I think the harm was caused by using the investors and prestige of the company to build the consumer confidence into passing faulty testing on to patients and some patients testified to receiving pretty devastating false positives and results. Their customer service was directed to minimize their potential failure rates until one of the later lab directors voided a lot of the faulty test results after discovering how bad it actually was. While I believe she was mainly convicted of defrauding investors, it's not like her actions happened in a bubble. They operated for like 10 years like that.

That's the problem I have though. The people who were really hurt, will they get any restitution from this? Somehow I doubt it, but the investors will walk away feeling vindicated.

Her lawyers pressure resulted in Ian Gibbons suicide [0], they provided false medical results that could have missed crucial health results, the provided false medical results that could have caused high levels of stress and worry, etc...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gibbons_(biochemist)

That would be a separate case I would think, and not one that Gibbons' relatives would be likely to win.

When I read this comment, the comment directly above it talked about people receiving incorrect test results and included links to relevant articles. I think its safe to say that some of Theranos' users did suffer non-financial harm.

> but how much physical harm did people suffer

Is physical harm the only harm that matters?

> Are they on the street now, begging for dinner?

That's not how justice works.

Why is it justice to dole out physical harm (prison) for actions that didn't cause physical harm? America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_in...).

I'm not interested in the incarceration rates in the US (the legal and social system is so messed up it's difficult to find a starting point - Europe is not different either for the record), the discussion is about what is a valid justice course of action.

Some crimes need physical intervention in order to protect society. It's just reality. For example, a thief that breaches private property needs to be punished, because not only did he steal, but he also caused a loss peace in society, which affects everyone.

It's pretty fitting, given how large the reward for pulling the fraud off was.

There are, of course, a lot of people walking free who have done far worse things. (The Sacklers, for instance, should all be subject to a combination of prison and utter financial ruin. If the world were just, most of them should be living on the street, right now. Instead, they are making quaint arguments about how a third of their drug wealth is fair recompense, and how their plundered offshore billions should be protected from bankruptcy.)