She made a $ BILLION

DOLLARS BEFORE SHE WAS 30


>WTF is ur excuse?

BTFO

does she have $1 billion in her bank account?
no.
i have more money than she does
plus i am not
a fraud and not a liar

literally whomst

>From $4.5 Billion To Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth Of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes. Last year, Elizabeth Holmes topped the FORBES list of America's Richest Self-Made Women with a net worth of $4.5 billion. Today, FORBES is lowering our estimate of her net worth to nothing.
She's a fraud.

>biggest business fraud in american history
Any surprise that it's a woman?

>see penny on ground
>pick it up
>now have higher net worth than her

SHE WILL ENDURE

Srsly watch out capitalism-- women are here

Lol u sound jealous

This slide again. Sage and report

You cant pretend women dont exist and arent strong af

I do appreciate that women think an image of a tiny girl about to be literally bulldozed is what best represents them.

of what? see i was just BingTFO of your op

A bull is so 20th century. Why cant you morons adapt to the 21st century where the little girl is the strongest force in thw universe

Cheeky cunt

>she made
Nonsense. People live for 2 billion seconds. It's impossible to become a billionaire without stealing and connections.
Prototip: she didn't make jack shit
Rich people don't work at all. Probably a Jew, i don't even care to Google, since so 100% sure she doesn't works.

>Lach-Secrets-of-a-Blood-T

her biggest invention is renaming an existing device.

U sound like a misogynist to me

...your point?

no she didn't! she is a fraud and everyone knows it, she was exposed for scamming investors with BS promises that she couldn't keep! nice try, faggot!

She's basically the female Martin Shkreli

YOU TAKE THAT BACK MY BOY MARTIN DID NOTHING WRONG

She's a scam artist. She was only a story because the media likes to prop up women.

>...your point?
it was because of this device that she was able to scam people to invest in her company even though their was no profit and not only that but she was also CEO so her investors were forced to pay her salary for a few years while she hasn't even made a profit.

pic related is OP

I don't really see much of a difference between the 2.

isnt she the phony fraud steve jobs wannabe that got in trouble for the fake blood testing

>WTF is ur excuse?
social anxiety

Well Martin Shrekli did nothing wrong

#freemyboimartin


And liz holmes worked in blood testing. How do u not see the difference?

literally a fraudster

>Gets rich by scamming
>Sup Forums somehow BTFO
OP = Faggot

I'd like to think she over promised and got trapped rather than being an outright scam artist. From a scientific development standpoint, what she tried to do was retarded. By immediately promising a device that could do hundreds of blood tests with a single drop, she was basically jumping from A to Z. Normally how you would do something like that is you would try to optimize test parameters to use less and less input material on an individual test basis, then start seeing what sort of multi-panel test you could do with what amount of blood. She basically promised the ability to do biological assays with a tiny amount of input material without first doing really any research into how feasible that is.

My biggest question is why no body on the board questioned her approach.

She stole billions while Martin broke accounting rules.

A literal scammer who's product did not do anything.
Her and the previous yahoo CEO...making women CEOs look bad.

God Holmes is so ugly and frumpy. Mayer is a goddess.

Neither could manage a company worth shit though.

>My biggest question is why no body on the board questioned her approach
Because fuck you you misogynist!

it's like the fake Onion Ted Talk about the car that runs on garbage. We already have the idea, we just need someone to implement it! We're already half way finished!!

I stopped using Yahoo, a website I had been using regularly for nearly 20 years, because of this woman.

>I'm just like you goy

She's probably related to zuckerberg

Im sure there is some study out there & in it they probably conclude that if you have eyes like that you fucking crazy

The only way to get rich today is:
>Inventing some revolutionary technology.
>Born jew.
>Born rich.
The days that you started with 0$ and in 5 years you made millions of dollars is over.
Carers such artist, producer, musician... only worth you if you are jewish.
Industries? The (((corporations))) will annihilate you and you need money to start
Commerce? Same above.
There is no light.

hideous jew. i knew it from the first pic.

