On the case of Elizabeth Holmes

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

Has anyone been following the Elizabeth Holmes case?

Based on what's discussed here, I don't think she is guilty.

It seems, however, the technology and science behind the Edison is not being properly discussed in court.

I spent yesterday looking into the Elizabeth Holmes case, and the Edison technology (video) looks very legit. Supposedly, there were issues with using blood for testing?

Sure, devices give out error here and there. However, the methodology of the equipment and the comparative results in relation to the chemistry journal artlcles seems that there isn't much of an issue with the miniaturization of the technology.

I'm juggling a variety of things at the moment, but I am under the impression that the full story in relation to blood experiments are not being discussed. Here are my suspicions at the moment:

1) The Edison gave erroneous results and people generalized that the equipment couldn't do any blood experimentation whatsoever and falsely claimed Elizabeth Holmes engaged in fraud.

2) Elizabeth Holmes confabulated in relation to the accuracy of the Edison when engaging in deals with clients, thus did not fulfill the intent requirement of fraud.

- https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud

I'm having difficulty looking for information about the other charges and providing sources due to my environment at the moment.

 

Could someone, if possible, please provide evidence/data as to how, supposedly, blood experiments with the evidence were wrongful and being used to defraud people?

 

References:

(1) "Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibilism)" Dennis Francis Blewett III. <https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17071>

(2) "Theranos Science & Technology: The Miniaturization of Laboratory Testing."  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6JRG733ReQ

(3) Elizabeth Holmes: Downfall. Wikipedia. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes#Downfall> Last accessed October 25th, 2021.

 

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

how, supposedly, blood experiments with the evidence were wrongful and being used to defraud people?

In search of funding, she presented results and outcomes she wasn't achieving. Data was made up and invented with the intention of hopefully/maybe finding a way to deliver on the promises after money came in, but said the promises were already real in order to receive said funding. This isn't exactly rocket science. 

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

In search of funding, she presented results and outcomes she wasn't achieving. Data was made up and invented with the intention of hopefully/maybe finding a way to deliver on the promises after money came in, but said the promises were already real in order to receive said funding. This isn't exactly rocket science. 

Quote

results and outcomes she wasn't achieving

Quote

Data was made up and invented with the intention of hopefully/maybe finding a way to deliver on the promises

Where is the data for those allegations?

I'm having difficulty finding that.

 

Where is the data for the alleged "results and outcomes" she wasn't achieving?

Where is the alleged "made up and invented" data?

 

If such data had error in it, then why was there such error?

Where did the "error" come from?

 

I've observed through the referenced video how the Edison does its chemistry. It does experiments that are traditionally done in a modern laboratory (21st century) but on a small scale with smaller tubes, pipettes, and some obscure tray I don't recall it's called. The error rates of the Edison were low.  I presume if an individual does enough experiments with a device, such as the Edison, it may eventually need to be re-calibrated (otherwise, such failure may result in large amounts of error occurring in the experiments). There are a variety of reasons (things correlated with) "why" error occurs.

Also, here appears to be a link to the case.

Quotes and responses from above link:

Quote

"...the defendants knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests"

Response:
No device gives *consistently* accurate AND reliable results...

Quote

"...tests performed on Theranos technology were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results..."

Response:
Of course, that's called "error."

Quote

The indictment alleges that Holmes and Balwani defrauded doctors and patients 

Response:

I would think most doctors would be aware that "error" exists, which I presume is something MOST get out of their pre-med education.

Quote

defendants explicitly represented to individuals that Theranos’s blood tests were cheaper than blood tests from conventional laboratories to induce individuals to purchase Theranos’s blood tests.

Response:

Well, I presume Theranos generalized on how it was cheaper. Sure, there may be an exception that proves the generalization wrong. The indictment argues amongst other things that Theranos is guilty of having developed a hasty generalization and lacking the authority to claim something as a fact rather than a theory.

 

Aside:

I've been getting the impression that a "witch hunt" by pharma has been against Elizabeth Holmes for having found a way to make laboratory testing cheaper and easier.

 

References:

U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al.. <https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al#:~:text=Elizabeth%20Holmes%20and%20Ramesh%20%E2%80%9CSunny%E2%80%9D%20Balwani%20are%20charged,a%20separate%20scheme%20to%20defraud%20doctors%20and%20patients.> Accessed on October 25th, 2021 @ ~1:17 P.M. Central Time (Madison, Wisconsin, USA)

Edited October 25, 2021 by Dennis Francis Blewett III

[TheVat]

An adjudicator does not have to be an expert or authority on a subject to render a sound judgment.   They need only solid evidence and some basic rules of evidence evaluation.  Expertise may help in evaluation of evidence, but judges and juries can use that expertise without themselves having to be become experts.   

And in many cases,  expertise is not needed at all to determine some facts.  I don't bring in a mycologist to determine my cheese is moldy.  

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

 

  

42 minutes ago, TheVat said:

An adjudicator does not have to be an expert or authority on a subject to render a sound judgment.   They need only solid evidence and some basic rules of evidence evaluation.  Expertise may help in evaluation of evidence, but judges and juries can use that expertise without themselves having to be become experts.   

