]

So she changed her entire personality to manipulate investors, going so far as to change her mannerisms voice and looks. Then on the trial she suddenly transforms into this likeable person that all the jurors genuinely "believe in" Sorry but sounds like she just manipulated them as well. And they fell for it.

[@chillallthekildren]

"Judge not less ye also be judged" The Judge: I'M LITERALLY A JUDGE!!

[@petrograd4068]

Yeah.. she sounds like a skilled narcissist to me. A person who doesn't give a shit about what's real, just what she can sell.

[@thomasbecker9676]

@@petrograd4068 Elaine Musk, if you will.

[@medievalpeanut4269]

and then at trial tries everything and the kitchen sink to further manipulate the court my boyfriend/ceo "abused" me, that card is getting so old when women get in trouble to try and get out of the crime it takes away from real victims of abuse. if she can prove it, then bring the evidence, otherwise she's just full of shiat and trying to get out of being held accountable. odds on them having money tucked away in the caymans for when they get out of jail? lol doubt they will work int he regular workforce even after all this

[@dracoargentum9783]

Agreed

[@unahaller6719]

fun fact: my mom used to work for her dad in the government. he talked about his “successful” daughter A LOT and pushed the sort of hubris that got her into trouble. yikes!

[@SS-xr7jf]

Her getting off on defrauding the patients was absolute malarkey. They sold physicians on a product that, even if she genuinely believed would work eventually, she knew it did not work yet. And knew that the end user would be the patients.

[@Kraus-]

That part is a bit tricky since blood tests were actually provided, even though they were of low quality. So not like straight up fraud. Unless the advertisements included provably false claims.

[@donmiller2908]

So....why didn't the jury vote guilty on the charge of wire fraud against patients? Do you believe all 12 were uneducated perhaps, or deficient mentally? Not one amongst the 12 had the ability to apply reasoning and logic in their decision making process? Or maybe, just maybe, other evidence was presented that you weren't privy to, keeping you from knowing the whole story, that influenced their decision?

[@nationradical]

“Just maybe” isn’t good enough

[@ninavale.]

yeah! and mind you this is technology that was supposed to be used for serious illnesses. Like cancer for example. People make decisions based on their tests. If a health test is inaccurate people might not only be offered lesser treatment or inefficient one but might get over-treated if tests show them their situation is worse than they think. Or might even be treated for illness they don't have, because test is bogus. And this is not like getting a bit more of cough medicine. Treatments for stuff like cancer are serious and take toll on the body. People could/would die. She was putting people, knowingly too, putting people at risk. Like sure, every medicine and treatment and new thing has to be tested but it's done on tests groups and people who get into those tests groups, if the thing is genuine, are told their odds and that it's experimental. They know what they're signing up for. Here? Patients were sure it works.

[@danielkeys8974]

I think part of the problem was a lack of clarity in defining "material" statements. LegalE makes it sound like the definition covers any statement which could have changed a reasonable person's mind. This would cover the objective lies she told about other companies, and the military, endorsing her blood machine. Under that reading, it wouldn't matter if she believed in the machine itself - although I'm not sure why the jury believed her on this point - because she made other material lies for the ultimate purpose of getting money from patients. (The point of a conspiracy charge, in this non-lawyer's understanding, is to catch people who didn't do the crime in person.) However, I'm not sure if I'm reading the law correctly here, and it likely wasn't clear to the jurors.

[@Felix-nz7lq]

Theranos' disaster speaks less of the persuasiveness of Elizabeth Holmes, but more about the absurdity that is Wall Street Investing. Everything is about fancy marketing words, be it blood-testing, nfts or the metaverse. A group of ultra-wealthy individuals who are so stuck in their little bubble they fail to apply the most basic rigour to anything they do.

[@dr.floridamanphd]

“Does this sound like I can make money on it? Ok. Here’s a check.”

[@SatoshiAR]

Wall Street & Silicon Valley are basically big circlejerks for venture capitalists.

[@nitehawk86]

Her father was an executive at Enron, scamming runs in the family.

[@raitoiro]

If only it was only Wall Street investors... But it's not just them, so many people fall for obvious scams because they fail to do basic research.

[@platypuspracticus2]

@@raitoiro it isn't just them but the thing about them is that it's their job and why they carry such a high cost in terms of their compensation. If they're no better than an everyday person then maybe they shouldn't be compensated about the level of an everyday person.

[@emilmullerquintanar5055]

So the person who literally falsified information, used logos of organizations that were not part of her team to lend her credibility, tried to go around the FDA, etc etc etc, got a free pass on most of the charges because the jury "believed" she was genuine? Do they not feel stupid?

[@lukes9192]

Super frustrating that they said she believed in her products and vision and thought she was genuinely helping. Scientists absolutely do not think or work like that. Even if you believe in the dream, the dream cannot and does not materialize nor can be marketed until the data supports it, and to look past that in the name of a plausible long term vision is absolutely fraudulent from a scientific perspective if not a legal one.

[@Leto2ndAtreides]

It's more that from a business perspective, founders have to maintain optimism to get the runway to eventually succeed. Without that attitude, very little would get done. In this case, her style of doing things was generating funding for scientists to try and innovate. If she hadn't been in the healthcare space, her style of doing things might have succeeded. Steve Jobs also often made seemingly impossible demands of his team... But that ended up working out in key areas.

[@lukes9192]

@@Leto2ndAtreides sure. Youre allowed to make unrealistic demands on your team, to be optimistic, and to sell your vision. Thats not the problem. The problem is that you can only sell your vision as exactly that- a vision. You absolutely CANNOT put up a prototype that doesnt achieve everything your vision states and advertise it as such because you really really want it to. Theres no creative side step there, the research was definitive or your tech is not good enough yet. You CANNOT put out a product with false claims and say its in pursuit of investments and achieving a goal.

[@meepknight]

@@Leto2ndAtreides i will give you god... im a priest... please invest in me pls...

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

Oh yeah, the entire scientific and engineering world hates her for using that defense.

[@Grinnar]

Always enjoy these breakdowns, so us normal folk can understand.

[@rodgerrodger1839]

I like being considered normal. There's so few of us left. You deserve a big virtual hug from a fellow normal person, me.

[@louisp8561]

@@rodgerrodger1839 wat

[@rodgerrodger1839]

@@louisp8561 forget it. You never will.

[@agactual2]

Devon is great but I don’t know if he is better than random people on twitter screaming their uninformed opinions on these matters.

[@tomstonemale]

@@agactual2 those are some fine educated folk you talked on Twitter then if you think he's not better than them. Most people I see there just trash each other around for likes.

[@ak203]

I'm an experienced lawyer. I watch lawyers on KZbin. You are, hands down, the best. You do a remarkable job.

[@jeffreyval9665]

Just like most things. Your only successful if people like you and your good looking. You can be the best lawyer and know everything there is to know about the law but a good looking young lawyer right out of law school who knows nothing could easily charm the jury and all your knowledge means nothing.

[@markdavis8888]

Elizabeth Holmes is punished for making fools of rich investors but is acquitted for causing real harm to patients.

[@islesofshoals3551]

Yup. The jury got that wrong

[@carlosrivas1629]

@@islesofshoals3551 again just fork yourself, dingbats, total dingbats.

[@thomasholden500]

You can sell quackery to the riff raff, but don't dare pick a rich man's pocket.

[@NickolaySheitanov]

Seems legit. The fraud (“Justice”) system working as intended

[@wom_Bat]

Prosecutors dropped the ball.