What about extreme risk taking like investing all your money in a crypto currency or investing your money in a penny stock then selling at the right time?

yeah he forgot that. saving up enough investment capital is one of the few ways of getting rich if you come from nothing.

who is this Sandwich Maker?

spoopy

Turns out she was a giant fraud.

Because you guys are dumb my not completely clueless burger.
Their Chief Scientist killed himself.
They sent the blood samples to other labs for doing the tests they were supposed to do.
It was there.
>Woman entrepreneur in her 20s
Investors have no one but themselves to blame

easy peasy when heinz kissinger is on the BOD along w/rummy.

scam.

The suicide was late in the game. The bigger issue from a management standpoint was the board never demanded real project accountability from her. A large part of that was because no one on the board had science experience. In fact pretty much every science focused VC refused to invest in Theranos because Theranos refused to share any data. But the Theranos board still had a number of intelligent people like a former CDC director. You would think they could have done a better job.

> because Theranos refused to share any data.
Another redflag.
>You would think they could have done a better job.
>mfw
Another funfact, in an interview Elizabeth says;
>I have no hobbies, no friends, no family
>I just work
Can you imagine? Literally live for working for something that is vaporwave, and get bankrupt so hard that you are forced liquidate your HQ building.
On the macroperspective, it was horrible. No one will ever dare to blow billions on a life science start-up and amgem/roche will remain monopoly as they are. And to be frank, life science start-ups need millions to even start to think of something. Very high entry barrier, capitalwise.

>No one will ever dare to blow billions on a life science start-up and amgem/roche will remain monopoly as they are.
I don't think that's the case, but I think Theranos was a real wakeup call to the VC community that was accustomed to dealing with software startups. If you pretend Theranos was a software startup, everything they did was pretty normal. Stuff like only showing a prototype, hyping an idea that is really just an idea, etc is all standard for software. What it comes down to is that with software, you can accomplish whatever you are trying to do given enough money and time. If software hits a speedbump, you just have to work through it. I think this mentality is why no one questioned Theranos for so long. People needed to learn that in the world of biosciences, sometimes you run up against hard limitations of physics and chemistry, and you need a well defined roadmap from A to Z.

>And to be frank, life science start-ups need millions to even start to think of something. Very high entry barrier, capitalwise.
Very true, but hot ideas still get a lot of traction. Firstly the "San Diego" model for pharma startups of "raise capital, invest everything in a single drug attempt, sell to a larger company after going through phase 2 or implode" that has been going for 20 some years will probably chug on.

Right now in the cancer bloodtesting space, Grail has raised 1.3 billion and Guardant Health has raised 550 million. To the credit of those companies, they are much more forthcoming with the risks and limitations of what they are trying to do. But you're right that until things like remote lab services get fully developed, life science R&D will always be very capital intensive.

People who scam others on that scale are not usually alone in the deception. She was probably the "fall girl" from the start. Check and see how many people around her profited from the scam and were allowed to keep their wealth. Then check and see if she has either been friendly with any of them or married to any of them. Cute Barbie Dolls do not run scams by themselves.

Like all women, she was more interested in looking good than being good.

Billionaires literally only exist in capitalism and maybe feudalism but at that point how would that even matter. Fucking roasties

She did a great job of having other people give her their money for nothing.

Now she's wealthy. And they are screwed.

>Cute Barbie Dolls
what the fuck are you smoking? she looks like a less disgusting, thinner and younger version of chelsea clinton so basically she is still fucking ugly even with a ton of makeup and photoshop

>My biggest question is why no body on the board questioned her approach.

Venture capitalists can be incredibly stupid when they are offered prospects that are too good to be true. They can be ridiculously easy prey for scammers who are good at pitching, especially if some of the investors are in it from the start.

