They said:

> writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure.

The only assertion is that she was married to a Visionary Tech Entrepreneur and doing puff pieces for Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs. Like seeing an article by Michelle Obama about how democratic politicians these days are great. Nothing deeper than that I think. It was an eye roll in text form.

It’s not an entirely pointless exercise, though, because people should know how powerful figures are related, and why they are motivated to do what they do. Journalists and billionaires are regular people who when exposed to a spouse’s daily ideas and reactions will soon bend in their direction. We should expect this from Laura. And we should be better equipped to dismiss it, because she was wrong.

My main point from above:

> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

I did clarify, but I'm curious what specific accusation you read from my comment.

I re-read it a few times and I don't see one regarding Theranos other than sloppy writing. My "gut plausibility of a scenario" that the author is pumping up her husband's portfolio company in an NYT article is pretty easy to validate by reading the article itself, it just happens to not be Theranos.

Are you seeing something that's not there, or am I failing to see something that is?

Thanks!

BTW I agree with your overall sentiment. Sorry if I was too obnoxious with my post. Sometimes I overthink things (such as with the rest of this comment).

On your comment:

> > She only pauses in her work to run — seven miles a day.

> -- Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen, yes that Andreessen, writing in the New York Times Magazine about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure.

> Turns out Palantir's Alex Karp was also "harnessing goodness through technology." No idea how she missed Adam Neumann.

> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/12/t-magazine/el...

My issue is only with the first two lines, therein I can only discern one meaningful interpretation given the context.

1. You begin with a puffy quote from the article about Elizabeth Holmes

2. You name the author and publisher

3. You commented that she was writing "with, um, no conflict of interest whatsoever I'm sure" -- which is most likely sarcasm and that you suggest the opposite is true.

Therein is a claim (or at least a stated belief): that the author had a conflict of interest when writing about Elizabeth Holmes.

The nature of the conflict wasn’t clear. I looked it up (and later posted an article which asserted such a conflict) but didn’t find any clear connections between the Andreessens and Holmes/Theranos specifically.

In your #3 you seem to have overlooked the phrase “about Visionary Tech Entrepreneurs,” which is what the eye-roll about conflict of interest pertains to.

I get what you misunderstood and I think I now get why, but I disagree that it’s what the “verbal eye roll” (love that phrase from another commenter) is actually doing on the, er, page. Guess we can summon the English teachers now, but I’m sticking to my style. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

That's fair

I edited in a response to that, to the effect that this kind of vague accusation is not that vague, people are predictable, and we should know who we get our information from.

Understood -- I can agree with that in general.

BTW I totally understand that HN is not Debate Club, and that comments aren't required to be formal, rigorous, evidence-based arguments. Occasionally I just feel compelled to point out times when beliefs about people in general are used to justify accusations against specific people in specific circumstances -- even when I can empathize with the original sentiment, as was the case with the OP.

I don't think there's a literal "conflict of interest" but there's definitely a "protect your friends" thing going on.

Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well.

My main point from above:

> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

It really is amusing that you have to keep posting this comment as I don't think anyone gave you an actual answer to what you're asking for, even after you clarified that you wanted specific, concrete accusations rather than vague ones. It's like people are wanting to reply to you but keep simply glossing over what you wrote.

> Laura is from the rich Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto crowd, and that's Holmes' base of support as well.

What support did Holmes have in SV?

Yes, Draper put in some early money and Ellison put in some money, but the vast majority of Theranos' money seems to have come from outside the valley. (Yes, George Schultz lives in SV, but he's part of the SV investor "scene.")

You're thinking of the Sand Hill Road VCs, I guess. You're right: not much if any.

However, Schultz was in the Hoover Institute (on the Stanford campus), and he introduced her to lots of other government / defense heavyweights. James Mattis actually testified at the trial, for instance. Once you have a prestigious backer, the others fall in line like sheep.

I actually met Laura once, before she married Marc. Those people all know each other, believe me (I'm not one of them, in case you were wondering; it was some charitable thing).

Yes, Schultz introduced Theranos to "not SV" people, such as Mattis and the Walmart heirs.

How does that make Theranos part of the "Stanford/Menlo Park VC/Palo Alto" crowd?

>based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

What meets your threshold for a conflict of interest? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but this seems to meet my personal threshold.

It's like if a politician heads a committee that has large sway in government contracts and they are close to someone who happens to invest in companies that bid on those contracts. It's easy to see a conflict exists even if a straight-line to a crime does not. Ethics often boils down to managing these conflicts so there isn't even a perceived avenue for impropriety. A politician breaches ethical boundaries irrespective if there’s unequivocal evidence they let the relationship impact their decision. There does not need to be a smoking gun.

I'm sure the author has no business relationship at all with Theranos and merely knows her socially.

Plausible deniability is useful in this kind of situation.

My main point from above:

> I do get frustrated seeing these sorts of vague cynical quips levying *specific* accusations based more upon a gut plausibility of a scenario rather than a clear outline of information.

We got it and I couldn’t possibly agree more if you didn’t obnoxiously cut and pasted the same criticism for every subsequent message that failed to satisfy your standards. Sometimes people don’t get our point, so we just move on

Understood. I admittedly got slightly miffed when the first few replies I received in a short time were conjecture.

As an aside, one reply had mentioned plausible deniability… perhaps ‘plausible accusability’ also exists, wherein any hypothetical crime one can imagine is presumed to have factually occurred unless 100% disproven.