The point is not just that they crossed an ethical and legal line. The point is that, I think, there was no way that technology, at this time, could produce a unicorn-sized startup by honest means.
-
-
That means that, to avoid being fooled by a Theranos, you’d have to do a bunch of due diligence. Tracking down the extent of the deception was hard.
Show this thread -
uBiome was a different kind of fraud: long before you had any evidence of a specific scam, you should have been able to tell that *the product just isn’t useful enough to enough people* to justify the valuation unless something shady is going on.
Show this thread -
Perhaps the investors *did* know and were trying to find a greater fool? Or perhaps they just thought “she’s a great salesman, she’ll figure it out” and didn’t realize that one way to “figure it out” is to cheat?
Show this thread -
I have met several people who evaded my questions about “how is this startup going to make money?” and “how will this be useful to customers?” and said that didn’t matter, go away little nerd, you don’t understand business. They were never right.
Show this thread -
If a founder, when pressed, straight up denies that business is about mutual benefit, RUN.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I get the impression that Theranos' tech could work for some applications if it was competently executed. There must be a huge amount of useful information in a capillary blood sample, and probably there is some level of tech that could extract it. Yes?
-
That’s what I thought but apparently
@halvorz disagrees. - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.