I don't know if it's too much money that makes them do grave economical mistakes, but rich and educated men can absolutely lose their wits when someone convincing enough comes selling them another success story or even a new trend to shove money towards.

>People needed to learn that in the world of biosciences, sometimes you run up against hard limitations of physics and chemistry, and you need a well defined roadmap from A to Z.
> People needed to learn
Yes, but then they would first evade tax by putting their HQ's in tax heavens.
I think we are dealing with more stable entities here, not dynamic.
>ut hot ideas still get a lot of traction.
I hate Keynesian dynamics, but yeah exactly. When everything is overestimated with rampant speculation, an economy of imagination forms and its overpriced as fuck. So the next hot thing moons (((value)))-wise in order to normalize itself to overpriced market.
>Firstly the "San Diego" model for pharma startups of "raise capital, invest everything in a single drug attempt, sell to a larger company after going through phase 2 or implode" that has been going for 20 some years will probably chug on.
I didn't know that, but what I know is that a new drug means minimum 20 years for market penetration. All the trials and documentation ,aka bribes to the bureaucrats , take literally 2 decades. Thereby this process usually remains in the domain of monopolies, big pharma. From their side, this seems profitable, given that start-ups at least take the idea from in vitro/in vivo to human trial-ready level for possibly much cheaper numbers.
>in the cancer bloodtesting space
It was a mania in even here, I even worked at that literally a box with nothing in it type of startup. I simply cannot see how can you protect intellectual rights of those systems against China.
>remote lab services
I don't think that is realistic.
Maybe India, but still very hard for me to acknowledge the viability of.

This shit was such an obvious scam, something was obviously "off" about this woman to anyone who wasn't drinking the SV koolaid. If betting on startups is anything like betting on crypto just apply the following rules

>If there's a black on the team, stay away
>If there is more than 1 pajeet, stay away
>Women, not even once
>Changs are okay, but not too many

>>WTF is ur excuse?
My parents are not rich
Went to public school

>I know is that a new drug means minimum 20 years for market penetration
The drug trial process is pretty legit. We don't live in the world of thalidomide anymore and that's a good thing. This does mean it takes minimum 10 years and hundreds of millions in capital to take a drug through trials and to market, which means only big players can do serious pharma work. I can see why you'd use the phrase "bribe", but I don't think that's an accurate characterization of the development process. If approval was a matter of throwing money at the FDA, you'd see a way higher approval rating (phase 1 to approval is current like 8%, lower if you consider drugs for unmet need). It's just hard to accelerate the timeline. Once you think you have a shot at a drug candidate, it takes 1-6 years just to do toxicology studies on the compound itself. From there, the Investigational New Drug Application and actual clinical trials take around 6 years. Then it takes another 1-2 to get real approval after trials. Then you can finally enter the market. Most of that time is on the science side, not the bureaucracy side.

So to even think about taking a drug through trials, you need to have a 10+ year timeline from initial R&D to first sales, and you have to be able to withstand failing to get approval at any point in the process with zero ROI.

The real racket on the pharma side comes from patent law though, much more so than the approval side. This is where you get into all sorts of patent gamesmanship to prevent generics from coming online even after the original patent has run out.

So edgy

>I simply cannot see how can you protect intellectual rights of those systems against China.
You don't. US patents are literally blueprints for the Chinese. They don't give a single shit about US IP laws, and the US government is content to let them do that.

>I don't think that is realistic.
The idea is you have an central lab, preferably well automated, running a full gamut of basic biological assays and other tests for anyone. Clients can store samples at the lab site, order tests remotely, etc. The idea is to remove the overhead of having to run your own laboratory to do bio R&D. There are a few companies doing it. It's a solid idea, but it remains to be seen if they can produce a menu of tests that will allow for meaningful R&D, and if they can get the critical mass of clients needed to function.

do you even know the entire background of her company and what happened in the past 10 years?

Are companies such as emerald cloud or gingko bioworks just memes?

Both of you anons seem very knowledgeable in this field. What are you backgrounds?

