And the fact that she was able to execute effectively on the fund raising and marketing aspects of her venture doesn’t mean that she IS an expert in her field. The problems with and ultimate outcome of Theranos paint a pretty clear picture of that.

Visible association with a convicted fraudster, especially one as high profile her, should be a giant red flag to investors and consumers.

We live in the world where there is no such thing as a negative publicity. Just look at Trump. People take notice apparently.

After all, we all know that funded startups are just a pump and dump game. It doesn't matter whether the thing is real at all, what truly matters is how big will the "bigger fool" that comes after you. Holmes attracts eyeballs and thats' all investors need.

Why would she be an expert in the field though? She did some of a chemistry degree and worked for a bit as an intern in a drug testing lab. Apart from that all her experience has been in fraud.

At the ceo level fraud is a large part of the field. Just think of all the PE firms itching to hire a good fraudster

So you mean that fraud is a part of the qualification?

And the job, in cases like this the bet is that you are getting at in at the top of a pyramid scheme and you will get out before it collapses. It’s not a terrible bet if you are self aware and cognizant of that.

What about the others in the pyramid? Are they aware and cognizant of it? Is it theft if they arent?

Hard to draw the line between fraudster and victim sometimes isn’t it

It's like that Greatful Dead song lyric "Am I the victim or the crime "

> The fact the she's a convicted fraudster does not mean that she's not an expert in the field.

Indeed it doesn't. Could you please provide evidence that she is an expert? Running a fraudulent company doesn't count.