I haven't been able to get a clear answer to my question about Theranos:
Was what she offered obviously impossible? That's my understanding. Blood is not homogeneous so it is physically impossible to get an accurate full blood panel from a single drop.
Was there every any plan to address this or was it clearly a 100% fictitious product from the get-go? Did any journalist ever ask her or any scientist at Theranos about this problem? If not, then what were the scientists at Theranos doing all day? Were they all in on the scam? Or were there no scientists?
I just don't get how you can spend years pretending to build something so obviously impossible.
mondocat 11 days ago [-]
My impression from the book is that companies "knew" is was bogus, but the FOMO was so strong.. "but what if it isn't, and our competitor gets it, and we don't", that they stayed along for the ride.
scyzoryk_xyz 13 days ago [-]
I believe I read something about this film featuring a moment where Nathan insists that since she's innocent that they must go to the back yard to confirm how this machine works. Or something along those lines - in any case the absurdity of "I totally believe you, let me help you prove them wrong".
What I'm reminded of is that documentary The Jinx which basically takes you along for the ride until the subject accidentally confesses. Documentary filmmaking is so weird - there is always the element of fiction and make believe that somehow manages to get at the truth
duxup 13 days ago [-]
My understanding from articles, they had scientists hard at work trying to get their machine to work and the issues that were essentially maintenance (you really couldn’t have a testing machine like this that didn’t require expensive / regular maintenance as promised). The amount of blood wasn’t really even addressed yet and they faked results in house using competitors machines.
In house teams were not optimistic, but they got paid to experiment and try so they did.
vrighter 12 days ago [-]
Yes it is obviously impossible, as anyone familiar with the subject could (and did) say. You can't detect something that is so dilute that there isn't even a single molecule of it in a single drop of blood drawn from a capillary.
cyanydeez 13 days ago [-]
A mix of needing a paycheck, "fake it till you make it" and psychopathy.
ChrisArchitect 13 days ago [-]
Related:
'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
"A triumphant, riveting, and continually shape-shifting piece of creative non-fiction with curiosity and a playful sense of uncomfortable humor that will be no surprise to anyone familiar with Fielder’s work, it’s the kind of documentary that is persistently inquisitive and skeptical: both about its alarmingly wide-eyed subject who often refuses to blink, and the process of documentary filmmaking itself."
"You Can See Everything reaches for accuracy in its portrayal of a much talked-about figure. It ends up asking, with plenty of humor but no small amount of wisdom, what “accuracy” would even look like in the first place."
13 days ago [-]
xenospn 13 days ago [-]
“Contents: Lizzy Holmes”. That’s all you need.
ktallett 13 days ago [-]
The trailer for the documentary is such a draw, due to the subject, and also how close they were able to get. She is a mythical character in many ways yet a tech Lance Armstrong.
yostrovs 13 days ago [-]
She's not mythical. She's a female psychopath and that characteristic is fascinating for many people.
tanseydavid 13 days ago [-]
Her incredibly low-rate of eye blinks is extremely off-putting/disturbing for me.
Anyone else get the same vibe?
13 days ago [-]
add-sub-mul-div 13 days ago [-]
Only the female part is fascinating to them. Otherwise we'd see more high level dude psychopath scammers in prison.
dlcarrier 13 days ago [-]
Her lackey got more prison time than she did, even though he was following her orders.
reaperducer 13 days ago [-]
even though he was following her orders.
I guess you missed World War II, and the trials that followed. "Following orders" isn't an excuse for anything.
OkayPhysicist 13 days ago [-]
It's not an excuse, but we hanged the guys giving the orders, too.
dtagames 13 days ago [-]
But it's not the justice system; it's TV. And we have lots of psycho male scammers on TV.
ktallett 13 days ago [-]
SBF. Lance Armstrong. Both in a similar vein and both as fascinating.
13 days ago [-]
rsynnott 11 days ago [-]
> and also how close they were able to get
... How close they were able to get to what? What they were promising was _literally impossible_.
black_13 13 days ago [-]
[dead]
OgsyedIE 13 days ago [-]
Rehabilitating her image in the same format as Martha Stewart promises to be highly profitable for pre-public investors who can reap the holdings of bagholders yet to come.
quickthrowman 13 days ago [-]
I assure you that Nathan Fielder is not rehabilitating her image. If you’ve see his work, you’d understand.
He gets people with personality disorders or a lack of embarrassment to act insane in front of cameras, more or less. I don’t see why that would change, given the subject. She tried to get out of prison by having a baby.
00ze 13 days ago [-]
> He gets people with personality disorders or a lack of embarrassment to act insane in front of cameras, more or less.
When Harrison Ford does it it's called acting. When I do it men with an extra long sleeve white jacket appear
asdff 13 days ago [-]
Oh just watch the trailer
blinkbat 13 days ago [-]
that is not what will happen here.
Rendered at 16:34:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I just don't get how you can spend years pretending to build something so obviously impossible.
What I'm reminded of is that documentary The Jinx which basically takes you along for the ride until the subject accidentally confesses. Documentary filmmaking is so weird - there is always the element of fiction and make believe that somehow manages to get at the truth
In house teams were not optimistic, but they got paid to experiment and try so they did.
'You Can See Everything' Review: Nathan Fielder's Doc About Elizabeth Holmes
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49596119
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/you_can_see_everything/revi...
"A triumphant, riveting, and continually shape-shifting piece of creative non-fiction with curiosity and a playful sense of uncomfortable humor that will be no surprise to anyone familiar with Fielder’s work, it’s the kind of documentary that is persistently inquisitive and skeptical: both about its alarmingly wide-eyed subject who often refuses to blink, and the process of documentary filmmaking itself."
"You Can See Everything reaches for accuracy in its portrayal of a much talked-about figure. It ends up asking, with plenty of humor but no small amount of wisdom, what “accuracy” would even look like in the first place."
Anyone else get the same vibe?
I guess you missed World War II, and the trials that followed. "Following orders" isn't an excuse for anything.
... How close they were able to get to what? What they were promising was _literally impossible_.
He gets people with personality disorders or a lack of embarrassment to act insane in front of cameras, more or less. I don’t see why that would change, given the subject. She tried to get out of prison by having a baby.
When Harrison Ford does it it's called acting. When I do it men with an extra long sleeve white jacket appear