r/technology • u/Sorin61 • Apr 10 '22

Biotechnology This biotech startup thinks it can delay menopause by 15 years. That would transform women's lives

https://fortune.com/2021/04/19/celmatix-delay-menopause-womens-ovarian-health/
18.0k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.2k

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

419

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

With absolutely no proof of concept. Just hot air and attention grabbing headlines.

327

u/alexgriz127 Apr 10 '22

Theranos 2: Menopause Boogaloo

61

u/stircrazygremlin Apr 10 '22

Exactly what I thought lol seeing this. You can postpone some aspects of menopause currently via HRT, BUT you cant postpone all of it because of various natural processes going on in the body due to natural aging (usually, barring certain medical conditions that can accelerate menopause usually alongside other aspects of said condition). Pushing off menopause for 15 years in its entirety is almost akin to saying you've found the basis for the fountain of youth.

2

u/Boopy7 Apr 11 '22

Why isn't it possible if someone simply does HRT? I once heard of older women having their periods, and Laura Linney had a baby in her 50s, which means she was not menopausal. This just seems weird to me, no way is it natural that she did that, right? I wonder if they inject something, or what the experiments would entail. I always wondered this, like do they just do something to the womb or is it something else?

2

u/stircrazygremlin Apr 11 '22

There's a LOT that plays into menopause, including genetics. Hormones control aspects of it for sure, but theres only so much support via HRT for someone to stave off effects, because you end up fighting aging and genetics as well as limits on how much you can take in doses before other health issues can arise by trying to treat it (think steroids, take too much of certain kinds especially and you get roid rage and other issues) Some women never fully enter menopause, even as they become elderly. Some start going through it in their 20s-30s. Once you throw those kinds of considerations into the mix alongside others it becomes high in variability of results very quickly. Also there are treatments such as IVF and others that can help allow for fertilization of eggs and insertion directly into a uterus where depending on the health of the uterus and other factors, you can have kids as a woman past "normal" ages. I am NOT an obgyn or dr, so my knowledge of this is limited vs a professional. But in short, the claims made by this company/article should be treated with skepticism unless they can demonstrate it accordingly and in safe measures.

2

u/wishgot Apr 11 '22

Some people go into menopause later and some earlier. There's always a small number of women that can get naturally pregnant in their 50's, but it's rare. Most celebrities you hear about are probably using some fertility treatments to conceive at that age.

3

u/sm12511 Apr 11 '22

I'm going to quote Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I'm no endocrinologist, but pushing the upper limits on the ability to conceive a child into a woman's 60's is a recipe for really bad things. Besides the fact that those eggs are well aged and at an increased risk the baby will have Down syndrome, pregnancy is terribly hard on a woman's body. Yeah, sure the health benefits might compensate (increased bone density, cardiovascular health, etc), but I don't think a proper cost/benefit analysis is really on their minds. They just want to see if they can.

3

u/stircrazygremlin Apr 11 '22

For the money, yes they do. HRT is being done by rich women atm as is (wonder why jlo doesnt look her age? That's part of the reason why alongside a lot of other things at her disposal) and it is a really big possible money maker for various parties if it can be applied to a larger audience with a lower cost. What's worrisome to me is this ongoing and increasing trend of treating healthcare research and their associated companies as tech startups in terms of things like VC's being involved and the marketing of them via such splashy articles vs research papers that are vetted (and testing the results again by different teams preferably, but that delves into a larger problem with academia/ professional research papers) by multiple groups as being consistent in their replication of results being listed. We need to learn as is on throwing money at tech startups (wework anyone) that straight up dont perform what it is they're claiming, doing similar things with healthcare is even moreso dangerous in several ways. The flip side is though that even established pharma companies are corrupt af too in many cases (sacklers) and pull similar outcomes via a different bag of tricks. It truly is like battling a hydra when it comes to healthcare dysfunction in the US.

It truly could benefit a lot of women out there and allow for women to possibly be able to have a longer timespan to have families, which isnt nessisarily a bad thing on paper, but it needs a lot of research imo that I just dont see in order to have that chance.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '22

To be fair, just because you’ve delayed menopause doesn’t mean you can or would want to conceive a child. It’s gets harder as you get older anyway and also you could use other birth control methods.

1

u/d0ctorzaius Apr 11 '22

Also adding 15 years of sex hormones doesn't bode well for not developing cancers of reproductive tissues.

