The more I read about Elizabeth Holmes, the more implausible the whole thing seems.<p>She drops out of Stanford to start a blood-testing start-up. Plot-twist, she has no background in blood or testing.<p>Her company makes various blood testing prototypes. Plot-twist, they're actually glue-guns bought off Amazon.<p>Her company gets a contract from US's largest pharmacy chain to do blood-tests. Plot-twist, her company doesn't use its own machines to do this, but uses off-the-shelf machines that are already standard.<p>Her team files over 200 patents. Plot-twist, she's a co-inventor in 98% of them.<p>There are a lot of recordings of her talking. Plot-twist, they all consist of word-salad talking points, about using technology to change the world, without anything substantive.<p>She dressed like Steve Jobs, lowered her voice artificially to a baritone to sound more "deep", and used cool-sounding branding like "Edison", "nanotainer", "Theranos", "Balto". Plot-twist, her head-scientist committed suicide.<p>When she was 10, she wrote in a school year book that she wanted to become a billionaire. Plot-twist, she became one.<p>I have 2 hypotheses:<p>1) She was a face (a front) for a group of shadowy fraudsters (VC's?), who almost managed to pull of one of the biggest heists in history.<p>2) This is very common. Any "media hyped" startup out there fronted by an attractive founder with an implausible origin story is suspect.
'When she was 10, she wrote in a school year book that she wanted to become a billionaire. Plot-twist, she became one.'<p>That is not a plot twist, that is the plot.