Jump to content
Science Forums

On the Elizabeth Holmes case


dennisfrancisblewett
 Share

Recommended Posts

EDITS AS OF OCTOBER 31ST, 2021:

1) Added reference about commerical analyzers

2) Added references as to Dow Jones and Wall Street Journal & Dow Jones and Google.

3) I am currently fixing the links to provide the sources that I have referenced. I believe I had put effort toward seeing that individuals could access the sources that I referenced through Zotero, but perhaps Zotero has recently changed something about its servers to prevent sharing of research materials.

4) Fixed links. Let me know if there is an issue.

 

Hello,

 

I had put forward effort on Scienceforums.net to discuss the Elizabeth Holmes case. There was backlash and members did not like me critiquing the member of whom I considered was working on de-railing the thread. I never prevented anyone from participating in the thread. I was wrongfully banned and staff refuses to lift the ban.

 

Regardless, I think effort needs to be put on the Elizabeth Holmes case. Elizabeth Holmes managed to craft a very powerful piece of technology, namely the Edison. I think it may have significant applicability in helping society overcome SAR-CoV-2. I think it would be unfortunate for an innocent woman to go to prison. The Edison does chemistry but on a smaller scale.

 

The user, CharonY, managed to give a critique, and I spent time analyzing the critique.

Quote

CharonY:

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.

Part of my analysis:

Quote

No, no they don't. The Wall Street Journal doesn't list its alleged one or more witnesses. Regardless, it doesn't list where the alleged witness got the information to check the "credibility" of the witness.

Even then, this reminds me of something I communicated to Attorney Robert Simmons how no "witness" is an "actual witness" because all witnesses lack the authority to make sense of their reality, as though they need a reality-check to realize that despite what they "think they know" the fact is they know nothing.

 

There is a difference between an "alleged witness" and an "actual witness," whereby an "actual" witness would require infallibility to prevent the possibility of false testimony.

 

Let's say I'm a laboratory scientist working with some piece of equipment. Let's say I get data that says the equipment is bad. Later on, someone asks my opinion about the data that the equipment develops, and let's say I report to the person that the equipment generates bad data.

Here is a question: How good is my interpretation of the data relative to the piece of equipment?

Maybe the hypothetical interpretation was bad, thus experimenter error rather than equipment error occurred. From a quick web search, I am reminded of the term "experimental error" from source.

Ok, so let's presume that I had mis-interpreted the data. Let's hypothesize the equipment, however, is still good.

How do you test for that and examine that?

I've read various articles (1), (2), (3,), (4) [articles readable as Zotero attachments (research and information related)] related to the Edison and what Theranos was doing. It appears that Elizabeth Holmes is failing to let it be known the efficiency of her equipment relative to doing blood tests. She is not fit to stand trial. However, she, like many other criminal defendants, is being moved through the system.

 

Furthermore, I am not being given information on what the alleged "commercial analyzers" (5) are that were allegedly being used in place of Theranos scientific equipment, presumptively the Edison. I have read that venous draws rather than blood-taking equipment made by Theranos was being used. Maybe that's the referenced "commerical analyzers" that was discussed by some source, for which I do not recall at the moment.

 

Quote

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.  

source: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126000-on-the-case-of-elizabeth-holmes/?do=findComment&comment=1189661

My response:

All sound judgments are by persons of whom have authority, whereby such authority is established through having expertise that is infallible: Thus, the difference between an "actual" authority vs. some character with alleged authority.

Quote

They need only solid evidence and some basic rules of evidence evaluation. 

I had already discussed Illinois Rules of Evidence in relation to how something is alleged to be evidence by the court (Rule 104, which is applicable on the Federal level, which is what Elizabeth Holmes is dealing with). And TheVat ought to have figured out that an individual of whom does not have infallibility is unable to determine whether or not alleged evidence is "solid" because such individual cannot maintain such alleged evidence as "solid" evidence through the individual's center of gravity.

I think a reading of the onlinephilosophyclub.com thread would have aided in this being deduced by TheVat. I think there was enough discussion about authority and infallibility, whereby I considered TheVat to be working on de-railing my thread and instead be arguing something along the lines of, "OBEY! OBEY! ACCEPT THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS YOUR MASTER! OBEY!"