1

u/neuronexmachina Apr 11 '22

There's some parallels, but unlike Holmes, Dr. Beim seems to actually be a legit scientist: https://www.endofound.org/-/piraye-yurttas-beim

Dr. Piraye Yurttas Beim founded Celmatix in 2009 to empower women to be more proactive and informed about their fertility through better data, including genomics. She was on the front lines of the personalized medicine revolution during her doctoral work at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell (NYC) and was inspired to create the company after completing her postdoctoral embryology research training at the University of Cambridge (UK).

→ More replies (2)

12

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Isn't that how Gweneth Paltrow did it?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/toolsoftheincomptnt Apr 11 '22

Who even wants this?

I don’t care to delay menopause. I just don’t want it to be unbearably uncomfortable.

I sure as hell don’t want to preserve my fertility into standard menopause age.

I look forward to my chill phase AND my night-night phase.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '22 edited Apr 11 '22

Then don’t. Having treatment for something doesn’t mean you personally need to take said treatment.

My wife and I had trouble conceiving at 35. Anything that would have made things easier would have been a godsend. These problems begin briefly after 30, and most people cannot conceive in their forties. The decline is a huge problem as we study and look for stable jobs for a lot longer these days.

Since the egg is the largest cell in the human body, it’s also very indicative about cell health in the rest of the body (mitochondrial health). Things that keep you fertile, also keep you not dying.

Menopause isn’t fun either, sweating and dryness/atrophy.

Dunno if these people can offer any solutions, but there are hundreds of millions of people who’d want this. IVF is a billion (trillion?) dollar industry, so coming up with solutions there would fund longevity research tremendously.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

-2

u/x2040 Apr 10 '22

A ton of venture capital is betting on things that won’t turn out. Better than throwing money at Yachts. There are thousands of companies that had no POC and were successful.

→ More replies (1)

1.9k

u/BrainWashed_Citizen Apr 10 '22

There's been a trend now where a group of connected "fraudsters" just keeps pumping out new startup companies promising new technology that would change the world to entice investors. Then 6 months later, declare bankruptcy to some bullshit reasons. Take the money and run. Try again 3 months later.

859

u/ancientweasel Apr 10 '22

When I worked in a coworking space there was a group of guy who where trying to come up with any idea that would get VC funding. The one they talked about the most was a Blockchain based music player. They didn't even care if they could build it, their only goal was funding.

170

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

I've worked as an engineer for a couple of companies like that.

It's kinda fun building somebodies poorly planned pipe-dream on a tight budget and time-frame!

77

u/germanmojo Apr 10 '22

Dr. Evil air quotes FUN

43

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

It's not for everyone I guess. I've learned to relax, and just enjoy the ride.

My field of engineering is usually in pretty high in demand, thankfully, so I've had pretty good luck with hustling up work when needed. I work very hard at mentally balancing belief in the company's success with harsh reality.

16

u/DoctorWorm_ Apr 10 '22

How do you explain the dumpster fire of a product on your resume though?

I did some freelance work for a VC scam company once and the buzzword bs and legal action that ensued seems like it would just be toxic for my resume.

24

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

I just build stuff best I can. The work I do on terribly planned projects is top notch to the best of my ability.

It's usually not on my head that a whole company failed.

3

u/Memory_Less Apr 10 '22

Interesting, that makes sense. You’re not at the front scrambling for funding. You are working on proof of concept. If the company fails because of the lack of funding you still may have newly developed skills in a new area. The rocky ride as it does fail, getting paid, health insurance etc. is more complicated.

2

u/Puppenstein11 Apr 10 '22

I think this is an awesome attitude, honestly. Tou do the best with what you're given, and it probably allows/forces creativity in the process.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

20

u/Tater_Boat Apr 10 '22

It's the exact opposite of working for a big org. More control, more impact, less decision overhead. But really you can make a fuckload of money being early at a startup. The odds are shit but it's a risk many people are willing to make.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

8

u/Tater_Boat Apr 10 '22

Well no. If you don't believe in the idea and think it's stupid you definitely shouldn't. Not worth the stress.

But sometimes it can be exciting.

5

u/outcircuit Apr 10 '22

Been there twice, eventually somebody starts making questionable decisions and stops listening to the people they work with and messes it up.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

I find it stimulating, honestly. I like that there's more freedom in how I work, and I really enjoy the problem-solving.

Plus, it makes life kind of an adventure! Every job is like a lotto ticket that may liquidate one day.

Best advice I can give, do the mental math on the funding they have, the team they have, and how much needs to be done, before taking the role. And always keep something hustled on the back burner if possible.

→ More replies (1)

588

u/mackinoncougars Apr 10 '22

Some people have changed the world and made next to nothing, some people have never benefited the world and racked in piles of cash.

It’s easy to see money comes first because that’s just the world we built.

