If at the start there had been, at least internally, an honest view of: We have no idea how to do this, existing technology won't do this, we must make a breakthrough-- and then spent 15 years grinding on that then there might be a chance.

But even then it would just be a chance. It might well be the case that what they were promising is only possible through molecular nanotechnology or some other kind of breakthrough that was entirely outside the domain of their research and which has still not yet been accomplished.

Even the new company's pitch supports that: They credit AI as an integral part of their supposed solution. Was Theranos spending those 15 years working on anything we'd call AI today? probably not.

It is entirely possible to spend 15 years doing absolutely nothing of value.

While there are plenty of people looking for the chance to do something great and could do it if given the right environment, I expect Theranos didn’t foster such an environment.

A solid, responsibly managed company, has no place in the minds of investors.

To me, the problem is that it is almost more lucrative to NOT succeed, unless one can achieve Nvidia-level of success. It is easier to promise the impossible. I profit today but if we scale the unproven business plan 1000X, the profits will be earth shattering!

How the hell do stupid upstart app-based shady loan companies have tens of thousands of employees including thousands of engineers?

Is that the fraudsters are so charismatic/well connected/etc that their past crimes just don’t hold them back?

Or is it a “all notoriety is good notoriety” kind of thing, where even if your fame is due to having been a criminal, that built up name recognition will keep propelling you forward?

Or is it more subtle than this - ie some people have the skills required to appear convincing to smart people, raise lots of money, inspire others to follow them in their ventures, etc - but it just so happens that they also suck at not getting caught up in their own narrative and they end up breaking a bunch of laws in that pursuit?

It’s fascinating.

That’s a ridiculous theory and I’d gladly take the other side of that bet. She has zero populist appeal and would never be elected to any office. So it comes down to whether an incumbent would appoint her to some position, and I just don’t see any rational reason why anyone would do that.

Unless you want to get involved in who she dates.

This is a weird thing to say about someone serving a decade long prison sentence

I would assume that in a strict legal capacity that's probably true (for now at least). Although obviously she's "involved".

Is Haemanthus a fraud? Lets just say I think you'd be a right idiot to invest in this.

But I think this will be very hard to prevent legally. Even if Holmes and Evans are married (unclear if they are), it was only Holmes who was involved in Theranos' fraud and not Evans.

She got got convicted on federal charges, so I think they're targetting Trump for a pardon/commutation. The "MAGA-like" aspect isn't a coincidence, it's deliberately mimics Trump's style to woo him.

This is not a "delusional person does delusional things" kind of situation, but a "manipulative person does manipulative things" kind of situation.

Presumably her husband (or "partner", whether they're legally married is a question of some debate) is paying for it by the way, as Holmes probably doesn't have any funds and he's born to wealth.