Also, as a further edit to this post, I'd like to mention that I noticed that Dow Jones (6) owns The Wall Street Journal. Google is connected to Dow Jones through Google Cloud (7). If there is information warfare involved, which I suspect there is, it might explain why people are having difficulty figuring out how and why Elizabeth Holmes is not guilty.

It seems to me that Elizabeth Holmes is failing to refute false claims against her, thus attorney misconduct (her attorney) is doing a poor job.

And as one more additional edit, it seems to me that the Edison being available to the public for blood testing would enable people to analyze whether or not they have antibodies developed to SARS-CoV-2, thus they've developed an immunity to one or more strains of SARS-CoV-2.

 

References (provided for research and informational purposes):

(1) "A Prized Startup's Struggles --- Silicon Valley lab Theranos is valued at $9 billion but isn't using its technology for all the tests it offers." Wall Street Journal. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/a-prized-startups-struggles.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/VWWECXB8/items/WM629U27/attachment/6WSZ59U3/collection

(2) "Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology; Silicon Valley lab, led by Elizabeth Holmes, is valued at $9 billion but isn't using its technology for all the tests it offers" Wall Street Journal. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/hot-startup-theranos-has-struggled-with-its.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/VWWECXB8/items/DTK3K69V/attachment/CSEAEUBX/collection

(3) "Controversial $9 billion health startup Theranos fires back again at the scathing WSJ report that questioned its technology" Business Insider. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/controversial-9-billion-health-startup-theranos-fires-back-again.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/XEC9DIC2/items/3XEU8ZN9/attachment/DS5ZPGJS/collection

(4) "The Theranos controversy, explained" <https://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9576501/theranos-elizabeth-holmes> https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/XEC9DIC2/items/KCG7M94S/attachment/JP8EHBVI/collection

(5) "Ask WSJ: Theranos and the Trial of Elizabeth Holmes" <https://www.wsj.com/live-qa/ask-wsj-theranos-and-the-trial-of-elizabeth-holmes/EB0D6C2D-5D7A-4DA0-BAB7-54A11840F864>.

(6) "Publication Details For 'Wall Street Journal (Online)'" Publications: JN "Wall Street Journal (Online)": EBSCOhost <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/publications_-jn-_wall-street-journal-online__-ebscohost.pdf> (Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/G4AD4MM9/items/DXXMDD3J/attachment/9BZU784B/collection)

(7) "Search - is google connected to dow jones" Microsoft Bing. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/search-is-google-connected-to-dow-jones.pdf> (Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/G4AD4MM9/items/D6EBNXD6/attachment/3EX6RPJB/collection)

 

Edited by dennisfrancisblewett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2021 at 1:08 PM, dennisfrancisblewett said:

EDITS AS OF OCTOBER 31ST, 2021:

1) Added reference about commerical analyzers

2) Added references as to Dow Jones and Wall Street Journal & Dow Jones and Google.

3) I am currently fixing the links to provide the sources that I have referenced. I believe I had put effort toward seeing that individuals could access the sources that I referenced through Zotero, but perhaps Zotero has recently changed something about its servers to prevent sharing of research materials.

4) Fixed links. Let me know if there is an issue.

 

Hello,

 

I had put forward effort on Scienceforums.net to discuss the Elizabeth Holmes case. There was backlash and members did not like me critiquing the member of whom I considered was working on de-railing the thread. I never prevented anyone from participating in the thread. I was wrongfully banned and staff refuses to lift the ban.

 

Regardless, I think effort needs to be put on the Elizabeth Holmes case. Elizabeth Holmes managed to craft a very powerful piece of technology, namely the Edison. I think it may have significant applicability in helping society overcome SAR-CoV-2. I think it would be unfortunate for an innocent woman to go to prison. The Edison does chemistry but on a smaller scale.

 

The user, CharonY, managed to give a critique, and I spent time analyzing the critique.

Part of my analysis:

 

Let's say I'm a laboratory scientist working with some piece of equipment. Let's say I get data that says the equipment is bad. Later on, someone asks my opinion about the data that the equipment develops, and let's say I report to the person that the equipment generates bad data.