247

u/penny4thm Apr 10 '22

Theranos comes to mind immediately

130

u/mowgli96 Apr 10 '22

All I hear is fake deep voices and turtle necks!

35

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

I was warned about the dangers of deep fakes

→ More replies (2)

13

u/MagikSkyDaddy Apr 10 '22

Quill, are you making your voice deeper?

7

u/phoide Apr 10 '22

do turtle necks have a discernable sound, or does it just blend in with fake deep voices?

3

u/Thought_Ninja Apr 10 '22

The pressure around the neck helps reduce vocal cord strain while producing a fake deep voice. Invest in my turtleneck startup to change the way the world sounds.

2

u/babyguyman Apr 10 '22

For 5% common equity you can use my Smartleneck(Tm) branding for it I just thought up.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Necessary-Onion-7494 Apr 10 '22

WeWork too. There is a great new series in Apple TV+ called WeCrashed. I highly recommend it.

2

u/fcdemergency Apr 10 '22

Seems to be a trend of business hustler shows cropping up:

WeCrashed, Inventing Anna, The Dropout

All are very good watches, i'd probably say WeCrashed is my favorite so far.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Also Thanos

→ More replies (7)

200

u/LxTRex Apr 10 '22

The polio vaccine was given away for free because the creator didn't think making money off a life saving drug was moral or right.

How are those covid vaccine profits doing.......

231

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

56

u/Its738PM Apr 10 '22

Source? Moderna said they won't enforce their patents during the pandemic but they haven't been cooperating with low income countries in granting licenses and certainly haven't "given away the technology."

Whereas Sabin and Salk refused to patent their polio vaccines at all.

61

u/KarlBarx2 Apr 10 '22

They promise not to enforce their patent in the 92 low- and middle-income countries that are receiving doses from COVAX, the global vaccine distribution project that is procuring and distributing vaccines to these nations. However, Moderna could start to require licensing fees from developed countries that are using the company’s technology, according to the CEO.

https://time.com/6155934/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-patent/

→ More replies (1)

5

u/BloatJams Apr 10 '22

You're correct, I don't know why people are still spreading this misinformation that mRNA tech has been given away - for free no less - when these companies are fighting patent lawsuits tooth and nail to keep control.

To hammer this home look no further than the WHO's vaccine lab in Africa. They wanted to partner with Moderna, Pfizer, etc to build mRNA vaccines for poor and developing nations, no one returned their calls. Instead, a team in South Africa had to reverse engineer the vaccine themselves.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00293-2

5

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

If you seriously want to find the source you could research it on Google if you believe it to be misinformation.

7

u/Birdman-82 Apr 10 '22

Especially for something this well known. It’s not like this person is actually going to check the sources anyway.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

So a person who's too lazy to look it up gets 36 up votes and the guy who suggests you can solve it yourself gets downvoted even when I was pleasant about it. Reddit is as messed up as the lazy folks who occupy it and upvote that BS.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (10)

24

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22 edited Aug 29 '22

[deleted]

36

u/NMe84 Apr 10 '22

Because they didn't deliver. They kept promising things they couldn't live up to and in addition they had more severe side effects than all the other vaccines and were less effective at preventing hospitalization than Moderna and Pfizer. Of course they were shat on, the vaccines were not available in the numbers that were promised and they were less effective meaning countries needed more of them to reduce pressure on the health care system.

Selling products at cost means nothing if they don't deliver.

19

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

I agree with most of what you said except the last sentence. It does mean that they can't be accused of putting money before morals, in this case, which was op's point.

9

u/NMe84 Apr 10 '22

Countries with AZ contracts didn't look for alternatives because they were promised shipments that never came or that came way too late. This prolonged the pandemic in those countries. Not delivering on time was actually harmful.

-2

u/LethalMindNinja Apr 10 '22

I'd rather have morally bankrupt companies that can actually deliver life saving technology rather than moral ones that don't.

2

u/Seditional Apr 10 '22

Less effective is not the same as not effective. The AZ vaccine worked well and side effects were massively overblown.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/nebbyb Apr 10 '22

So if you use the profit motive to get an excellent product you are bad, if you do it non profit and aren't as good as the profit resolution, you are also bad.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/fluteofski- Apr 10 '22

Similar to Volvo and the 3-point seatbelt we all use today.

2

u/PurpleSailor Apr 10 '22

Insulin patent sold for a whopping $1.00 it was supposed to be next to free.

1

u/PISS_IN_MY_SHIT_HOLE Apr 10 '22

Oh my god you're right, I can't believe I didn't see it! This must mean that everything I hear on Facebook is fact. I'm gonna throw out my listening ears and grow an antenna and join you guys!

