Also their aggressive, Scientology-like tactic of suing everybody who dared to question their results 2015: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/theranos-scandal-could-become-a-legal-nightmare/ Now the lawsuits are flying all over the place from every direction: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/theranoss-latest-lawsuit-may-be-its-worst-yet " In November, Robert Colman and Hilary Taubman-Dye filed a lawsuit in California alleging that Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and former Theranos president Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani had made false promises “built on false statements and omissions.” A few weeks before that, Walgreens sued Theranos for $140 million, alleging that it breached a contract between the two companies. Walgreens operated Theranos Wellness Centers across the country, where customers could go and get their blood tested. “We are disappointed that Walgreens filed this lawsuit,” a spokesperson told Vanity Fair in November. “Through its mishandling of our partnership and now this lawsuit, Walgreens has caused Theranos and its investors significant harm. We will respond vigorously to Walgreens’ unfounded allegations, and will seek to hold Walgreens responsible for the damage it has caused to Theranos and its investors.” And before that, Partner Fund Management LP, a hedge fund that had invested in Theranos, announced it would be suing the company as well, citing “a series of lies, material misstatements, and omissions” in a letter to its investors obtained and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. (“The suit, filed by a hedge fund, is without merit and Theranos will fight it vigorously,” the company said at the time: “The hedge fund is engaging in revisionist history, making claims that are not rooted in facts.”) Now Theranos faces a lawsuit not from an angry investor, but from a U.S. state. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is moving to sue Theranos for consumer fraud, according to a bidding contract first spotted by STAT News. The document claims that Theranos violated Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, and accuses the company of a “long-running scheme of deceptive acts and misrepresentations” about the capabilities and operation of its blood-testing equipment. The lawsuit—the first government-led suit against the company—would represent Arizona citizens, who may have received treatment from Theranos at one of the Theranos Wellness Centers in Arizona and California."
I don't think so. If The Big Short is the analogy (same director), that was an incredibly depressing story and McKay managed to make it entertaining, educative and with heroes whom we otherwise wouldn't root for. (seriously, rich HF guys profiting from an economic collapse?) I am not sure if he is going again for the comedic angle, he could make it a thriller. But there will be no white washing...
Actually, the picture is pretty clear, this article explains the fraud pretty well: "Worse, Theranos has told regulators that it used the Edison for 12 types of tests out of more than 200 offered to consumers and stopped using the devices altogether in late June 2015. In other words, Theranos' insane "valuation" was achieved on the basis of doing only 6% of blood tests in house (all of them erroneously we now learn), and outsourcing 94% to companies whose products actually worked" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...nolgy-fraud-restates-voids-years-test-results "the basis for Theranos ludicrous $9 billion valuation which it appears was achieved without anyone doing any actual due diligence, were the "Edison" machines which were touted as revolutionary - not just by Holmes but by the fawning media and even the Clintons. Theranos has now told regulators that it threw out all Edison test results from 2014 and 2015, effectively confirming it has no proprietary technology, " "Holmes repeatedly gambled with people's lives, sending them clearly wrong results. As a result some patients have received erroneous results that might have thrown off health decisions made with their doctors, the WSJ reports. All this is needed is one death and there is a criminal case." "Finally, the question everyone should be asking is who enabled this fraud for so many years? The simple answer: everyone, and especially those who have an agenda to conduct one endless infomercial for a product that ended up being an epic fraud."
Both sides got slammed in The Big Short, but more so were the people that caused the bubble than the profiteers of the collapse. They never demonized the HF guys who made money off an economic collapse. In fact, they were the protagonists that were being laughed at and doubted for years, for essentially being correct in spite of prevailing group think. Rather, it focused on the people that caused the bubble as being antagonists. The people peddling the loans. The smug ibankers willing to write CDS thinking its a sure win against the geeky HF guy with weird antics (and laughing about it when he walked out). The bad guys in the movie were the greedy people before the collapse - that's what the movie painted. I never thought the shorters were made to be the enemy in that movie. Overall I thought it was relatively balanced as a whole. That's probably where this movie, if it were to be made. would be too. Plus, this saga ain't over. Who knows where this story ultimately ends. To make a movie this early, before it is a surefire thing with sealed convictions and things of that nature, is a bit premature to be picking sides for a movie. So my guess is you will get the girl power spin.
The profiteers were never made to be the bad guys, that was my whole point, nevertheless they were characters whom we usually not cheer or root for. Rich guy gets richer, that isn't really a movie seller. Also, there were at least 3 sides (loaners, mortgages taking small people and the shorters) in the story, maybe even 4 if I count the government making policies helping the loans. Bottom line is, McKay didn't whitewash anyone, and I don't expect him to do so for Holmes. Irrelevant sidenote: Recently I watched 3 movies about the Lehman Brothers collapse. In the BBC made docu-drama (it is on Youtube) there was a short funny part explaining CDOs and that part was very similar to the Big Short's blonde chick in the tub scene, except it was made in 2009. I do agree that it is a bit early to make a movie, since things are still going on. But recently Hollywood and specially TV started to catch up and bring out stories less than a year old...
By now based on the above figures, the overall picture is 100% clear, if they are facts. The key executives should be liable.
Theranos is so yesterday. The new kid on the fraud block is, uBeam, the wireless charger. Last year they were accused to be the new Theranos, with a same blonde chick type as CEO: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/charged/ The idea of charging from meters away doesn't exactly violate physics, but not having a working prototype does violate ethics. They have raised 23 mill so far. Oh wait a minute, this February finally this happened, a secret demo: " The demonstration was supposed to be “off the record,” which is a strange thing to tell a crowd of people with video cameras in their pockets." http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/3/14505460/ubeam-wireless-charging-first-public-demo This is kind of interesting because it doesn't exactly show a working charge. A battery symbol looks like being charged, but just for a few second and impossible to tell if it was just an app. or the phone was actually charged. How well, who needs due diligence, just take my money! Apparently other companies are also working on similar technologies, like Energous with not much more success. They were also called fraudsters. http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/energous-wireless-power-ceo-lied-publicly-sec-violation/ "These guys along with UBeam have continuously exaggerated their capabilities. Energous appears to have publicly lied about capabilities they already possess and it’s more serious for Energous because they’re a public company."
@Pekelo Sure the company is worthless nobody debates that. But I speculate she managed to take a few mil out of the company 1 way or another. Or at least live an extremely high life for awhile. And J-Law is going to play her? I'll back up J-Law for anything. You know especially backing her up onto me.