[@Keyser___Soze]

This is whats so frustrating about having it all come down to 12 of your peers. Like how Juror 6 said “well she was so likable and had such a positive dream”. YOU ARE NOT THERE TO JUDGE IF SHES LIKABLE! IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU THINK SHE HAD A POSITIVE F*CKING DREAM! Its like 90% jurors never actually make a decision strictly on the evidence and if it was a crime, they all just make their decision on if they’re likable or not. The fact that juror even said that and doesn’t see anything wrong with that is mind blowing 🤯 Its scary knowing your life can be in the hands of 12 of your “peers” or the life of someone who hurt you or someone you love because Ill go back to one of my favorite George Carlin quotes... “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that”

[@godzilla928]

i see it the same way tbh. and im not even from united states so... watching this trials i always ask myself who and why ended up being a jury? what are the criteria? because seems like they just pick some random people from the streets or their homes here and there...

[@yooooo6296]

@@godzilla928 They literally pick people off the streets, we have mandatory jury duty, you have to take time off of work to do so or be charged your self

[@Celisar1]

Unfortunately George Carlin didn’t know or understand the difference between average and median. Joke is on him.

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

@@godzilla928 that is literally how jury duty works. They select a large pool of citizens at random, then they go through the voir dire, where they ask jurors any questions to see if they have a conflict of interest or any other bias. For example, a professor I had was selected for jury duty when he was younger, and during the voir dire he answered a question by going on for half an hour about how unreliable witness testimony can be, and since the lawyer in charge didn’t shut him up (his words, not mine), the judge had to declare the entire jury pool tainted, since they would now be biased against witness testimony. Unfortunately, the voir dire doesn’t exactly check for “are you a sucker for a rich white blonde girl with a dream?”

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

@@Celisar1 yeah, but “think of how stupid the median person is” doesn’t really have the same ring to it… 😂

[@MajorArlene]

having listened to The Dropout and reading through Bad Blood now, the twist that she decided to blame Sonny for everything that she did was an absolutely disgusting move. even if there was a case of battered wife syndrome to be had there, all of the issues with the blood test designs had been there since BEFORE Sonny ever became involved with the project. the fact she was acquitted on the case of defrauding patients (which was clearly the case as many had to go get retests) is insane to me, that is people's LIVES on the line, not just their dollars. she surrounded herself with yes-men and ignored or harassed anyone who disagreed with her (which was many people). if she actually cared about doing the right thing, she would have listened. she didn't and that is what makes this case so insanely frustrating.

[@Nixeu42]

The issue was what they tried to charge her with and their reasoning. Calling what she did to patients "wire fraud" was a massive mistake. "Honest services fraud" would have been more accurate, but for some reason the prosecution wanted to go for wire fraud. No clue why, but their legal reasoning was weak, IMO. Were I on that jury, I'd probably have found her innocent of that one too. Begrudgingly, mind. But I don't think what she to patients constitutes wire fraud, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. Fraud, absolutely. But not wire fraud.

[@interloper8029]

Maybe next time a 19 year old with 1 year of undergrad chemistry claims to have invented the 'most disruptive device in the history of medicine' which defies the laws of physics, people will ask more questions before investing...

[@KabeloMoiloa]

Don't think it violates the 'laws of physics' though lol. :p

[@KabeloMoiloa]

Source: I have a physics undergrad.

[@ZanathKariashi]

@@KabeloMoiloa it does. The only way the machine would ever be able to run properly was if the server admin of the universe turned off the physics for a little bit. (specifically to function properlyit would need to violate to several of the thermodynamic and electro-static laws to actually function the way she was claiming it could work). Too much generated heat in too tiny of space as well as the sheer number of things that needed testing made it impossible to ever get accurate readings (the edisons couldn't even accurately perform a single test and most of the tests couldn't work at all due to so much electrical interference) AND that's on top of the sample sizes being so diluted that even running them in dedicated 3rd party machines (the ones the theranos was supposed to be replacing) for each step had to run some tests multiple times just to try and verify the results were accurate because of just how bad the sampling was. And some of those were still wrong just because of samples simply not being good enough.

[@hotwelder21]

Ha! You optimistic person you. Wherever there are snake oil salesman, there will be customers.

[@rodneyjhackenflash4865]

No. And they'll vote again for a Democrat president.

[@k--music]

Wild that putting people's lives at risk by misdiagnosing them is less important to the law than ripping off millionaire investors

[@Thehouseoffail]

It's because of the wavers that were signed for those initial tests. They were technically still part of the medical trials, which is pretty bullet proof for lawsuits. So, like Al Capone, they got her on the charges they could rather than the charges that matter.

[@k--music]

@@Thehouseoffail oh fr did those cover all the drug store tests and self-ordered ones too?

[@Thehouseoffail]

@@k--music that one I'm less sure of. If the tests were recommended and administered by professionals then yes. But, I'm not sure if they were ever actually sold in stores without being behind the counter of the drug store.

[@ADekuKid]

Also it’s easier to prove financial fraud than it is to prove what someone did or did not know. They can create a paper trail proving that she mishandled investments and lied about preliminary tests working, but it’s much harder to prove that she knew the technology wasn’t viable. But All Night Cats’ point is most of the use for sure.

[@JohnSmith-eo5sp]

That's the jury's call

[@raja0011987]

My 12 year old daughter actually believes she is helping people when she play doctor. She BELIEVES that her actions are improving the lives of her parents but that doesn't mean I follow her advice and start taking medication for her made up diseases. This is the difference between miss Holmes and her beliefs, she endangered many lives and should be behind bars and banned from playing doctor ever again.

[@puddles5501]

huh? tell me you have very poor theory of mind without just saying it jfc.

[@cosmokramer7009]

Isn't 12 a little too old for that?

[@searchingfororion]

​@@cosmokramer7009What? No. Especially if there's a genuine interest. If you mean the childhood development stage where kids learn about bodies and *call* it "playing doctor" then yes, but clearly that's not what the parent is talking about. My 6th grade glass (probably the same Gen as LE) had several "field courses" specifically for STEM. Even though it was out-of-pocket over 2/3rds of the students signed up. One was "Pharmacology" and it was supposed to give 'a realistic experience for those wanting to be pharmacists' - this was conducted by licensed educators and also people who *did* work in the field - however what did this several hundred dollar "A Day in the Life practical course" consist of? *Sorting M&Ms by color.* That was it. These were 12 and 13 year olds. (Also it counted toward any talented and gifted credits if you were in the program because this was considered to have academic merit.) Also, with earlier promotion of STEM to kids - such as Bill Nye in the 90's - "playing" at feilds you're interested in is far more common as prep for early study. I've known *so many* "tweens" that have asked for stethoscopes, microscopes, telescopes, ect; even if the quality is extremely poor and barely works - it keeps them excited.

[@searchingfororion]

​@@cosmokramer7009TLDR; I'm sorry for whatever happened to you that made you think a literal child is too old for using their imagination for creative play while harming no one and bonding with a parent, but absolutely not. Things like this are actually great for mental development (with the caveats I mentioned) and it's good for the adults too. If a kid wants to check my pulse, I let them. In fact, I'll even teach them the position to do so properly (and it old enough how to count while using a timer) now "pretend" has become a skill. If they want to do it 20x a day it's fine if they behave and aren't disruptive.

[@cosmokramer7009]

@@searchingfororion Confusing play with reality is typical of young children, not preteens. You are clearly not a parent yet.

[@AMoniqueOcampo]

What I don't get is why Elizabeth Holmes was able to get away with all this fraud even tho she didn't have a functioning prototype that carried out what she wanted. Shouldn't investors want "proof of concept" or something like that?

[@rahbeeuh]

She's a white woman in America from an affluent family

[@oceanmariep256]

I think that’s just how cons work. Either you think to ask important questions first and you’re not persuaded, or you get caught up in the excitement and you let your emotions dictate choices.

