Oh, interesting. This specific article is one of the threads running through You Can See Everything.
It’s nice to read it myself - I actually thought it would be way more critical of her. Instead the author seems to be falling for the persona.
Before filming the documentary, Fielder said he wanted to see the magic trick up close. After all of his work deceiving others, he wanted to be the one deceived. Whether he got what he wanted is open to interpretation.
I just watched the first half hour of The Inventor on HBO.
I admit I’m wondering if ten years from now it’s going to be one about Sam Altman.
And here’s another thing. The technology as she was selling it didn’t really seem that revolutionary to me. A thing that does blood tests with less blood and can be done at home? Neat, I guess. I just don’t see myself, as a wealthy investor, pouring my dollars into that idea.
She’s talking a lot about early diagnostics too, but I don’t see that built into what the machine is supposed to be able to do. Was the plan to invent new tests to go along with the machine?
Because that… Well, it strains credulity.
I’m really beginning to think tech companies are full of shit.
I read Bad Blood, and while I’m not a chemist, I think people with some science background can quickly understand that problem.
Investors need to do their due diligence and talk to experts to see if it’s possible or not.
From the mid 90s to early 2010s, I saw a lot of startups and watched promotional videos from some of the companies that I had direct business with and that were going public.
There were legitimate companies with legitimate products, but good god, the hype was crazy.
No it was a woman who interviewed him. And they were together in the same space.
Because I’m convinced she is deluded. She is a twisted person. I mean that I cannot watch her and give her the benefit of the doubt. If she were on trial I doubt I could serve on the jury.
Ok. By her actions, I think not giving her the benefit of the doubt is reasonable though.
Wackos gonna wack.
Whatever she says is the result of loose screws and naked self interest. I cannot imagine wasting any more time listening to her talk than listening to trump. Their style of speech is vastly different. The amount of meaningful content is exactly the same: zero.
The only thing listening to her does is provide an opportunity for you to be bamboozled. So why do it?
She belongs left in jail and not on TV. Before she pulls off another equally brazen equally deliberate crime. While hiding behind a feigned wide-eyed innocence that apparently fools a significant number of people.
Just like trump’s brand of BS that is (somehow) highly attractive and motivating to a certain subset of people.
Well stated.
Good point. This is enough to not watch the new documentary.
I guess investors are attracted to things that they think customers will like. I have a strong memory of watching a documentary where patients/customers opted for testing by the Theranos thing because they had been led to believe that the blood sample would be a pinprick rather than a conventional sample; and they were distraught when they found out this simply wasn’t true. (They were also furious at having been misled)..
So my guess is that part of the answer is this: in a health system where patient = customer, there are enough people who desperately want to avoid having conventional blood samples taken for an investor to think well of the (promised) Theranos device.
j
Ehhh, based on everything I’ve read, I’m not sure I want to watch it. It sounds a bit similar to Grey Gardens. In Grey Gardens, they weren’t psychopaths or fraudsters, but there was some obvious mental illness going on, which made it cringy for me as I felt it was somewhat exploitative. I ejected the DVD at the halfway point. I’m wondering if I would have a similar reaction to You Can See Everything. Not sure. I certainly don’t have any sympathy for Ms. Holmes, but am wondering if it still has a cringe element to it.
I never read the John Carreyrou book but read a lot of others when the fraud was first reported. A Stanford professor named Phyllis Gardner pointed out that it’s simply not possible to do most of the blood tests on a single drop, as you would get from a finger prick. I think she said as much to Holmes even before Holmes dropped out of Stanford.
Plus there are established companies that make blood testing machines. Surely if it were possible to do those tests on a small machine, they would make one. Imagine not having to send out your blood samples from a blood draw center but instead being able to get immediate results
As I have mentioned a few times, my career was in new product development of cutting edge consumer electronics. If there were tech people involved in the funding, this never would have happened. No way. There is a standard procedure that wasn’t followed.
Funding is normally done in phases with specific goals and a buy off at each phase before the next batch of money is released. That means engineers in the lab from the client and engineers at the company performing a demonstration to an agreed upon specification. Sometimes the “client” is internal. I have been on both sides of the table where things have worked and not worked. It’s outrageous that they wouldn’t let the clients in the lab. Like the biggest red flag imaginable.
“She’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes, like a doll’s eyes. When she comes at ya, she doesn’t seem to be livin’… until she takes a big chunk out of your wallet, and those black eyes roll over white and then… ah then you see your investment crumbling”
It’s hard to say how any given person defines cringe, but I think the documentary was a serious attempt to understand what was going on. It could be uncomfortable because of the uncertainty and because that couple is weird as fuck. But it’s important to remember they wanted this documentary to happen, they invited Fielder to stay and participate. So I don’t think it’s exploitative. It’s more like trying to solve a mystery.
I think people are probably pretty good judges though of whether they may or may not like it. I was really only interested in seeing it because of Fielder. I have enjoyed some of his work in the past and I knew whatever came out of this it would be unique and thought-provoking.
It’s totally exploitative. But they are exploiting Fielder, not vice versa.
They wanted to expose a few million people to their weird brand of psychopath magic to see who they could reel in for the next round of grift. Fielder took that bait and platformed them. Nice move, moron.
Have you seen the film? I just wondered because the film is arguably a warning about falling for their bullshit. Arguably.
Yeah, I have no interest in watching it, no matter how compelling it’s supposed to be. It’s an interpretation by a filmmaker, letting us see things the way he wants it presented. It’s as much about him as it is her.
Well yes. That’s literally part of the text of the film.
Right, it’s entertainment.
It also describes every documentary ever made.
I’ve seen so many manipulative, lazy, cherry-picking documentaries, it was refreshing to see a film that confronts the subjectivity of the directors - and the viewers.
Glad you enjoyed it. I’m still staying away. My time is precious.