Also, any advice on reading/what to do to get to level of knowledge you guys have in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals?

I'm a physics major who's thinking of wanting to work in biotech sector

And of turned out to be a scam for the most part.

>thalidomide
I just checked. What a shitshow.
> Most of that time is on the science side, not the bureaucracy side.
Yes, for monopolies. They pay their bribes on time, and constantly. I also have encountered very disturbing top-sekrit tier whispers regarding it. From TOP GUNs.
Toxico is unnecessariy long, for retention tests and shit. Just OD the poor mice, if it lives its not toxic.
>The real racket on the pharma side comes from patent law though, much more so than the approval side. This is where you get into all sorts of patent gamesmanship to prevent generics from coming online even after the original patent has run out.
I'm listening.
>You don't.
Yeah, which means within a year your product is copied at the half of its price and its everywhere. Why haven't you nuked Chinks, yet?
> Clients can store samples at the lab site, order tests remotely, etc.
Sounds like an exit scam, just collect enough million-dolar idea, falsify reports as if it is useless, change a little, sell it to the Roche.
You need monks doing experiments MANUALLY for the slightest level of trust. Automation can always be manipulated by a competent software engineer.
> if they can produce a menu of tests that will allow for meaningful R&D
Feasible, I would vouch for it. prettty much majority of lab tests have been mechanized. If you are paying dosh, instead of slaving more grads.
> if they can get the critical mass of clients needed to function.
Really makes me think.
This calls for a renaissance-tier scientific hard data-rush. This is open for an emotional capital investment, "Just put money for the world you want to live in!" type of.
But yeah not, not happening. Fukken jews.
I like you, wanna exchange mails?

That's why everyone else went to prison and she didn't right? Yeah, she was clearly the fall girl.

She created a Unicorn company that was briefly valued at a billion dollars.
Then people checked it out, found she was full of shit and the company was rendered worthless.

>I'm a physics major who's thinking of wanting to work in biotech sector
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Seriously, no.
It is filled with scams, fake/manipulated data, woman and gynocentric bullshit, low wages, overpopulation, 7/24 workhours (fine by me, might not be for you) and chinks, and Indians.
It is a nightmare. Especially for someone with a logic based bachelor.
>Also, any advice on reading/what to do to get to level of knowledge you guys have in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals?
Same for everything else. Follow your dick, if it leads you to read about science and scientific papers you will turn knowledgeable anyhow.
Stick to physics user. Trust me.

Pretty much this. When I was wageslaving I found out that in each of my jobs, my bosses were all sons or daughters of rich jews with huge network and connections. Their businesses practically run themselves.

And then I got redpilled.

you would have to be dumb/deluded enough to think you can get viable hematology result interpretations without venous blood.
> dumbasshit

t. civil engineer

i trust the kebab on this one

Her estimated net worth was based entirely off of her 50% stake in Theranos. When theranos went from 9 billion to $800 million, she got wiped out. Theranos investors owned $724M in preferred stock, which gets paid out before she does. Unfortunately, Theranos has $124M (or less) of money left, so that means Elizabeth Holmes has ZERO net worth.

I realize it's a shitshow and there's a bunch of bullshit. When there is chaos, I see opportunity. In many industries, when physics educated people come into them they seem to straighten shit out. It's such a raw industry that I feel like it's possible to actually make name for yourself in

Am I wrong in my assessment?

Why does she always wear the black turtleneck?

>Am I wrong in my assessment?
Yes.
You will always get 2nd class citizen treatment. Your logic will be dismissed outright.
However, it is obviously possible for me to be wrong. I just given you the warning, please remember these and just stop beating a dead horse when you realize shit is going nowhere.
Good luck burger, you gonna need a lot.

this.
the only light consists in darkness for (((them))).