[@Sinaeb]

You should ask that question to elon musk fans

[@CrimsonBlasphemy]

"Smart people" (venture capitalist) are the easiest to fool, because they often think they cant be fooled. Especially when the one doing the fooling is one of their own.

[@Christopher_TG]

According to John Carreyrou, the Wall Street Journal investigative reporter who broke the story that destroyed the company, Elizabeth Holmes very carefully avoided any investors that had substantial knowledge about biochemistry, medicine, and biology. Instead, she pursued investors that were famous and big names but were completely new to the biomedical space.

[@MagnusSkiptonLLC]

The jurors found her likeable...and _that's_ how these people continue to con people *a lot longer* than they should. Sad to see the jurors fall head long into it. Makes me question the validity of having regular people decide people's fate and punishment.

[@noircygne4905]

Yeah. The judge or a bench of judges should make the decisions.

[@JasonJia11]

Nothing about her is likable. Stupid jurors

[@SoulDevoured]

there's a reason we have the jury of your peers trail but if the average person is stupid and corrupt then a judge can be too. The jury just spreads out the chances of conflicts of interest. I really think our education system should be retuned to make us better citizens. Better at understanding each other and those around us and the systems we are involved in.

[@joanabarros7458]

@@SoulDevoured I somewhat agree with you. I also think our educational system needs to be re-tuned to make us better citizens and that the average person is stupid. But in this case, I think it just proves how good Elizabeth Holmes is at deceiving people. Theranos board once lost faith in her and wanted to remove her. But in a single meeting, she convinced them not only to let her stay but give her more control over the company. She was already being prosecuted when she met her now-husband. He is the heir to a billion-dollar hotel chain who went to MIT and she still convinced him she was a good person. She fooled a lot of people. She is very good at manipulating people.

[@Neenerella333]

@@SoulDevoured People who can afford the money and time off to serve on juries are not my peers. I have been called to jury(edited for typo) duty several times. You see who they are, what their biases are, blind spots etc. Elderly people with a junior high education. Stay at home moms who watch too much Dr Oz. People who went straight from their parent's home to the military and immediately believe everything the cops say. Evidence is over their heads. My dad was a CSI for 30 years. I don't pretend to know everything he did, but the average juror knows less. Holmes convinced her jury, the same way she convinced shareholders. She's non threatening and semi pretty.

[@aprylvanryn5898]

Fun fact, that's Holmes's stage voice. She intentionally tried to sound more masculine so her investors would trust her more.

[@SherryMarion]

Professor Phyllis Gardener knew Holmes when she was a student at Stanford and says she had a typical young woman's voice at the time. She met her later and was taken aback at the new low one.

[@stephaniehorne6692]

Her talking style, all the pauses, would have annoyed me enough to vote no.

[@lolilollolilol7773]

Her very intense gaze was also something that really intrigued people and gave her a very unique personality which attracted people. Some thought that was the gaze of a visionary. At least that's what she wanted. Some others might call her gaze creepy, even psychiatric. Because she sure is a narcissistic sociopath, like Martin Shkreli. She certainly does know instinctively how to manipulate people.

[@VelkanAngels]

@@Flavia1989 - I agree with the sexist part. Her being a woman was the only reason all of the red flags were ignored and everyone were willing to throw money at her, with absolutely nothing to indicate she knew what she was talking about and no verification of anything she said or claimed to do being true. A society desperate - not for a strong, competent scientist - but for a strong, competent FEMALE scientist... One of her primary early investors even said so himself...

[@lpr5269]

Fun Fact: Elizabeth Holmes, Real voice of Darth Vader. 😂😂

[@Cookie_Monster369]

I think the one that got screwed over the most is the consumer, who should get compensated heavy. Alot of people that get blood tests go there to detect a health issue, sometimes very serious. Think about a person taking the Theranos blood test and showing inaccurate results, but then taking an actually viable blood vial test later and then that test accurately detects cancer. The time delay could be detrimental to how effective treatment can be, it's easiest to kill cancer at the earliest point than later.

[@Finn-xw4vn]

If consumers were harmed by the incorrect blood test or inaccurate results, they could sue the company for private damages. This is a criminal case where Holmes is being tried on behalf of the government. The case determines whether Holmes personally committed a crime, and in which cases. She isn't paying money for damages, as that would be a civil case. This merely decides what the severity of her crimes against the state as a whole are (she wouldn't be paying money to consumers if she was charged with fraud to consumers in this case).

[@lazyperfectionist3978]

funny you mention the inaccurate results, they frequently diluted their blood samples and almost got a few patients killed because of their inaccuracy. I recall one case where the test failed to detect substances in the blood you'd get from heart issues, and I believe they got a heart attack not long after the inaccurate results, and another case where the patient was repeatedly informed they were at high risk of diabetes even after numerous life changes and then found out after all that they were actually fine and weren't in danger of diabetes

[@Ghkugbdghbmkgvbnh]

And yet, the severity of her sentence is based on how much money she took from wealthy investors.

[@jennyanydots2389]

Consumers aren't people, they are ATM machines. (ass to mouth)

[@gregoryholland6126]

@@Finn-xw4vn But the SEC found her to have been defrauding Walgreens, so how was she not also defrauding those patients. Who did she think the tests were being run for, the shelves and walls?

[@Ghkugbdghbmkgvbnh]

There's something weird about the fact that she was essentially acquitted on the other charges because the jurors felt she genuinely believes she's doing the right thing, and the fact that she may receive a lower sentence based on the fact that she's young and has the capacity to change. It's not explicitly a contradiction, but it's weird that the assumptions that "she still believes in this thing" and that "she'll never do it again" are somehow both working in her favor.

[@stischer47]

In other words, as long as you "think" you are doing the right thing, then it's OK. Why did we have the Nuremberg Trials?

[@bow_wow_wow]

@@stischer47 Right? This whole thing is sickening and mind-blowing.

[@greg5775]

Don't forget she played the "abuse" card from her partner in crime.

[@imacds]

It's alright to defraud patients' test results. Only when you threaten investor profits are there any consequences in our society. :

[@elisabethheiman2104]

@@greg5775 Yeah, I don’t exactly understand that part either. While those accusations shouldn’t be taken lightly and investigated, her being a victim of alleged abuse doesn’t mean that she should be allowed to get off scot-free on the charges.

[@skellys1948]

Thanks for the video. A couple of things you didn't mention: Holmes got rid of the CFO for Theranos, when he started asking the wrong questions; there was no CFO, for years, afterwards; and part of Holmes's schtick was to lower her voice from the natural alto to a more business-like baritone. She and Suze Orman should get together to form a podcast team on KZbin; whomever happens to be in jail, at that time, can join the one on probation. Who wouldn't tune in for their excellent advice?

[@gFamWeb]

It honestly shows you where we are in America that she got off the hook for alleged harm done to customers, but got convicted of harming investors. EDIT: My point is that the system is designed in such a way that it's much easier for those with more capital to get justice. Not only because they more capital, but because the legal theories and case law that tend to be applied all favor those with more capital. She was acquitted of defrauding customers. possibly due to the disconnection between her actions and the customers. But that's only because, in our current economic system, for a scam this size, the person behind it all will almost always be closer to the investors (those with more capital), than the customers (those with less capital). While the theory of proximate cause may seem fair on the surface, it fundamentally excuses large contributors to harm as they will often be far enough removed from the effects of their actions. TL;DR: those with the power to cause the most harm often are part of an apparatus that will shield them from liability by moving them far enough away from the effects of their actions. thus, it's more difficult to hold those in power accountable, which means it's not really a fair system.

[@btat16]

She would have gotten off if she had marketed it to investors the same way homeopathy and supplements are too

[@GeneralBolas]

The poor stealing from the poor is a crime. The poor stealing from the rich is a crime. The rich stealing from the rich is a crime. It's only not a crime when the rich steal from the poor. That is part and parcel of the system we've built for ourselves.