Here is a question: How good is my interpretation of the data relative to the piece of equipment?

Maybe the hypothetical interpretation was bad, thus experimenter error rather than equipment error occurred. From a quick web search, I am reminded of the term "experimental error" from source.

Ok, so let's presume that I had mis-interpreted the data. Let's hypothesize the equipment, however, is still good.

How do you test for that and examine that?

I've read various articles (1), (2), (3,), (4) [articles readable as Zotero attachments (research and information related)] related to the Edison and what Theranos was doing. It appears that Elizabeth Holmes is failing to let it be known the efficiency of her equipment relative to doing blood tests. She is not fit to stand trial. However, she, like many other criminal defendants, is being moved through the system.

 

Furthermore, I am not being given information on what the alleged "commercial analyzers" (5) are that were allegedly being used in place of Theranos scientific equipment, presumptively the Edison. I have read that venous draws rather than blood-taking equipment made by Theranos was being used. Maybe that's the referenced "commerical analyzers" that was discussed by some source, for which I do not recall at the moment.

 

source: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126000-on-the-case-of-elizabeth-holmes/?do=findComment&comment=1189661

My response:

All sound judgments are by persons of whom have authority, whereby such authority is established through having expertise that is infallible: Thus, the difference between an "actual" authority vs. some character with alleged authority.

I had already discussed Illinois Rules of Evidence in relation to how something is alleged to be evidence by the court (Rule 104, which is applicable on the Federal level, which is what Elizabeth Holmes is dealing with). And TheVat ought to have figured out that an individual of whom does not have infallibility is unable to determine whether or not alleged evidence is "solid" because such individual cannot maintain such alleged evidence as "solid" evidence through the individual's center of gravity.

I think a reading of the onlinephilosophyclub.com thread would have aided in this being deduced by TheVat. I think there was enough discussion about authority and infallibility, whereby I considered TheVat to be working on de-railing my thread and instead be arguing something along the lines of, "OBEY! OBEY! ACCEPT THE LEGAL SYSTEM AS YOUR MASTER! OBEY!"

Also, as a further edit to this post, I'd like to mention that I noticed that Dow Jones (6) owns The Wall Street Journal. Google is connected to Dow Jones through Google Cloud (7). If there is information warfare involved, which I suspect there is, it might explain why people are having difficulty figuring out how and why Elizabeth Holmes is not guilty.

It seems to me that Elizabeth Holmes is failing to refute false claims against her, thus attorney misconduct (her attorney) is doing a poor job.

And as one more additional edit, it seems to me that the Edison being available to the public for blood testing would enable people to analyze whether or not they have antibodies developed to SARS-CoV-2, thus they've developed an immunity to one or more strains of SARS-CoV-2.

 

References (provided for research and informational purposes):

(1) "A Prized Startup's Struggles --- Silicon Valley lab Theranos is valued at $9 billion but isn't using its technology for all the tests it offers." Wall Street Journal. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/a-prized-startups-struggles.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/VWWECXB8/items/WM629U27/attachment/6WSZ59U3/collection

(2) "Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology; Silicon Valley lab, led by Elizabeth Holmes, is valued at $9 billion but isn't using its technology for all the tests it offers" Wall Street Journal. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/hot-startup-theranos-has-struggled-with-its.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/VWWECXB8/items/DTK3K69V/attachment/CSEAEUBX/collection

(3) "Controversial $9 billion health startup Theranos fires back again at the scathing WSJ report that questioned its technology" Business Insider. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/controversial-9-billion-health-startup-theranos-fires-back-again.pdf> Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/XEC9DIC2/items/3XEU8ZN9/attachment/DS5ZPGJS/collection

(4) "The Theranos controversy, explained" <https://www.vox.com/2015/10/20/9576501/theranos-elizabeth-holmes> https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/XEC9DIC2/items/KCG7M94S/attachment/JP8EHBVI/collection

(5) "Ask WSJ: Theranos and the Trial of Elizabeth Holmes" <https://www.wsj.com/live-qa/ask-wsj-theranos-and-the-trial-of-elizabeth-holmes/EB0D6C2D-5D7A-4DA0-BAB7-54A11840F864>.

