By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Billy Evans, partner of Elizabeth Holmes, has launched Haemanthus, an AI-powered biotech startup focusing on affordable medical testing. Utilizing Raman spectroscopy, the company aims to create commercially available diagnostic tools using various biological samples, including blood, sweat, urine, and saliva. Despite Holmes’s 11-year prison sentence for Theranos fraud, she reportedly advises Evans, though she is not formally involved in the company’s operations. Haemanthus hopes to significantly reduce the cost and accessibility barriers of this technology, currently utilized primarily in research settings.
Read the original article here
Elizabeth Holmes’ partner’s new biotech testing startup has secured millions in funding, a development that’s sparking considerable online discussion. The sheer audacity of this venture, given the circumstances surrounding Holmes’ previous company, Theranos, is hard to ignore. The parallels to previous high-profile failures are striking, prompting many to question the investors’ judgment, or lack thereof.
This latest endeavor seems to follow a familiar pattern – a bold claim, potentially groundbreaking technology, and an enticing pitch designed to attract substantial investment. The involvement of Holmes’ partner adds another layer of intrigue, raising questions about the extent of his role in the project and whether this is simply a continuation of a pattern of leveraging connections and charisma to secure funding.
The comments suggest a widespread skepticism regarding the startup’s viability, drawing comparisons to other infamous ventures like the Fyre Festival and comparing it to what seems like a cynical approach to investor relations. The underlying sentiment is that the very nature of the business seems to be designed around exploiting an environment where investors are willing to overlook potential red flags in favor of speculative high rewards.
Several commenters point to the apparent ease with which millions are being raised, even with the baggage associated with Holmes’ name. This highlights a broader concern about the willingness of investors to fund risky ventures based on little more than an attractive proposal, a problem amplified in the fast-paced world of biotech. The almost casual mention of using AI tools to generate investment proposals further underscores this concerning trend.
This incident underscores the high-risk, high-reward nature of the startup world, where massive success is often fueled by massive hype and a hefty dose of investor optimism, sometimes bordering on naivete. The risk isn’t solely financial; it also involves the ethical implications of investing in a project potentially linked to past questionable business practices.
The mention of Holmes having children to avoid jail time adds another layer of complexity to the narrative, raising uncomfortable questions about privilege and the uneven application of justice. It highlights how financial resources and powerful connections can shape outcomes in ways that are not always equitable.
The repeated comparison to previous scams suggests that many believe this is simply another chapter in a recurring saga. The cynicism extends to the potential for success, with some expressing amusement at the prospect of this startup either flourishing or spectacularly imploding. Either way, it appears many are prepared for the worst.
The narrative is further enriched by observations on human behavior and the dynamics of investing. The comment about rich people being risk junkies, knowing it’s a gamble but believing they’ll avoid the consequences, offers a cynical, yet perhaps realistic, perspective on the motivations driving these investments.
The overall tone suggests a mix of amusement, skepticism, and outrage. The situation exemplifies how human nature, driven by greed, naiveté, and the allure of get-rich-quick schemes, continues to repeat itself. The easily raised millions seem to represent more than just money; they are a testament to the human tendency to overlook red flags and pursue potentially lucrative opportunities, even when the risks are substantial and ethically questionable. The constant comparison to previous scandals underlines how investors might be learning a difficult lesson again and again.