[@AmyDentata]

It's corruption all the way down, and all the way up.

[@micahkafka8416]

@@GeneralBolas The rich stealing from the poor is just called Capitalism

[@RichardServello]

Investors are literally all that matters. Even if someone died due to a bad diagnosis.

[@aL3891_]

Seems like she got of real easy to me :/ A juror saying the find someone difficult to convict because the accused is "likable" is also a bit concerning...

[@joshuaa7266]

Yeah, it's basically an admission that they are at risk of not being able to handle the case without bias.

[@grkvlt]

what? that's _exactly_ what you want in a juror, someone self aware enough of their biases to be able to say they found the decision difficult, but who _made_ that difficult decision anyway!

[@aerotheepic]

@@grkvlt they didn’t make the decisions very well tho..

[@joshuaa7266]

@@grkvlt Anybody can make a decision. They literally had to make a choice. The problem is that their bias may have led to them voting to let someone get away with a crime for free.

[@meepknight]

@@grkvlt yea a juror should be self aware of their bias but also must neglect and seperate their bias to these situations....

[@dominicshayler5323]

One of the main whistleblowers, Tyler Schultz, did a great short telling of his side on audible, called Thicker than Water. It's scary how Elizabeth managed to get entwined in his family

[@l3ete1geuse]

The saddest thing about this is that if Holmes had defrauded consumers and not investors, very little would have been done to her. The only reason she will see the bars of a prison cell is because the rich lost money.

[@neeneko]

Even there, if she had kept things going past a certain momentum, they would have been fine. The medical field is filled with half baked junk products that do not actually work but still turn a hefty profit once they have a certain critical mass. Investors only start caring when the fraud collapses too early.

[@tatiana4050]

@@neeneko source: all the mlms

[@albirtarsha5370]

Exactly! She is a dangerous psychopath that shouldn't be running any business.

[@neeneko]

@@tatiana4050 yep, mlms are a good example. homeopathic stuff is another. some of the big funders of this company already had their hands in other junk medicine.

[@TheLaurenKat]

@@neeneko Testing falls into a different category than supplements though. Supplements are essentially unregulated while diagnostic tests are very tightly regulated. What if a rich person fried their junk with an STI they were told they didn't have? Big uh-oh.

[@slowloris2894]

Dudes will give millions to a biotech company with no product and then vote against medicare for all lmao. I cant say my heart bleeds for these poor investors. However the people receiving false results is ABSOLUTLEY a crime.

[@sptony2718]

That machine was still able to reliably detect herpes, though.

[@alirodina]

This though. I don't understand why there's need to gamble on the promise of a revolutionised blood testing when fixing the system we already have will have a more reliable result

[@ajguevara6961]

@@alirodina it's because they won't get any revenue for fixing the system. It's a prime example of capitalist greed

[@heavysystemsinc.]

Oddly it's crazy that she can get off the hook for that by essentially acting crazy. It's some kind of strange insanity plea variation. I don't care if someone stabbing a person believes wholeheartedly they're saving the world from a future Hitler or something, the act is still horrific.

[@SoulDevoured]

@@alirodina because that doesn't have the potential to give them a direct 1000% return on investment. If less people suffered from preventable conditions that would benefit them indirectly (better workers, more robust economy) but then they might have to actually work and can't point to a graph to show what a great job they did.

[@noble_experiment]

“In the disease progression process…” it still fathoms me how no one ever called BS on how unclear and vague her ideas/goals were. Even in that Time profile they did on her, I remember the writer describing her explanation “vague” or something like that.

[@reneeseance5367]

I wonder if she would have been acquitted on a lot of these charges if she wasn't a pretty, young, white woman. The halo effect is reeeally strong with this one, and a jury is plenty susceptible enough to believe that she "really believed in her dream," and want to believe the best intentions from her as a result.

[@boromirtheblasted883]

iT hAS nOtHiNg tO dO wItH hEr BeInG wHiTe, ThATs RaCiSt. But notice how rarely anyone will say that the "because she's a woman" bit is sexist. It goes to show you the demographic of people who pretend that the color of your skin has no effect on anything and the entire world is puppies and rainbows equally for all people.

[@wh4070]

This is blatant fraud from top to bottom but the jury didn't look at just facts. Ridiculous is the state of this justice system.

[@automatic5]

@@wh4070 they prolly found jurors who they knew wld be sympathetic to a white woman, most people in the us are anyway since white women like to pretend they r always victims

[@ZillaDaGoat]

I was thinking the same! Being young and white really helped her

[@foxymetroid]

It extends past juries. Compare the attention cases involving missing white (and attractive) women receive versus cases involving missing men and/or minorities.

[@WhaleManMan]

Fun Fact: Holmes's father was one of the top executives at Enron. Yes really.

[@stischer47]

Yep. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

[@bow_wow_wow]

Oh, wow, well, there you go.

[@RandyHawkeye]

Jeff Goldblum is saying "there it is" in my mind's eye right now.

[@VerdeMorte]

@@RandyHawkeye "Greed finds a way..."

[@oldschoolman1444]

Her fake deep voice is just creepy!

[@krumplethemal8831]

I think the real danger was giving patients inaccurate results. This flys in the face of her initial premise of helping people get accurate, cheap and speedy results. She could be liable for class action lawsuit by those patients who recieved inaccurate results since she was found guilty of frauding the patients..

[@BonJoviBeatlesLedZep]

Ever since I was diagnosed with cancer, I am even more mad at how much money she wasted that could've been put into legitimate medical research and development.

[@pablodelsegundo9502]

The amount of fraud and waste in the US medical industry at large beggars belief.

[@ade8890]

Well, whether the money is wasted on medical research, or money is wasted on military expenditure, what's the difference? Fraudsters will pick any field to make a quick hustle. And even if investors didn't invest in fraudulent blood testing, that doesn't mean they would've invested that same amount into cancer research. They only invested in blood testing because they thought they were getting in early on a billion dollar business.

[@yearswriter]

To be fair, this is not that big of amount of money, when it comes to medical corporations R&D. It is only a lot of moneyin terms of a summ that could be spent on someone personal health issues. It is still annoying that there isn't same amount of money just being put in the charities from the same investors =\

[@renim2974]

It would have never been put into medical research and development anyways.

[@ade8890]

​@@renim2974 If theranos was a legitimate startup, then it for a fact would have been put into research and development (not all, obviously). Their entire business was advertising a massive innovation for blood testing hardware that doesn't yet exist. So the entire point of needing investors is so you can kick off that development, and provide the product that was the entire purpose of the business. The only way to develop innovations is to work at a loss until the technology is up to speed, in which case you price appropriately to make back the losses absorbed, plus costs of material, plus some profit margin.

[@stephspoilsstuff]

My husband is a pathologist at our local hospital, and he just finds the whole Theranos thing laughable. Blood tests and the machines that run them are such sensitive things, you physically cannot do them with less blood than is required as it will mess with the results. It is so wild to me that NO ONE thought to look into this even a little bit. She may have had positive goals, but by refusing to admit the machine wasn't working, people were misled and potentially hurt, that negates that.

[@SnarkyStuff1]

I agree! Can't believe it took so long for someone to detect this. She took major efforts to threaten, control & manipulate everyone around her. She needs to be in a mental institution.

[@kimrobinson3332]

As a clinical laboratory scientist, I encountered her fraud in a high level project early in her career. When I exposed it, I was silenced. I elevated my narrative. Later, I worked for a laboratory company where her staff fled to escape her secrecy requirements. Justice is finally served!!!! Unfortunately, she got away with fraud to patients. Shameful!

