[disgruntledphd2]

But the article works equally well for Uber or Lyft or indeed We work, all of which were funded by professional VCs.

I really like Ben Evans, but he's ignoring the main thrust of the article and nitpicking about definitions.

That's rarely a sign of someone who has a strong argument against a piece.

[jdminhbg]

If it works equally well for Uber or Lyft or WeWork, then trying to shoehorn Theranos in since it's a spectacular fraud that doesn't really fit the definition was a bad decision.

That's rarely a sign of a piece that makes a strong argument.

[disgruntledphd2]

The article covered WeWork much, much more extensively than Theranos.

I know its against the guidelines, but did you read the article?

[jdminhbg]

Trying to shoehorn in Theranos does not preclude covering WeWork, so I'm not sure how you read my comment to imply that it did.

[Apocryphon]

Theranos is mentioned three times in the article, and always in the company of more cogent examples of VC-funded companies- Juicero, Uber, and WeWork. The quibbling over Theranos really does look like a distraction away from the main points of the article.