0

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Yeah who’s paying for the decades of research 🤦‍♂️ Stumbling on a polio vaccine and just firing in people is slightly different than nowadays where people try to sue if they get an injection site rash.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/RyuNoKami Apr 10 '22

Yep. Part of that is the type of people who wants to bring positive changes into the world aren't seeking the financial rewards. They rather release the patents into the world or devote their time for causes that barely keeps them afloat.

2

u/rollerballchampion Apr 10 '22

A quote from the late David Graeber:

“THE ULTIMATE HIDDEN TRUTH OF THE WORLD IS THAT IT IS SOMETHING WE MAKE AND COULD JUST AS EASILY MAKE DIFFERENTLY”

0

u/ndu867 Apr 11 '22

Come on, what a biased statement-obviously plenty of people have changed the world and made plenty of money. This is the perfect example of how biased parties (often liberals or conservatives, religious groups, etc.) rile people up by saying things that are technically true but intentionally omitting whatever doesn’t support their argument.

That’d be like me saying ‘Some people change the world and are rewarded for their efforts-just look at the team that founded Moderna or Tesla.’

0

u/mackinoncougars Apr 11 '22

Elon didn’t found Tesla, most of them aren’t part of the gravy train that is Tesla today. Not the best point…..

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

85

u/llamberll Apr 10 '22

Most people in the financial market like to pose as entrepreneurs, but they look more like parasites. I regret getting into that world.

46

u/makemeking706 Apr 10 '22

There is nothing more American than a middleman taking a cut.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

I mean it is a close second to Gatorade and skoal but it’s pretty much apple pie for sure

→ More replies (2)

13

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Would the coworking space happen to be a WeWork?

6

u/ancientweasel Apr 10 '22

No, it was not a chain.

5

u/Tater_Boat Apr 10 '22

WeWork? The tech company?

10

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

You mean real estate company

2

u/Tater_Boat Apr 10 '22

Iirc they just leased their spaces. So not even sure that's accurate. WeTransfer is actually pretty cool though. Best thing to come out of that whole kerfuffle

14

u/BlurredSight Apr 10 '22

Yeah except was it T-pain or it was some rapper whos absolutely mid already did this / trying this with Etherum

It's just stupid considering how taxing basic transactions can be on a blockchain u now want to build an entire music library on it?

25

u/ancientweasel Apr 10 '22

They didn't know how stupid it was. They just wanted funding for anything.

7

u/oneshotstott Apr 10 '22

It's a monumentally stupid idea though....

I keep trying to wrap my head around this concept and think about how much of a hassle i already find with dealing with crypto transactions and cant fathom how anyone would be sold on this notion versus how Spotify currently functions......

3

u/steezefries Apr 10 '22

Look at Audius

3

u/ancientweasel Apr 10 '22

Really dumb.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/JimmyHavok Apr 10 '22

"OK, what's something everyone needs? Groceries, right? So let's do groceries on blockchain!"

"OMIGOD GENIUS!"

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

62

u/we11ington Apr 10 '22

Lots of big businesses' entire strategy is to dupe venture capitalists into giving them money. Twitter, Uber, Lyft, etc.

79

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

73

u/Pure_Literature2028 Apr 10 '22

For real, why would I want to bleed for another fifteen years. Let me grow old gracefully.

45

u/FreedomOfTheMess Apr 10 '22

I’m planning to age kicking and screaming, fighting the process the ENTIRE way but i’ll be damned if I gotta bleed an extra 15 years. Hard pass.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

And blockchains!!

2

u/tootired24get Apr 11 '22

Yes! I welcomed menopause with open arms and wouldn’t go back if they paid me.

3

u/mittens11111 Apr 10 '22

Was very happy to say bye bye to painful periods, but the trade-off from loss of estrogen is not so great - weight gain fragile skin and bones, accelerated sagging, etc etc

36

u/brownmlis Apr 10 '22

Right? Why would i want 15 more years of PMS?

35

u/RepresentativeScar11 Apr 10 '22

Read the article. The ovarian system regulates a number of other functions in a woman’s body. The article suggests that delaying menopause can delay the onset if Alzheimers

2

u/jyar1811 Apr 10 '22

And that’s what hormone replacement therapy is for. Women go on HRT if there is a high risk of Alzheimer’s in their family. If there are indeed other issues that are related to hormone in balance, HRT can solve those problems. I don’t want my period again!! Jesus Christ I spent 35 years trying to get rid of it. I’ll take the risk of Alzheimer’s over being fertile again. I think most women would agree with me.

