[photochemsyn]

This sounds right. Theranos is a case example - if the investors had hired any independent experts in the technology sector, micro-fluidics for biochemical analysis, they'd have immediately told them that quantitative measurements (i.e. getting blood metabolite levels) at that scale were essentially impossible, although +/- testing (i.e. detection of a virus, or a gene sequence) was more plausible.

Restricting Theranos to +/- testing (STDs and other infectious diseases, maybe some cancer genes) would be FAR less profitable than taking over the blood testing industry, which is probably why Theranos didn't go in that direction. Regardless, even cursory due diligence would have revealed all that.

[rightbyte]

> if the investors had hired any independent experts

Maybe they did? The ones that actually did invest are the ones that also are waiting for a Nigerian prince to finally do his bank transfer.

[vhold]

That would be like the opposite of survivor bias. We never hear the boring stories of the diligent people who avoided disaster.

[Breza]

I've read a lot about the Theranos situation, and it sounds like CVS might be the "survivor" in this case. There are a few references to CVS in Bad Blood and other reports, but CVS wisely didn't say much about what caused them to pass on the offer that Walgreens accepted.

[vhold]

That's a perfect example.

I can think of two incentives for the vigilant to stay silent in the face of a scam.

One, in the case of a company especially, they may want their competitors to walk into the trap.

Two, the risk of accusing somebody of being a scammer (that you haven't fallen for) is too great, you get nothing out of it, and risk being sued.

Although, in this case, where peoples' health was put at risk, it would be especially awful to not speak up.