I'm aware of Emerald but I haven't paid too much attention to them. Looking at their website, it looks like they offer a lot of services that are frequently used but are minor enough that I can't see anyone actually outsourcing the work. They seem to do a lot of "prep work" type stuff that doesn't make sense to outsource unless they can offer a follow up. That said I could see small companies using their kinetics measurements or HPLC services.

I think companies like Emerald need to work with biotech accelerators where offloading work like autoclaving, PCR, filtration, etc has more of an effect.

I do know a bit about Ginkgo, they seem solid. They've shipped strains to clients that are being used in production, so they seem to be finding their way. I've also heard rumors that they've found their own Cas9 variant, which could be a big deal for their own R&D and licensing.

I'm personally pretty into all the bio-based production companies springing up. Guys like Ginkgo, SGI, Genomatica, Zymergen, etc. There's a huge amount of potential profit on the table, and you don't have to deal with any of the drug trial bullshit.

I'm a chemical engineer, currently working at a consulting company. I've done engineering and R&D work in pharma, fermentation, genomics and materials. Level of knowledge really depends on what you want to do. On the physics side I know a few guys who do stuff like automation, data science and microfluidics. There's also hundreds of people who do random STEM stuff for a few years, get an MBA, then go to work biotech from the business side.

It's an interesting sector. The proliferation of cheap genetic sequencing, data science and computing power in the last 5 years has really shifted what's possible. I expect a lot of non-pharma biotech development in the next decade. You have to deal with a lot of bullshit though.

the avenues for women and that is a trend everyone follows since the west, primarily the states control it, have shifted totally to office or lab jobs without much exposure to the outside world.
people the kebab mentioned are pushed into that field aswell but all of them do a mediocre or acceptable job at it and they stagnate at innovating anything.
if you go into those fields and you try to push yourself to the limits you will be perceived as someone who undermines the rest of your coworkers maybe even the whole company.
you will be pushed constantly to become a cuck and to partake in highschool life at the workplace which for me in unthinkable.

i took a proffesion where i have to be on the field in rain, mud, snow and heat, meanwhile carrying a decent amount of responsibility and trust me few to no woman does that.

>Sounds like an exit scam, just collect enough million-dolar idea, falsify reports as if it is useless, change a little, sell it to the Roche.
That's a serious concern. Companies that want to seriously make a shot of it need to have a highly detailed plan for dealing with IP rights, or else no one will trust them. There's also ways of designing the system to avoid such issues. The operating company doesn't need to know every detail to perform the requested tests. Information can be compartmentalized. You can't pick out the good data for yourself if you don't know what any of the data actually means.

I won't say anyone has a perfect system for this yet, but there's a huge unmet need in biotech for services that reduce overhead. If someone can figure out how to create a system that allows for biotech startups to function without having to foot the bill of running their own lab, it'll be a goldmine.

>She has a $ BILLION

This is what Forbes.com says about ELIZABETH HOLMES:

"But Theranos, the blood-testing company she founded in 2003 and owns 50% of, has been hit with allegations that its products don't work as advertised and is being investigated by an alphabet soup of federal agencies.That, plus new information indicating Theranos' revenues are less than $100 million, has lead us to revise our estimate of her net worth. To zero."

>mfw I'm richer than an American billionaire

next steve jobs

>She felt for the fiat currency scam.

Acquire property

Ugly or not, vagina is vagina

I'm not interested in joining biotechnology companies though. I wish to start my own that actually uses logic and approach problems from physics perspective. What is wrong with this idea?

Thanks. What are you thoughts on this question? Also any literature for learning about industry as a whole and business side of it?