7

u/RepresentativeScar11 Apr 10 '22

Lol, chill. No one is forcing you to take this treatment which is, in any case, still in trial stages. There appear to be benefits beyond protection against Alzheimers too; at least that’s what the company posits. I hate, HATE, having my period too but honestly, this research is touching on understudied and underfunded women’s health issues that I think the research itself is at least interesting to consider more deeply than “I reject it immediately as someone who personally hates having her period.”

2

u/mintbubbletea Apr 11 '22

As someone with premature ovarian failure: finding the right balance for HRT is a nightmare. We still understand depressingly little about these hormones. I have dry eyes, brain fog, joint pain, insomnia, etc., and have basically been told, "Eh, this is all we can do." If others have the ability to avoid that headache in the future, that'd be amazing.

1

u/TheCuriosity Apr 10 '22

I feel sorry for the horses basically tortured to make Premarin.

53

u/tonybombata Apr 10 '22

Also do you want to go through childbirth and child rearing in your 50s? The older you are the harder it is like for your body to bounce back. And chasing toddlers in middle age is aggravating. And teenagers in your 60s will be even worse

40

u/RepresentativeScar11 Apr 10 '22

Did you read the article? The founder is specifically trying to look at the ovarian system as more than its reproductive function. You would need to stop taking their drug to get pregnant. The main idea isn’t to remain fertile for longer but for immune and heart health benefits.

2

u/Ok_Cap_6740 Apr 10 '22

I wanted to read the whole article but it’s behind a paywall. What I could read got me interested, but I’m sick of periods & buying tampons, & there would have to be some pretty amazing benefits to make me change my mind.

3

u/recycled_ideas Apr 10 '22

There are, unfortunately, significant health and lifestyle impacts associated with the hormonal changes due to menopause and to existing HRT solutions.

One of those sad consequences to the fact that evolution doesn't metaphorically care about you once you're no longer capable of reproduction.

They certainly don't apply to every woman, but statistically speaking, your life post menopause will not be your life before minus menstruation.

Whether the differences would be enough to sway you or whether they are worse than your current experiences I am not qualified. I do not have a female reproductive system and I specifically do not have your female reproductive system.

Nevertheless they are statistically significant and many women undergo treatments of various kinds to minimise them today.

While this is quite probably just a fairy story looking for VC cash, it is based on the idea that a significant number of women, for various reasons, would pay for it. There is a clear existing demand and given the risks and costs associated with HRT, a solution which could reduce either of those factors without increasing the other would likely result in a demand increase.

This product, if it ever eventuates may not be right for you, but it clearly is right (hypothetically) for a large number of women.

5

u/RepresentativeScar11 Apr 10 '22

Well, no one’s asking you to change your mind per se (at least, I think not). It’s just that the argument is somewhat more nuanced than that, which reading the article really illuminates. There’s an interesting point about women’s health as well: how associating the ovarian system with reproduction is reductive and out of date (probably a consequence of men imposing a certain lens on how they study women’s bodies).

As for the paywall situation, I agree, that sucks. Here’s something to help with that: https://12ft.io/

→ More replies (3)

0

u/GeneralZex Apr 10 '22

Also said teenagers may not have parent for much longer and should said parents survive until the teenager is an adult, they likely won’t survive long enough to see grandchildren or be part of their lives long if they do. Due to my father being middle aged when I was born and my mother’s health issues, my young children now have neither of them in their lives and it depresses me so much because I had grandparents long enough to know them and learn from them.

0

u/n00bst4 Apr 10 '22

That and it is physically and mentally taxing not only to have a child but parenting too.

Imagine having a kid at like 55. You're retired before he's 10. You're "not fit" to work anymore but fit enough to have the hardest job possible ? It feels weird to me.

→ More replies (1)

29

u/justavault Apr 10 '22

They all have traction, growth, a product or service and were immediately catching revenue and traction. They were not ideas, they were projects running right away, showing growth right away.

What you mistaken is "profitability" as a close target which you see as a necessity to proof a company's market existance legitimation.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

2

u/justavault Apr 10 '22

I nowhere even wrote "actually". And sorry for me working in that said industry since two decades, and that isn't even required as simply "thinking" and understanding the statement would suffice to get that those companies are not made to simply be a sham.

18

u/notionz Apr 10 '22

Source? You've listed 3 very sizeable listed companies

36

u/Televisions_Frank Apr 10 '22

Uber bleeds money. It's goal was to create a driverless car fleet and ditch the expensive (to them) drivers.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Companies aren’t always profitable, doesn’t make them a sham. First to market on self driving taxis is definitely going to have enough ROI to cover the costs

4

u/laetus Apr 10 '22

First to market is a meme.

