The author should appear on Dancing with the Stars, because the article was some Fred Astaire level dancing, managing to avoid mentioning that the company handled nearly a million test results and a "significant number" of them were bullshit - and that Holmes spent years lying to regulators, investors, and reporters.

Think about how many people's medical care was affected by her. Even if 10% of the results were wrong, that's 100,000 results.

Nature does a decent job of summing up the mess: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05149-2

I see no evidence that the author read the WSJ article he tried to refute. Because he provided zero refutation to any of the specific facts reported. It's just sort of, that article said she was bad, but I don't think so.

peter schiff has 600k followers despite being wrong about everything

being right and having a successful personal brand are not the same skillset.

No doubt he's got 600k followers due to his personal brand. But "wrong about everything" is a a bit unfair. He's been telling people to keep a few % of their wealth in gold and that has been advice that is ageing really well. Ditto his commentary that the money printing will continue to get more extreme until the damage is beyond question even to the average US voter (it might take a while to get that bad!).

You mean not aging really well? Just compare rise in gold prices in last 10 years to equities or commodities or real estate or crypto.

Those are all meant to be investments; gold is for the part of a portfolio that needs to maintain its value in a market crash. Gold is proving to be a much better option than cash or bonds.

And with the exception of the unlucky souls who bought in 2011-2012, gold has been reasonably competitive with equities. Not as good, but much lower risk.

bonds pay a yield. gold does not. so you get income from bonds in addition to a hedge instrument.

Gold's returns are not competitive at all compare to S&P 500.

Over the last 20 years the gold price is going up at an average rate of ~9% per annum (nominal). If your bond yields are doing that well then you have an excellent ability to find bonds. An approximately 6% real yield is perfectly comparable to what someone might plan on out of the stock market on the theory that stock returns over the long run should roughly match GDP growth. Stocks are a bit overvalued at the moment what with very low interest rates.

Peter said >5 years ago that the dollar would collapse by now. 2021 was a very good year for the dollar.

Wow,Latest Tweet:

" I don’t care what they say:

2021 was fucking awesome.

2022 will be even better. "

I think this is a perfectly valid opinion, far more defensible than his take on Theranos' coverage.

That’s just the tweet that the parent linked to.

Sometimes it seems as though cognitive dissonance and word-count go hand in hand.

Say what you want but The Hustle newsletter is great, it is one of the most well known business newsletters in the startup world.

Yes that’s me!!

My man

I mean, he's right about that though, even if his opinion on Theranos was 100% wrong

Putting aside anything else, the implication that 2020/2021 was bad for yuppies is a bit... selective.

If you're going to put this writer's comments in context of suffering through this time period, you really should be doing so against the backdrop of essential workers whose concerns were more about how they would continue to earn a paycheck when schools were remote and childcare unavailable, or simply had to put their own health at risk, or lost their jobs and now find themselves under a mountain of debt, past-due rent for 1.5 years, and pending evictions now that the moratorium has ended.

I'm probably more of a whisky & mescaline socialist myself, but this tweet seems to be a pretty vapid and vague summary of the year from a journalist.

Maybe it's a problem with Twitter as a medium in general? People over analyze these snippets and ultimately derive whatever they want to. Suddenly things like kidnapping, brutal rape and children dying of malaria start coming up and that's intense.

The weirdest thing is seeing Twitter appear in more and more journalism. BBC constantly references tweets in it's articles[0], I'm not sure why. A good tweet says nothing, suggests everything, gets people emotional and puts isolated individuals into a mob mentality. It's like a retirement home for pregnant mares.

I also had something about propaganda versus journalism, but I'm kinda tripping out here and losing my threads. John could probably say this better than me. Brb.

[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59750154

Yes, like most tweets this one is pretty vapid too. Not sure what's unusual about it as tweets go, there must be a million of them complaining about how bad 2020 and 2021 were which are no more valid or less vapid. The problem here is simply that differing thoughts and opinions are unwelcome among the intelligentsia.