>WTF is ur excuse?
Schizophrenia, cognitive issues, lack of motivation, social dysfunction, literally hell

nose

It's insane how much she looks like kikerberg. They have to be related because this is not normal Jewy appearance

my advice is to start a company with a few of your student colleagues when you graduate. you will need to trust your coworkers and peers in the beginning
also you will have to figure out where to start your business and at what time
the husband of my wife's aunt, started a veterinary pharma company after the civil war with his friend from bosnia while he studied there and now he controls most of the market in north serbia, while his friend control's most of north bosnia and was involved into politics via lobbying

>No mail address
O-okay, I'm better alone anyways.
>Companies that want to seriously make a shot of it need to have a highly detailed plan for dealing with IP rights, or else no one will trust them. There's also ways of designing the system to avoid such issues. The operating company doesn't need to know every detail to perform the requested tests. Information can be compartmentalized. You can't pick out the good data for yourself if you don't know what any of the data actually means.
All of these are easily eluded with malicious intent. I have an idea but I would rather keep it to myself.
> it'll be a goldmine.
Okay I might be a pessimist but I just don't see how. No conventional VC will bother nor understand biotech, they will just buy land/building and keep up with their stable job portfolio.
Tech investors, well the only reason NASDAQ flied over the roof is that software innovation doesn't require anything but a dick and computer.
Even if you down the costs of running a bio-tech start-up with outsourcing lab maintenance and routine workflow, I don't see the incentive to put moni into that. I don't.
>unmet need
Extrapolate plz.

Nothing Jewy about that nose, but those ears and the lower lip are Jewy

>I wish to start my own
With what? Do you have rich parents and (not an/or, just and) strong connections?
We need Federal Reserve to print enough luck for you user, absolute madman.

a fraud that everyone tripped over themselves to support solely because she has a vagina
I'm not joking

I think the meaning is that women are generally carefree and naive, it's actually really well done

user has an idea
>make teleportation device affordable for the masses
>issue press release stating that user is genius with genius concept
>investors love the teleportation idea
>have kikes assemble board of directors full of doddering octogenarians
>i don't quite know how to make it work, but i'll dress like steve jobs in the meantime
>people start to wonder why no teleportations
>tell investors that, in lieu of teleportation, we have borrowed a device that will allow us to communicate instantly with anyone in the world
>after claiming credit for the telephone, user assures investors and the skeptical press that teleportation is very close
>lead scientist kills self
>teleportation inc. btfo
>muh patriarchy

elizabeth holmes is a case-study in feminism's fraud.
all successful women are only such because they sucked a lot of cock. there simply is no exception.
don't say hillary. do remember that webb hubble is chelsea's father.
that's right, even dykes will suck cock to get ahead.
then these same feminists hold themselves up as role models for young girls.
>gee, look a' me, gals. i'm a strong womyn. start sucking cock, and you can be too.


gibs me my billions!

may God damn this world to hell.

Thanks for the info user, appreciate it.

I guess it depends on what exactly you're trying to do. Bigger pharma companies are super corporate, every job is well defined, etc. What you describe as far as your interests sounds more like consulting work. Dropping in to analyze structure, efficiency, etc.

As for books, The Billion Dollar Molecule is good. It's about Vertex Pharmaceuticals in the 90s trying to make an AIDS drug, from development to dealing with wall street.

I don't have a perfect answer, but control of IP is possible depending on the protocols you implement. Aside from keeping operators blind to the details of experiments, there's typical clinical standards like new setup and teardown of instruments before and after every experiment. Generally you can design the workflows to operate blind to whatever is actually being run. But it's certainly a concern.

Such businesses are more attractive from a VC standpoint than you would think. Imagine you want to invest in a number of different biotech startups. You need to basically fund a lab for each one. You can instead invest in a remote services lab, eat the lab overhead once, then have every company you invest in spend your investment money on lab tests run by the remote lab that you also own. This means you can make more seed level investments for less money, and if an investment fails (which most of them do), the loss isn't that bad because most of the money just went back to another one of your investments.

Also consider that this is mostly targeted at early stage companies trying to get off the ground. Once you build some IP and own some amount of value, you can now better justify running your own operations. Basically you make the barrier to entry lower and create a sort of sandbox environment where you can invest in a lot of biotech ideas with small financial commitments. Think of it as more shots on goal for valuable IP.

I'm not 30 yet

Still white.