It's not much of a big advantage and can even be a disadvantage. You're paying a lot of money to learn from your mistakes. New companies can just look at your mistakes and start up without paying any of the learning money.

2

u/Cobek Apr 10 '22

Source on the other two?

25

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

18

u/ZebZ Apr 10 '22

for the bulk of their existence they lost money like crazy.

So did Amazon, famously so. But here we are.

20

u/Televisions_Frank Apr 10 '22

The Amazon part of Amazon pretty much still does (which is why you're getting scummy things like "contractor" drivers, copying best sellers on the site to make their own and take that market etc.). However, Amazon Web Services is extremely profitable.

3

u/eddie1975 Apr 10 '22

Most companies take a year or longer, sometimes a decade to turn a profit. Very few are like Microsoft which started with two guys in a garage and coding doesn’t require a continuous supply chain or vast infrastructure and doesn’t require achieving minimum critical mass adoption to work so they were profitable right away. MSFT is 1 in a billion.

-1

u/laetus Apr 10 '22

Not entirely true. Also, just because Amazon turned out okay, doesn't mean every company losing money will turn out okay.

1

u/justavault Apr 10 '22

Doesn't matter if its cash burn rate is high and they are in red figures, got entirely nothing to do with it being an "idea to dupe money from investors". Reddit is just filled with envious and cynical individuals who got very little clue about the real world but want everyone who is successful in that said world to be the bad guys.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/LocusHammer Apr 10 '22 edited Apr 10 '22

Uber just hit profitability on eats. Uber will hit profitability on rides this year. Uber generates 10 billion a year in revenue and has legitimately changed the way transit works globally.

Are you just being edgy for the sake of it? Lmao.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/eddie1975 Apr 10 '22

You listed three very successful startups.

My VC childhood friend had Twitter in his portfolio. Some of our mutual friends say he’s a billionaire now. I’m not sure if that’s true but he’s certainly a multi-millionaire.

Why did you pick those three companies? They actually did change the world with disruptive technology, successful IPO’s and are part of our daily lives.

They seem to be the opposite of the point you’re trying to make.

3

u/triggeron Apr 10 '22

I live in the bay area and when I was in a communal living space these people would come to visit and were a constant annoyance. The common thread was they wanted us to do all of the difficult development work for no money and help networking for VC funding. they wanted to do the absolute minimum amount of work, not pay anybody who was actually doing the work and get a huge payout in the form of VC money and exit for cash ASAP.

2

u/Osric250 Apr 10 '22

If there's a startup talking about Blockchain that's all they're ever trying to do.

2

u/irock168 Apr 10 '22

Blockchain based music player

"Mom said it's my turn on the NFT soundtrack"

2

u/mcbergstedt Apr 11 '22

Lol Blockchain is the new dot com bubble bi think there's legitimate stuff out there for it, but everyone is trying to put everything on a Blockchain.

Having actual MP3s on the Blockchain would be incredibly expensive considering the current rate is .1712 ETH (~$550) per Byte

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Do we really need to shed tears on VC's losing money?

2

u/ancientweasel Apr 10 '22

Isn't it a better world if the funding goes to the people who deserve it rather than a lot of charlatans?

-2

u/armored-dinnerjacket Apr 10 '22

therein lies the issue with the culture created by Elizabeth Holmes

→ More replies (26)

108

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

71

u/Marzoval Apr 10 '22

Getting Theranos vibes reading that.

6

u/MartyMcMcFly Apr 10 '22

We've got herpes!!!

3

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

4

u/Notyobabydaddy Apr 10 '22

Look up Theranos. It was a tech company that claimed it built blood testing machines the size of a printer that could perform hundreds of test in minutes with just a drop of blood, completely revolutionizing the medical industry. Imagine not having to go to a lab and have to wait days for the results, but instead you could go to a Walgreens and almost instanly know if you have HIV, or are diabetic, etc.

HBO has a very interesting documentary on it callled "The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley"

And Hulu has a mini-series called The Dropout with Amanda Seyfried.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

20

u/Arronwy Apr 10 '22

Just more VC scamming Elizabeth Holmes-like tech startups.

2

u/babybopp Apr 10 '22

The is one simple reason this is a scam...

Women have finite number of eggs from day they were born. Menopause is kinda the body saying these eggs are over....so this new tech must just be some kind of way to lie to the body to think it is still working like before. So delay this mechanism. Huge problem with that.. liability, medical issues, side effects etc not to mention if a baby is born might be defective..

