Comment by WaxProlix
3 years ago
> below the Theranos level
Isn't that just like, an insanely high bar of fraud to meet? How many things in recent memory rise to the level of fraud that Theranos represents?
"Not the most fraudulent fraudsters" just comes across as a damningly weak defense (imo).
> How many things in recent memory rise to the level of fraud that Theranos represents?
Mr. SBF from FTX would like to have a word with you.
FTX was crypto. If you're suprised by fraud there, you haven't been paying attention the last years.
True, crypto sort of lives in its own world of perpetual ongoing fraud/grift, eh?
The only unique thing about the Theranos fraud is it seem Holmes didn't make an overt moves to profit off the inflated valuation of the company.
I think she genuinely believed in the technology, and thought they just needed more time. Like, she kept pressuring people to work on it, and there were some small advancements in the tech, just not good enough.
I think the worst thing they did was giving those device out to healthcare institutions, when they knew it was inaccurate.
I'm not defending her, she was clearly dangerously delusional, but I think it explains why she didn't behave like a classical con artist/scammer