(6) "Publication Details For 'Wall Street Journal (Online)'" Publications: JN "Wall Street Journal (Online)": EBSCOhost <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/publications_-jn-_wall-street-journal-online__-ebscohost.pdf> (Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/G4AD4MM9/items/DXXMDD3J/attachment/9BZU784B/collection)

(7) "Search - is google connected to dow jones" Microsoft Bing. <https://dennisfrancisblewett.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/search-is-google-connected-to-dow-jones.pdf> (Zotero reference: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/G4AD4MM9/items/D6EBNXD6/attachment/3EX6RPJB/collection)

 

Well, they aren't wrong if you disobey the government/legal system you are likely to end up in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. 

51-D3-TCjem7-L-AC-SY580.jpg

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

Well, they aren't wrong if you disobey the government/legal system you are likely to end up in Guantanamo Bay detention camp...

It is not possible to disobey the government/legal system because it is not possible for anyone to know any of the orders or rules of a government/legal system in order to obey them. If you were to argue for the position that people are conditioned through pain and suffering to believe or conform to some "norm" or expectation of behavior relative to some alleged language usage or "understanding" of some alleged "rule" or "social expectation," you would fail to realize that there are those of whom cannot be conditioned because of resistance or immunity to such conditioning.

Anyway, I hope there are other scientists of whom will chime in. I would like to do other stuff than just focus on Elizabeth Holmes. I'm sure she appreciates any and all help. My current view is that her attorney has failed to notice how she is autistic and lacking social skills to project refutations that have been developed by the prosecution, the Wall Street Journal, and others. I saw the chemistry involved with the Edison; and it does the chemistry on a smaller scale.

I'd like to see what research papers led Elizabeth Holmes to believe that she could do the blood tests she has alleged could be done with the Edison. Maybe she got them from the Journal of Nanotechnology or something. Unless she's brilliantly delusional, there was something in her scientific knowledge that led her to believe she could do the blood tests on a "nano-scale" with the Edison. Maybe the patent office has all of that information; maybe she kept that information tied to the patent as part of a trade secret.

I've read stuff like her saying, "I won't talk about X, Y, or Z because it's a trade secret."

She needs to figure out how to support the claims that her technology can do various blood tests, as advertised, and it would aid in her discussing the various research articles that led her to believe she could develop a technology (namely, the Edison) to carry out experiments with a small amount of blood.

As to the video (link) I saw, she does a comparative analysis with blood work and it relates error in techniques. My presumption is that paper has the amount of blood used for the general technique and she discusses for the Edison how much blood she used in contrast to do the same experiment with the Edison, which would prove that a smaller volume of blood may be used to lead to a similar experimental result.

If Elizabeth Holmes is not autistic, she's got a huge amount of intelligence and a severe lack of social skills. She's failing to grasp how to respond to the allegations and refute them. Her attorney is engaged in some kind of misconduct is my guess, whereby the attorney is failing to put out information as to how the Edison does what it has purported to be able to do. I get how a defense attorney might refuse to tell the public anything and only make counter-arguments to a prosecutor (if but also judge in a chambers). However, the absence of such refutations in public seem to be making Elizabeth Holmes look like a con-artist.

My attorney, for my felony case, managed to get things knocked down to like 6-months (I think) vs. insanity (as the plea deal). I went to trial. Looking back, if I could have, I would have told him to take all communications him and I had and present ALL things to the jury as evidence to argue against the prosecution. It would have been like a "checks-and-balances" against my attorney. My attorney engaged in misconduct (what exactly and how, I'm not sure. I don't know what the communications between my attorney and the prosecuting attorney were besides him coming back and saying what plea deals changed). I had communicated with my attorney about necessary and sufficient criteria and issues in epistemology with knowledge (I didn't know someone to be a peace officer nor anything to be a gun).

I don't want this thread de-railing into what I dealt with, though. I have given an example of how an attorney might fail to properly represent a client, which is at the least, what is going on in the Elizabeth Holmes case.

Edited by dennisfrancisblewett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...