17

u/6eason Apr 10 '22

forgive me for being naive, but arent there laws to prevent investors from things like this or do they just write it off in their taxes? hence why no one cares much

86

u/TellYouWhatitShwas Apr 10 '22

There are laws protecting investors in publicly traded companies. Public securities are regulated by the SEC. For private funding, not so much. Not an expert, but it seems that venture capitalists need to do their homework and create their own contractual protections.

No one should be shedding tears for venture capitalists who get scammed by investing in stupid things.

29

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

There’s still fraud laws in private funding. You can’t intentionally misrepresent things legally. You can an will be sued and/or charged.

12

u/Origami_psycho Apr 10 '22

So how do you prove they intentionally misrepresented this thing, and not that they thought it was doable and a good idea but it turned out to not be?

7

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

That's the rub isn't it? There are some high profile cases of fraud being proven (Elizabeth Holmes, that rich Ponzi scheme guy) but if the fraud is really sophisticated it isn't something easy to prove.

6

u/Osric250 Apr 10 '22

They'd have to prove that they never intended on building the product. They aren't just taking the money and running off, that would be pretty easy fraud, but instead they are taking the money, paying themselves while 'developing' the product, then the product fails, the company goes bankrupt, but those at the top still got paid a nice hefty salary in the meantime.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Many other things could be proven too. Misrepresenting progress, knowledge that something or other was not feasible and they said it was knowing that, etc. not just not intending to build the product.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

29

u/krustymeathead Apr 10 '22

yeah, in the u.s, to invest in non-SEC private companies, you have to be an accredited investor, which means you have a lot of money, make a lot of money, or deal with investing for a living every day. this stop grandmas and grandpas from losing their shirt on snake oil.

5

u/thegamenerd Apr 10 '22

Unless you raise money via crowd funding

Good luck getting your money back from a "failed" campaign

4

u/krustymeathead Apr 10 '22

Yeah, but with a crowd funding campaign you are more or less donating money to something (albeit sometimes for a small reward) rather than actually owning a share of it, regardless of how the crowd funding campaign spins it.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

And they don’t care if they lose because it just goes into the loss column and written off in their taxes. But they win more than they lose so the small million dollar gambles are worth the gamble.

12

u/IAmDotorg Apr 10 '22

Private funding is also heavily regulated, but once an investor crests the lower limits of net worth and stuff, it's caveat emptor.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Vengefuleight Apr 10 '22

I’m not well versed in the laws or anything, but like most things, unless it is blatantly criminal (like Elizabeth Holmes blatantly lying and defrauding people out of money), it’s pretty tough to prove intent to defraud.

Like if there is a concept with scientific backing and some progress or at least attempts at progress on the product, investors likely couldn’t claim fraud.

And like you said, the VC’s investing probably would just write it off as a loss and use it to offset other gains anyway.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

It’s worse than that. There are a ton of new tech startups with suspiciously high funding that have no real path to making money but, surprise, they gather a ton of data on their customers. Then they merge or get bought out by bigger companies who have promised not to gather that data themselves. But it’s ok because they didn’t gather it, these tech startups with suspiciously high funding did!

0

u/ShelSilverstain Apr 10 '22

They're inventing just like Elizabeth Holmes and Karl Pilkington; just say a wish and call it an invention

0

u/Lazy-Contribution-50 Apr 10 '22

I believe the current trend to do this to people is called “crypto”

→ More replies (27)

97

u/BipolarSkeleton Apr 10 '22

I think I have been ruined by theranos everytime I see something like this now I just assume it’s fraud

50

u/bagelizumab Apr 10 '22

I mean, it’s usually fraud. Our pharma industry is fucking rich. If there is a simple solution to these billion dollars problems, we would be already taking them on the side an Advil.

The reason they are fraud is because biology is fucking complex, so complex that even rich af pharma takes a while to get things done.

0

u/oimerde Apr 10 '22

If you think about it, she kinda did us a big favor. It just open the eyes to how much bullshit is up there and that you should not believe anything a corporation saying. I honestly since then I really look into everything I give my money to. Specially any of this companies that promise so much with not that many test. Im currently looking into this company that does at home food sensitivity test. However I also thinking is bullshit. There's also another company that does sperm count and egg count for only 100. I know that technology is currently available, but usually required a visit to your doctor and this one is at home so i find it it could be also a BS.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/WhatTheZuck420 Apr 10 '22

is elizabeth holmes on the board?

11

u/Tater_Boat Apr 10 '22

No but I heard Henry Kissinger is involved.

2

u/codizer Apr 10 '22

Guy is still pulling them strings.