And in many cases,  expertise is not needed at all to determine some facts.  I don't bring in a mycologist to determine my cheese is moldy.  

 

If you want to respond to my arguments in relation to the onlinephilosophyclub.com thread, please do that there.

If you did not read the referenced thread and have posted here, then I you have failed to grasp my arguments in this thread.

Your argument may as well be saying, "The probable cause judge was infallible in its judgment, thus having made a sound judgment."

If you don't like that interpretation, here is an alternative:

"An adjudicator does not have to be an expert or authority on a subject to render a sound judgment because my center of gravity dictates such."

Your center of gravity is not that good. I refuse to accept the legitimacy of your argument. It's not very sound.

Edited October 25, 2021 by Dennis Francis Blewett III

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

If you want to respond to my arguments in relation to the onlinephilosophyclub.com thread, please do that there.

If you did not read the referenced thread and have posted here, then I you have failed to grasp my arguments in this thread.

!

Moderator Note

You can’t require people to go elsewhere to get information necessary to participate in a discussion. If you want a thread here, the necessary information must be presented here. You have been warned about this before.

This is based on rule 2.7

 

[iNow]

3 hours ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

Where is the data for those allegations?

I'm having difficulty finding that.

No offense, but I’m not inclined to further engage. Your style strongly suggests your mind is already made up and also that you’re not amenable to change it even if I chase down the data you requested.

I may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night and I’ve seen this particular goat rodeo before. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by iNow

[Dennis Francis Blewett III]

It looks like the community-driven spirit of scienceforums.net has gone downhill. I'm sure scienceforums.com will enjoy my business interest.

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

It looks like the community-driven spirit of scienceforums.net has gone downhill. I'm sure scienceforums.com will enjoy my business interest.

No thanks for several offers of help then with your editing problem.

Goodbye and close the door on your way out.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

I've been getting the impression that a "witch hunt" by pharma has been against Elizabeth Holmes for having found a way to make laboratory testing cheaper and easier.

This is entirely nonsense. I have done actual research in these areas and the device, as presented, could not work without major breakthroughs in technologies that did not exist yet. I do not have all the details in my head anymore but the fundamental issue is that the device should work on a very limited volume of blood, have several types of analytics on the the platform and be in a specific compact format. Each of these issues is solvable, but together the problems your run into include dilution effects, which could be countered by using just a bit more blood, temperature issues, which could solved with a bigger platform to separate the reactions more and a couple of other things that I do not recall anymore.

There are many, many articles at this point and I find it curious that you claim that you have a hard time finding those. Heck, there is even a book out there called Bad Blood. I have linked one more or less random article that you could have found by consulting google for a minute or two:

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9576501/theranos-elizabeth-holmes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901#pq=Jd8MoW

Both outline how the company made misleading claims and failed to adhere to standards that would have revealed that their tests just did not work. Some of the analyses that they made in order to pretend that their system worked were actually used on a different instrument from Siemens, which they hacked to run their cartridges. However, as the blood volume was too low, even those results were at best questionable.

In other words, there is no conspiracy to be found here. The one thing that is odd is that for once someone is actually getting held accountable. This could be because in contrast e.g. tech startups, there are actually standards against which performance can be measured. You can easily oversell silly things like time-share offices, for example if you just hype it enough. But a blood tests actually needs to provide precise results in order to be useful.

That being said, the only kind of conspiracy there is to talk about is the claim that Holmes is taken accountable because she is a woman. That, at least at first look hard to accept, considering the level of fraudulence being reported. However, some articles claimed that other, male CEOs in similar positions which were involved in at least similar ethical questionable behavior mostly escaped unscathed. However, I think the comparisons made in the article were mostly related to tech companies, which I think have different standers than med and biomed companies.

So in the absence of actual statistics I am not sure how true it could be (would be interesting to take  a look at least). There is the phenomenon of glass cliffs which has been investigated in studies such as by Ryan and Haslam (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x)

 

Quote

“The glass cliff is a phenomenon whereby women (and other minority groups) are more likely to occupy positions of leadership that are risky and precarious,” Ryan, one of the researchers behind the study, told me in an email. “This can happen when share price performance is poor, when facing a scandal, or when the role involves reputational risk.”

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/17960156/what-is-the-glass-cliff-women-ceos

But I don't think that really applies here.

4 hours ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

I would think most doctors would be aware that "error" exists, which I presume is something MOST get out of their pre-med education.

Overlooked that argument. This is of course silly. A proper test requires to reproducibly perform with a given level of accuracy and precision. There are gold standards in place, basically the best performance we can do (with whatever method) and if a test performs worse, they should have other benefits (price, speed) but still be good enough to allow clinical diagnosis. If we accept random errors without qualifiers we might as well just do dowsing. 

 

[Phi for All]

40 minutes ago, Dennis Francis Blewett III said:

I'm sure scienceforums.com will enjoy my business interest.

They really need you, thanks, I didn't know how to ask you, but right on, this will help. Good job, excellent choice, say hi for us and next time you're in town... say hi for us!

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

FYI, since you seemed to have missed it, the pertinent passage in 2.7 is “members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos”