[forgetsusername]

>I'd love to have more insight into how this happened

There's the one story that you can read in articles like this, which will provide details of the rise and fall:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/elizabeth-holmes-ther...

But, there's another side: it happened because you weren't allowed to question Elizabeth Holmes. The beauty of the Internet is its natural history keeping. If you want more insight into how this sort of thing happens, look no further than early discussions about Theranos on these very boards. It was difficult to be critical, and supporters implied that the naysayers were merely "sexist". Of course, this was happening when tech industry sexism was peaking in the news cycle, and I belive that quieted some criticism.

[icebraining]

If you want more insight into how this sort of thing happens, look no further than early discussions about Theranos on these very boards. It was difficult to be critical, and supporters implied that the naysayers were merely "sexist".

Where?

Story from two years ago, before it blew up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9440595 - Lots of criticism, some even calling it a scam, yet no mention of sexism nor heavy downvotes.

The original submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6349349 - Some criticism, not downvoted nor called sexism.

Tell me, where are all those comments warning us about the impending doom at Theranos and getting silenced by supporters calling them sexist?

[forgetsusername]

>Tell me, where are all those comments warning us about the impending doom at Theranos and getting silenced by supporters calling them sexist?

There have been nearly 500 Theranos articles posted here over the years. You conclude it didn't happen after looking at two?

As someone who participated in the conversation, I know it happened. I'm not overly concerned with combing through the articles to convince you. The OP asked "how this happens"; if you don't think "girl power" at a time when sexism in tech was all over the place was one of the factors that led to an unqualified 20-something overseeing a potential giant fraud, I'm not sure what to tell you.

[icebraining]

> There have been nearly 500 Theranos articles posted here over the years. You conclude it didn't happen after looking at two?

I looked at the two I could find with comments from before the whole thing blew up. The vast majority of posts about Theranos are post-blowout, from the past year and half, not those early discussions you were referring to.

> if you don't think "girl power" at a time when sexism in tech was all over the place was one of the factors that led to an unqualified 20-something overseeing a potential giant fraud, I'm not sure what to tell you.

I find your restatement of the previous claims inaccurate. You said "It was difficult to be critical, and supporters implied that the naysayers were merely "sexist"", which is much more specific that her gender having been a factor in story. Yes, it might have. Not in the way you portrayed it, though, in my opinion, at least not in HN.

[jamespo]

I'm sure you can find some examples then

[forgetsusername]

I'm sure I could, as much as I'm sure I won't be bothered to.

[ajeet_dhaliwal]

This is the article I read to learn what had went on last year and it is quite thorough. I'm looking forward to the movie mentioned in the article, seriously, I think it will be fascinating. There are scam companies and people embellishing the truth all over the place but they are usually found out fairly quickly, the fact that Theranos received so much investment and entry into various speaking engagements and clubs is what makes this so interesting. I wonder if it had not been medicine related and putting peoples lives in danger whether the show may have continued for longer.