[@Mindcreat0r]

I love how you can get away with crimes if the jury likes you

[@dr.floridamanphd]

You can also be found guilty of the jury doesn’t like you even if the evidence is circumstantial at best.

[@zxbc1]

Still beats any other system of court that puts the burden of verdict on even fewer and even less independent individuals. Humans are flawed and no system built upon humans will be perfect.

[@Jesse__H]

@@zxbc1 True. But we can and should have the conversation about how it could be better.

[@animalia5554]

@@Jesse__H any ideas on how to make it better then?

[@Zora3y]

@@zxbc1 imagine being judged by non expert mass in high tech case

[@MrShanester117]

It says a lot about our society that a person was able to pull all this off simply because she acted a certain way. We live in a society that values who you are, 1000 times more than what you are able to produce

[@Resavian]

Unless you are a worker in which case they value neither properly

[@bzuidgeest]

Humans are animals and like all animals plumage counts. Every animal finding a mate has a way to buff himself up. She did the same with money.

[@ameliecarre4783]

No, we live in a society that values who you appear to be and what profit you claim to bring those who back you, rather than who you truly are based on your actual actions, and what good you produce that isn't valued in dollars.

[@q.e.d.9112]

@MrShanester “…that values who you are…”. Seriously? Then Holmes should have been valued as the tacky, little chancer that she is.

[@gilbertoflores7397]

It wasn't about how she acted, that's hindsight, and what's now associated with in retrospect. She was so huge because everyone wanted her to be the next Steve Jobs, they wanted to champion a women as a self made billionaire who was also smart; and with a science based company. She checked all the boxes of who the media wanted to back and support; she was on the cover of tons of magazines and new outlets for this reason more than her personality.

[@asdf7219]

Vetting process for jurors should really be more involved, especially for those high level cases.

[@SherryMarion]

Today's Thursday. New episode tonight!

[@elizabethb1820]

I worked at LabCorp in their testing facility in San Diego and it was horrific. The workers were so overworked that lots of mistakes with the lab tests. We worked 12 to 14 hours overnight, had very poor training, and were required to work at an incredibly fast pace and we had to throw vials of blood into bins when sorting them and there were plenty of times when the vials broke. Being forced to work at such a fast pace, I don't think test results at LabCorp could be trusted. It makes me sad that there is a real need to improve clinical testing and yet so much money was thrown away on this.

[@MissesSaschaMSP]

so glad I work as a lab tech in germany we have a 3 year long training with exams and finals, we are also severly understaffed tho

[@badbirb5698]

I'm always surprised there are fines in these situations, as opposed to bankruptcy-level seizure of assets. Feels like there should be some laws to prevent profiting from illegal activity...

[@KelseyLovato]

I work in quality control/ quality assurance and sadly it’s nothing new that our warnings get ignored for the sake of profit… and when something goes wrong we get blamed … I still love my job

[@jmitterii2]

QC here too... and yes and yes.

[@ericwright8592]

As a scientist that completed undergrad, spent time in the pharmaceutical industry and completed a PhD in cell biology, I always felt Theranos claims were suspicious from the beginning. It's not like it was even close to ready, it wouldn't matter if they had 6 more months or 6 more decades. Given the miniscule sample volume it's simply impossible to do what they claimed. Genuinely defies physics and chemistry. You could totally do 1 or 2, maybe up to 10 assays from 500ul of blood. But dozens? Hundreds? Laughable. If you know anything at all about automated liquid handling systems, chemical and immuno assays, and available detection methodologies for these, all of the different reagents required to make the tests work, etc, you'd realize how ridiculous it was. There is physically not enough molecules present to be detected with accuracy and specificity. That's before any loses due to liquid handling, removing red blood cells, etc. When companies like Walgreens signed on, were there any actual scientists in the room?

[@MrDaAsif]

I was just a computer science major who has taken a biology class, it seems like so many of those biological tests you add chemicals, i.e. of a destructive nature, seemed odd

[@namoma4922]

were there any actual scientists in the room? Maybe, Probably not As a non expert i think it's easy to be convinced "maybe science just advanced" Or rather it's easy if you are one with carisma and mastery of communication,which she seems to have. The decision makers were most likely not biologist/chemist and these meetings most likely aren't structured like a scientific analysis. It's not a problem in itself they probably should have asked experts to ask the good questions. But that's hindsight 20/20

[@zonderafspraak]

I was a med tech working in a hospital lab during this time, doing the very tests they claimed they could do. I, like you, was very suspect of their claims, I could not see a physical way that they could do those tests on that volume with any sort of accuracy, the statistics just don't work out. Additionally, there is a very big difference between the quality of a sample from a fingerstick and one from a peripheral draw. There are many tests that simply cannot be run against a fingerstick sample, no matter the volume, because of "tissue juice" contamination.

[@jintsuubest9331]

Bold of you to assume there are technical individuals present when rich asses cracking open their thousands dollar champagne and talking about how they would make shit tons of money from this.

[@ameritus9041]

You should watch the short film, "the expert" (I think that's what it is called I could be remembering wrong). I work in a technical field and the amount of control that bs marketing speak idiots get to have over technical decisions they have no knowledge of (specifically in a corporate environment) is frankly staggering.

[@Dargubus93]

It's sad, that she basicly only gets chared for taking money, not for damaging people...

[@alphanerd7221]

She didn't damage any people.

[@Dargubus93]

@@alphanerd7221 If you have thousands of people trusting in her test results for their medial treatment geting wrong results,than that results in people not geting treated right,so geting damaged or die.

[@sithlordbilly4206]

4 out of 11 Charges. One word I have to say: "Injustice! 🙄"

[@JedLath292]

"well I lied to everyone to get my product sold which would have made me a large fortune, I knew it didn't work and that it not working could seriously harm people... ...but I only wanted to help, honest!" "Well how can we convict such a nice person?"

[@DotBC703]

I’m a lab tech in a hospital and this whole situation was horrifying and deeply disappointing

[@gravisan]

Can you elaborate? Was it because it was too far fetched? Or the hope that it could have worked?

[@forickgrimaldus8301]

@@gravisan Its too far fetched as Chemical and biological tests need different methods that can't be applied to just one Machine. Not to mention anyone with a basic knowledge of Medical/Laboratory Technology would know its fake.

[@carlosrivas1629]

Really? Do you think Elizabeth will ever be trusted again?

[@zarabee2880]

It was when they started fudging the STIs results 😒

[@kettle_of_chris]

Look on the brightside: She made black suit pants / pantsuits look good. Maybe more women will wear them now? Just an opinion but skirts aren't as sexy.

[@RoboSparkle]

Jurors: The defendant definitely conned those investors, and lied to them continuously. Also Jurors: The defendant seems so likable and genuine, I believe the things this known liar is saying to us. Definitely didn't defraud consumers because she said she thought she was helping them.

[@Nixeu42]

Me, were I on the jury: *slams head into desk repeatedly because the prosecution picked the wrong form of fraud to try her with* Seriously, I couldn't have found her guilty of wire fraud on patients. Fraud, yes. But honest services fraud, while far less common and well known than wire fraud, was closer to what she actually committed. Not wire fraud. Pisses me off to no end, but I couldn't have found her guilty of those counts. The shoe doesn't fit.

[@MSWSB]

And there you have the Democrat voting base described perfectly. The madness will never stop

[@mattb9343]

14:29 The procecution needed to show intent to defraud patients?? She ordered her lab to dilute blood samples. Yes, her bogus claims of only neededing a "nano-tainer" of blood bit her in the behind. With such small samples the myriad tests she claimed were possible that used reagent chemistry that fundamentally destroyed the sample left her labs inoperable. She needed to dilute it or tell the truth of needing larger samples. What did her labs dilute it with? Who knows? Tap water, saline, alcohol your guess is as good as any. Any LVN or RN who has drawn blood for lab work will know how egregious this action is. Lab samples must be as pure as possible and sterile or the whole test is false and must be trashed. Seeing as these diagnosis are critical to life preserving medical choices and the need to dilute was one born of holmes' false claims and dedication to maintaining a facade of only needing a low sample size, how could any court with a modicum of medical knowledge not see this as deliberate, malicious, intent to commit fraud?

[@BigHenFor]

Criminal charges stand on two legs: 1. Actus Reus=Guilty Act (criminal act) and 2. Mens Rea=guilty mind= criminal intent. If the prosecution fail to convince the jury of both legs, the person cannot be found guilty of the crime. Moreover, the bar is set even higher in criminal law by the burden proof. The jury must be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant had done the act and intended to do it. If there is any doubt on either leg based on the evidence then they must not convict. The prosecution failed to remove any reasonable doubt on defrauding consumers. That was down to their strategy in how they provided evidence to the jury. But she's still going to jail for a long time, and her child will not have her mother to raise her or provide for her care. So, we are where we are.

[@BigHenFor]

Medical knowledge is not a given in a jury of one's peers. It is upto the prosecution to provide the evidence in a way that the jury understands. To you it's obvious, but to someone off the street it isn't.

[@slofty]

@@BigHenFor Exactly. The education in many English-speaking countries is... troubling, to say the least. People think that "guilty"="did it" when that isn't what it means at all in most cases.

[@barrythompson7336]

Her interview on TedTalk is the first time I every heard her voice. Not what I was expecting.

[@mimijester]

from what i’ve heard, that voice was faked too.

[@accountnotfound4209]

I think Ted talk is fraud too

[@Annie1962]

@@mimijester yes you're correct - her natural voice is higher pitched. She was told that a deeper voice had more credibility

[@neeneko]

@@Annie1962 yeah, the VC space is historically pretty hostile to women, so there are a bunch of 'so, how can a woman seem more credible to a bunch of guys who think only men make good CEOs?', with lowering your voice being a common suggestion.

[@stoppit9]

I find it hilarious. Also it reminds me that wealthy people aren't any smarter than anyone else

[@CallioNyx]

I don't know much about Theranos. But.. 'fast, reliable, cheap' usually is followed by 'pick two'. If someone claims all three, they're in marketing, not production.

[@qjames0077]

She lied to patients and doctors, put on a facade that extended to the very way she spoke, so she should have been convicted

[@glenngriffon8032]

Also, not a crime, but she artificially deepened her voice to supposedly sound more masculine and thus more credible. Again, that's not a crime but it is kind of silly and shady.

[@Juniper122]

It’s insane how many people she fooled!

[@blue04mx53]

@@Juniper122 Imagine Bill Clinton getting fooled by a young woman!

[@this_is_patrick]

@@Juniper122 Tons of people have pointed out that her secrecy is suspicious and her claims (about being able to run over 200 types of blood tests on a single drop of blood and still gather accurate results) are unsubstantiated. The only people she fooled are wealthy people that are greedy enough to forego their consultants' advices.

[@qjames0077]

@@glenngriffon8032 she willfully lied about her company's service to other companies and her clients, as well as investors, so yeah that's a crime

[@MajorFuzzelz]

I truly hope I am wrong on this but this whole scenario seemed like Pretty girl privilege/underdog story about not needing academia… she never even made a proof of concept and published the results in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal. She didn’t demonstrate reliability, validity, efficacy and never even made it to an effectiveness trial.

[@Lady_Crispr]

That's the story I heard. So, you're not alone there in the least. Also the investors she picked leave me highly suspect for her motives as well.

[@alam4359]

she's the ultimate "girl boss" absolutely vile

[@scorpioigor]

@@alam4359 No, she’s not a “girl boss”, she’s just a narcissist who’s hungry for power and fame. These lame attempts to attack feminism at every little opportunity are pathetic.

[@aslilyum]

@@scorpioigor I think they meant the "MLM's Girl boss" kind of Girl Boss

[@Theproclaimed]

@@scorpioigor today’s feminism deserves to be attacked though

[@cshairydude]

It's interesting to hear your talk about the jury's rating of witnesses and so forth. In England, jurors aren't allowed to talk about their deliberations outside of the deliberation itself. All they are allowed to say is "guilty" or "not guilty" and how many jurors agreed with the majority. This ban is so comprehensive that even differences in sentence based on points of fact have to be determined solely by the judge, even though it's the jury who is theoretically the finder of fact.

[@benjaminprietop]

Oh, there's definitely gonna be a movie made about this. Also, I can GUARANTEE that someone out there is claiming that "big pharma corporations" are trying to discredit Holmes to not lose money 🙄

[@wahoo4uva]

Hulu recently released their original TV series about her. It’s called Dropout.

[@carlosrivas1629]

@@wahoo4uva He said movie, there is no way hollyweird is letting this go so easily.

[@maloo538]

Isn’t there already one in the works?

[@surfcaster]

A movie would not be that good. This story has so much going on that you would have to skip a lot of things just to make it fit in a 3 hr+ movie.

[@CyanicCore]

@@surfcaster It doesn't matter if it's good. It matters if they can snag more than they paid for it.

[@Virusnzz]

Thanks for the great overview. It's always interesting to see how different kinds of crimes lead to drastically different sentences. I realise it's not the same, but I bet if you added up the sentences of people convicted of burglary up until the net amount stolen by them was the same as the amount Holmes defrauded from her investors, it would be in the hundreds of times longer. You can argue that they are materially different crimes, but the lesson remains. If you want to steal millions of dollars and minimise your sentence if you get caught, this is the way to do it!

[@davidradtke160]

White color crime pays better with lower risk, it’s pretty well established sadly. People are not afraid of getting killed or raped from white color crime, they can imagine it with burglary.

[@visioneer79]

It always amazes me how all those veteran investors didn't think to consult an independent scientist if this was possible.

[@dahken417]

A good con artist can probably play on investor greed for quite awhile. "If you call them to check this, then these other people will find out. You don't want to give away the advantage of being in on the ground floor, do you? They could have a lot to offer us..."

[@Foolish188]

Why didn't anyone notice that she had no one on the board who knew anything about Science, Pharmaceuticals or technology? Kind of a red flag.

[@dickcastle]

this is a medidical company....lets put some war criminals on the board, I bet that'll help

[@andomitor8]

Remember. If a company defrauds the rich it is so much of an issue a movie gets made. If a company defrauds the general public it's let go with a slap on the wrist or with no punishments at all.

[@MushookieMan]

The rich fund the movies. Makes sense.

[@cmdraftbrn]

and a movie still gets made

[@alphanerd7221]

Yeah, Enron, slap on the wrist. Your talking point don't match reality.

[@somebodyintheworld5036]

To be fair, its not hard to defraud the general public. The general public is pretty ignorant in most subjects, especially high-tech and biotech, and its easy to make them believe anything. But when a wealthy, supposedly intelligent and discerning investor gets defrauded, thats a lot more interesting to hear about.

[@lostvarius]

@@somebodyintheworld5036 Yeah, like any of those old rich white dudes is « intelligent »

[@rosepeterson1191]

If you have time, would you do a video breakdown of the legal situations and laws broken in The Incredibles? I think that would be a lot of fun!

[@MRVISTA-wz7vj]

It seemed to me the evidence against her was overwhelming, and she still got basically a slap on the wrist. Why does it take 8 months to sentence her?

[@TheNodrokov]

Over a decade in prison is hardly a "slap on the wrist". Do you want them to put her up against a wall?

[@MRVISTA-wz7vj]

@@TheNodrokov we'll see. Last I heard she's not sentenced until September. IDK. Even w that she'll probably get out early. I bet she only does 2 to 3 years inside regardless of the sentence. We'll see.

[@nicholase2868]

@@TheNodrokov she gets to keep a massive amount of money and she'll probably be out of jail in 5 years with our system. She knowingly put people's lives in danger and stole millions of dollars. People who robbed a convenience store have gotten more time.

[@tatiana4050]

@@nicholase2868 and taking money under the guise of healthcare is like robbery with deadly weapon (like a revolver with half bullets being blanks)

[@julianshepherd2038]

@@TheNodrokov no but if she's ill they should wheel in her bread maker and let her get tested. People died because of he greedy lies. F her

[@itslash8493]

*so crazy to think so many people took her for her word and didn’t double check. Great breakdown as always*

[@Movies123Online]

Theranos specifically targeted wealthy well known people without a medical or health background. That’s why you saw so many political figures on her board. Even when some of the investors did their homework, they didn’t really understand it and took Elizabeth’s word. They probably thought they were a good enough judge of character that they couldn’t be duped. Those investors gave enough “legitimacy” to the company that other people invested.

[@RandPaul-se6jz]

Can't believe women. The investors deserve what they got if they became grown men and didn't ever figure this out.

[@cleoraasaran9957]

That’s cause not believing in women is sexist.

[@christianc.christian5025]

@@RandPaul-se6jz You’re just mad about still being a virgin, man.

[@RandPaul-se6jz]

@@christianc.christian5025 yep. That's it. You got it all figured out. Because Gen Z knows everything while living in their momma's house with $100,000 debt for taking art courses.

[@francisnopantses1108]

Thank you for a really informative video that broke down why the case went the way it did and what exactly the fraud was about! The media was so useless, spending lots of time on superficial stuff or Holmes' claims (distractions) in her defense, or engaging in meta commentary as if we were already experts on the details of what her company was up to.

[@XShrike0]

The jury finding it hard to convict her because she was so likable is why I welcome our robot overlords.

[@ThrashmIO]

That's the problem right there, feeling like they were "looking into the eyes of Steve Jobs" which should have been followed up by "who's idea is she stealing and rebranding as something they came up with?"

[@borjonx]

I love your transitions to sponsors at the end of your videos. Thanks for the legal analysis!

[@MrUppertorso]

I totally think Walgreens and other independent doctors should have done their due diligence before bringing Theranos tech into their pharmacies or offices. I can see why the jury didn't think Holmes had direct responsibility for misleading patients, and would have made the same choice. I don't know if doctors or Walgreens could be responsible depending on how well they were misled... but a reporter seemed to be the first person to even take a closer look.

[@Iansco1]

Walgreens? The company eho gets caught in wage theft and ignores state ID check laws because their pharmacy would grind to a halt with only 1 guy there.

[@neeneko]

Walgreens sells homeopathic remedies. Their due diligence is 'will people pay for this?' not 'is it a scam?' since long running scams are a part of their business.

[@drflannelxd904]

@@neeneko long running scams *are* the history of American medicine. American reporters being the first ones to take a closer look is also something with great precedent in our history!

[@UncleKennysPlace]

So many bigshots had endorsed Theranos that many didn't look to see if the emperor was naked or not. He was very naked, it turns out. And that voice is sooooo fake.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@Iansco1 That's more of an indictment of the US populous.

[@bobcollins8019]

No “hey legal eagles it’s time to think like a lab tech!” My lab tech heart is broken :) Thank you for the thorough and fantastic breakdown of this case!

[@gaddyric]

I love how, according to what I heard in this video, the prosecutors put way more effort into proving the charges about defrauding the investors instead of the patients. Gee I wonder if it had anything to do with a bunch of very pissed off rich people getting priority over everyone else?

[@Nixeu42]

They picked the wrong charge. What she did to patients was clearly honest services fraud (which is a thing). Wire fraud's a stretch. Pretty self-evident she did that to investors, but not so much to patients. I don't know if that's just prosecutors not knowing the various flavors of fraud well enough, or if that would involve a different trial, or what. But it was the wrong choice of crime.

[@silvermane5695]

The only reason she got tried and convicted was because she defrauded the rich investors and not the patients; otherwise she would have walked away free and continue her fraud.

[@benjii_the_flash3941]

This is deep

[@gilded_lady]

I used to work at Quest and Esoterix (now lab corp). I knew Theranos was a joke, and I'm so glad it finally came crashing down. I still wonder if this would have worked had she not been a beautiful young woman.

[@Sinaeb]

Elon Musk.

[@yourinnerlawyer4035]

That word is open to interpretation. 😂

[@KP-wp3fg]

She is not beautiful. She is a creep

[@cl8804]

Beautiful? She literally has two bad eyes. Yikes!

[@matthewodonnell6906]

@@Sinaeb Seconded, the hyperloop and Vegas loop are such jokes. Tesla would be so much better if not for Musk tethering it to a failing solar company whilst lying to the board of directors too.

[@deathminder9206]

This is why i believe we need professional jurors. It is easy to snow and everyday person but if you had people in the field as jurors it would be much harder to pull the wool over their eyes. This is especially true when it comes to SEC trials.

[@josephwodarczyk977]

We already have that, it's called a judge.

[@deathminder9206]

@@josephwodarczyk977 The judge does not decide the trial the jurors do unless it is a trial by judge.

[@katbairwell]

Holmes had a talent for flattering wealthy old men who are concerned with their own health and mortality. That's it. I also find it amusing that she is, or was, repeatedly compared to Jobs and Gates - neither of whom did the actual "inventing" part of their respective companies' successes. She was either knowingly putting lives at risk selling diagnostic testing that didn't work, or she was grossly negligent in not ensuring her system was at least as accurate as it's competition. Negligence or mendacity. I am sorry for the people who's lives have been harmed by this woman and her enablers, I couldn't care less about the rich men who lost money.

[@connoc5078]

She also had a talent for convincing an uneducated jury to disregard everything they had already been shown to be true about her.

[@katbairwell]

@@connoc5078 It does goes to show just how powerful the skill of manipulating people actually is.

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

To be fair, Jobs was a good idea man as well as an excellent salesman. He always seemed to know what people wanted a decade before they would have wanted it.

[@joellis5915]

You don't need to be concerned of those rich-men's loss. But our court will take care of those riches, the bank owns our court system. Wakeup.

[@tromboneguy92]

I remember hearing about this company years ago and I was so hopeful that it was a reality.

[@thomasdegroat6039]

As a biomedical research student, when I first heard about theranos, I thought it was ridiculous. I thought it would be common sense that it would be impossible to do that much with so little blood. Never would've guessed that it would have gone this far.

[@amberscion1513]

Being charismatic and convincing got her off of all the charges of ripping off the common man. The little people without any power who she hurt. But no amount of charisma could keep her out of hot water for ripping off gullible, but wealthy and connected, investors. In the USA that is a crime you'll always be held to account for.

[@KaiTenSatsuma]

I hate how the charges she wasn't found guilty of were the ones that impacted regular individuals who would have had no reason to believe the tests would be fake and only found guilty on charges related to her wealthiest investors who frankly should have been doing their due diligence.

[@LUCTIANITO]

I have to say that as a clinical biochemist I was hyped yet concern for the technology she claimed to had developed. Although the dry chemistry concept isn't new the capability of quick methods of clinical multi- parameters would revolutionize the field

[@Nivola1953]

My father used to tell me “don’t try to know a page more than the book”. For Theranos this translates into, if that was really possible why none of the scientists, engineers and doctors much more knowledgeable than Elisabeth thought of it before. Possible answers a) they have interest in maintaining the cash cow b) they are not used to think out of the box c) they are in a conspiracy to keep you…. ignorant?(?) but there is also another reason that Potholer54 (another channel) always mentioned d) they know something that you don’t, because they studied and worked on it and you didn’t.

