Maybe she wasn’t a crook. The Big Pharmas and AMA were against her from the beginning. They didn’t like her product because it would cut into their profits. It may have not been 100% accurate but some people would like to avoid unnecessary trips to the doctor and expensive tests if they can avoid them. It should be up to the people if 91% accuracy is good enough or not.
You make a valid point.
One problem I have long had with what I now call Cookie-Cutter Conservatives is that they mirror the simplistic dichotomy of the opposition:
Left: Government good, business bad. Right: Business good, government bad.
Too many “conservatives” have an implicit faith in the FDA and Big Pharma, et cetera; they only criticize the FDA when it seems to be interfering with a Pharma (a blessed and sacrosanct private-sector business!) from releasing the latest drug fad (that won’t cause liver damage until used for a month longer than the trial period lasted).
I have learned enough about the FDA over the years to rank them on a par with the EPA. They are not looking out for us or for our freedoms.
Like all such bureaucracies, they are unConstitutional: These things belong to States’ Rights.
“Maybe she wasn’t a crook.”
Maybe.
The problem is that their machines WEREN’T 91% accurate. I’ve read other stories where accuracies varied from 65% to 80%.
Further, I’ve also read where Theranos started into subcontracting their tests to an outside firm, not using their machines - this apparently is illegal.