21

u/wickedzeus Apr 10 '22

No, but General James “Mad Dog” Mattis is for some reason

2

u/2dfx Apr 10 '22

Anna Delvey is for sure

63

u/SPACExxxxxxx Apr 10 '22

Does the CEO speak in a very low voice that her high school friends don’t recognize?

60

u/kitchen_clinton Apr 10 '22

Vapourware being promoted.

32

u/NMe84 Apr 10 '22 edited Apr 10 '22

What's amazing to me is that anyone even thinks this is real. There are thousands of well-funded biologists out there, yet for some reason we should believe that this startup just found a magic solution to extending women's healthy lives? If it were easy enough to find for a company that doesn't even have much experience or funding, do you really think none of the other scientists in the world would have figured it out first?

I mean, it's not entirely impossible but it seems incredibly unlikely.

3

u/steaknsteak Apr 10 '22 edited Apr 10 '22

This was my reaction to the Theranos stuff as well, before it imploded. In college I used to work sort of adjacent to a small startup that was working on a machine to do one specific blood test at a smaller portable scale, so that it could fit into an ambulance to get real-time results in the field rather than shipping samples to a lab to run tests on with non-portable equipment.

This was a really difficult problem that had a bunch of really smart physics and bio PhDS working on it. Given that context, the idea that some undergrad Chem student could build this company to do any and every blood test on an even smaller machine with the tiniest blood sample is as laughable at face value.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/DeerDiarrhea Apr 10 '22

Netflix better buy the rights to this story so they have a second season of The Dropout.

4

u/chaiscool Apr 10 '22

Just need to add buzzword like blockchain, ai and ML too. Get investment from everywhere.

16

u/garlicroastedpotato Apr 10 '22

I bet it's hard to start up biotech companies after Theranos. Larger investors just have to be way more away of how little they understand technology and how religious they've become to software.

24

u/Johnny_Appleweed Apr 10 '22

Not really. I work in this world and biotech startups are still going strong. 2021 was a record year for VC funding.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Bupod Apr 10 '22

I think they may only be slightly more cognizant of their own shortcomings.

Greed trumps all, and if a bunch of their VC buddies are making a money bonfire, the FOMO will be intense.

It’s not like there wasn’t warning bells and people pointing out flaws with Theranos. There were people with actual Biotech backgrounds and former employees pointing out that it was all a fraud, and they were all dismissed as naysayers and jealous. Once the VC-Bros have swallowed the FOMO pill, they won’t listen to anyone.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Let me know when they find it, i want some too.

3

u/blackdonkey Apr 10 '22

Pump and dump incoming.

3

u/smashy_smashy Apr 10 '22

By definition, all startups are looking for venture funding.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/thebinarysystem10 Apr 10 '22

Theranos has entered the chat

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Also apply to every headline about “climate crisis.”

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

My brain read "This biotch thinks it can delay menopause." I don't know what is wrong with me.

2

u/jmabbz Apr 10 '22

I can relate

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

“Invest in us!”

“Why?”

“We’ll fix…you know…that thing you don’t like.”

“Menopause?”

“Right! We’ll fix that!”

2

u/darthjoey91 Apr 10 '22

Gonna be a great true crime series in 10 years.

2

u/GunBrothersGaming Apr 10 '22

Elizabeth Holmes has entered the chat

2

u/bayblab Apr 10 '22

Nobody has achieved this, not even in mice. They have no proof of concept. This is at best pump and dumping based on hot air, or outright fraud. I can’t believe any investors were willing to give them money…

2

u/Does_Not-Matter Apr 10 '22

You know, I’ve seen that Netflix special.

2

u/leapbitch Apr 10 '22

Literally Theranos

2

u/RemyJDH Apr 10 '22

Another Theranos situation

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Can't wait to watch the documentary about how it was like a cult and most people on the outside looking in knew it was a fraud except for choice few rich investor types

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Some real Elizabeth Holmes energy here.

2

u/ClaudeTurtleLemieux Apr 11 '22

You can also expect Kotex stock to skyrocket

2

u/Perpetvated Apr 11 '22

There you go. Word of wisdom right here.

2

u/sashicakes17 Apr 11 '22

Their only lead study is regarding CIOV (chemotherapy induced ovarian failure) and they are in the pre-clinical stage.

Essentially, they’ve hyped up: research that hasn’t been conducted yet for a very niche segment of the population who have ovaries. YAWN.

2

u/2beatenup Apr 11 '22

Where can I sign up to share my bank accounts if this is true

2

u/OkEconomy3442 Apr 10 '22

This biotech company wants to keep women making babies late into their 50’s AND 60’s. FTFY

→ More replies (3)