[@andyiswonderful]

Possibilities "a and c" would require a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people that don't know each other. Not realistic.

[@Nixeu42]

Or the tech just wasn't there yet. "Lab on a chip" technology, which Theranos was supposedly looking into, is fascinating stuff, but it's still a developing, cutting-to-bleeding edge field. It's actually what's behind a lot of home testing kits, including pregnancy tests. The difference is, those are used for very narrow purposes, with very specific targets. They don't test fifty things with one drop of blood. And it's generally understood that they're best used as preliminary screening.

[@gunzakimbo]

"Although the panel thought that Holmes' credibility was low, they also believe that she was genuine," The most American statement ever. All right guys, I know she's lied about everything up until this point. She's GOTTA be telling the truth this time, RIGHT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[@devonmatthews8197]

That doesn't make any sense.

[@connoc5078]

@@devonmatthews8197 A good reason why juries are an awful idea, even if they are relatively better than most other options.

[@devonmatthews8197]

@@connoc5078 Odd

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

She should run for office. … Actually, *WAIT NO-*

[@oliquin-roo3420]

I worked for a managed care center and we tested the Edison machine, but never got it work. When we tried returning the test unit, they didn't even care to take back, that spoke loudly.

[@danielwoods7325]

excellent timing, I was literally just googling for an update on what happened to her!

[@raheeeg]

It always baffles me that the concept of doing all these tests from a pinprick wasn't more heavily scrutinised - to carry out all these tests conventionally, you would draw blood into different tubes with different additives to stabilise the sample for the specific test requirements, 1 tube has coagulants (to clot the blood) and another has anticoagulants (to stop the blood clotting)

[@WeatherManToBe]

Ahh so that's why they have to use so many different vials

[@grkvlt]

except microfluidics blood testing is a thing, so the concept is not completely invalid, it's possible in theory with some basic advances to current technology. theranos just didn't do that, so the market is still waiting for someone to carry out the specific research and development needed - unfortunately _because of theranos_ investors will be more wary of funding this sort of thing, so it may turn out that her actions will end up hurting _more_ people by delaying the creation of life saving technologies in this area due to less available money for research teams, sadly

[@raheeeg]

@@grkvlt they still use different additives for the different tests, it's not about the size of the sample, it's saying you can do all those different tests on the same sample

[@grkvlt]

@@raheeeg so with current technologies that's mostly true, but there's no physics or chemistry reason why you couldn't manage the different additives at picoliter or whatever scale in a suitably designed and configured microfluidics type of system, it's just very hard and we don't know how to do it yet. but to say it's not possible is disingenuous, everything is impossible until someone actually solves the problem and works out how to do it, as long as they aren't lying about it like theranos. i suspect many people who claim they knew theranos was a fraud atthe right are deluding themselves - it was entirely plausible that they had made a breakthrough, and because theranos faked results and lied, it was hard to show otherwise, so most people believed them.

[@raheeeg]

@@grkvlt once you draw blood it begins to clot, this isn't a problem for testing blood analytes but for cell counts and coagulation screening (all claimed to be run on the Edison) you need anticoagulants/reversible anticoagulants which are salts, which then directly or indirectly interfere with some of the rest of the measurements (K, Na, Mg, Ca)

[@richardjarman261]

One of the best channels to come out of KZbin

[@capnstewy55]

The less sample the lower the sensitivity and the higher the deviation. The fact that people believed this worked was silly and proof that our science curriculum is lagging behind in America.

[@None-Trick_Pony]

I'd argue it's not a science education problem, but more of a lack of a ability to make basic logical deductions. If the old test needed a few vials to do tests, how could one quickly do all of the tests and more with just a few drops?

[@deep.space.12]

That's true if technology remains constant. Theranos claimed a breakthrough. The fact that you can do _some_ tests with a drop of blood (think diabetes) might have led to investors thinking her device was feasible, without learning the principles and peculiarities behind each test. Our smartphones today have ten thousand times the computation power of the room-size supercomputers that planned the Apollo mission. So what if the rate of advancement is drastically different from our expectation? I would argue that general science education would not have prevented patients from being defrauded by alleged breakthroughs in state-of-art technologies. That would require domain knowledge. It might help people recognize other pseudoscience nonsense though.

[@jannepeltonen2036]

1) The length of prison sentences in your country are completely insane. Here in Finland, a 'life' sentence if typically practically 16 years. 2) Therapy+diagnosis? Makes more sense. I'd always associated the name with 'theras' ('monster' in Greek) and 'Thanatos' ([personalized] 'Death' in Greek).

[@SliceOfFish]

Your interpretation is more fitting tbh 😆

[@RustyDust101]

Here is a perfect example how the case law and juror system completely fails when a charismatic person is allowed to work them until she gets aquitted by a jury reacting on emotions rather than hard, cold facts. Which is also the reason how such a case could happen: a highly charismatic person defrauding others intentionally by talking enough BS convincingly.

[@Nixeu42]

Here's an interesting question: why'd they pick wire fraud? The reasoning on that was sketchy, while there's another form of fraud, honest services fraud, that would have been closer to what she did to patients. She knowingly deprived them of honest services. There's no ambiguity about whether or not she had enough direct contact with patients for it to count, or if advertisements really count, or anything. That's what she did. But they charged her with wire fraud. The one where there's actually a debate to be had. Makes me want to put my head through a wall.

[@firefly4f4]

think the main problem isn't the amount of molecules available for one test - although that is a factor - it's that testing for one disease factor necessarily contaminates the sample for other tests. It could very well be possible to have a machine capable of running an assortment of different tests with a common mechanism for extracting a sample, but it would run into problems trying to run those multiple tests on the same sample. It's like going up to a vending machine where every item costs one dollar. You can get chips, pop, or candy from the same machine all for a dollar, but need to put in a different dollar for each item.

[@avarrius]

No. That is how nearly how 100% of clinical testing works. One sample can have multiple tests. It very much so is a problem of there being small a sample which means a lower concentration (less molecules). This is the concept of sensitivity.

[@firefly4f4]

I'm still fairly certain that a single sample (say, vial of blood) is still subdivided for the various tests. I'm familiar with the concept of sensitivity, however I'm also aware of contamination. There are certainly some tests that are promised here that cannot be used on the same sample simply because the usual process of doing the tests will contaminate/destroy the sample for use against other ones. Please, if you are in a position to correct me, I honestly would like to know. This isn't my field of expertise for sure; my knowledge just comes from having blood work done recently, and when I asked why they needed so many samples the answer was that some were control samples, some were backups, and others were because certain tests couldn't be done on the same sample as the others.

[@NothingIsKnown00]

As far as I know, Holmes never actually invented anything to create her company. She just started with the idea that they would run many blood tests on small volumes and that was it.

[@tatiana4050]

What she did "wrong" is that she tried to tie it to actual medicine. Companies that did same but with allergies and hair, still exist and make money despite being frauds. If she said it would tell you your susceptibility to future diseases , allergies, and best diet, she would have been rich and free,, occasionally would have to pay fines, and change wording of her claims

[@NothingIsKnown00]

@@tatiana4050 I agree totally.

[@nogi2167]

Who would have thought the person faking her voice was also faking her company

[@Pqndchannel]

Her being white and a woman helped her so much during the trials.

[@MrAmptech]

She intended to ignore science and sell stock. She deliberately/intentionally defrauded specific big investors. Sad that the individual patients who may have suffered from her fraud will get no help.

[@dougsteel7414]

She said one true thing - in the US, rather than having a first world modern healthcare system, people live in fear of the financial cost of illness