It&#x27;s affinity fraud. She&#x27;s part of the tribe who invested in her. Not only did they not vet her in any way (because as fellow tribe members, they assumed they knew everything necessary about her already), but she knew exactly what they needed to hear.<p>edit: and right now, she&#x27;s clearly frantically trying to come up with what they need to hear to give her <i>even more</i> money. I give her a 75&#x2F;25 chance of succeeding if she avoids any direct mention of sexism (although slathering on heavy implication), and combines it with an Icarus narrative, a born-again redemptionist narrative (a Jimmy Swaggart speech), and tries to recast Theranos as a charity that was swinging for the fences to reduce the costs of health care to help the poor and our economy. Then, she should show a new, mostly unrealistic medical device concept that if successfully created could reduce the costs of some expensive area of health care 10x. It can&#x27;t be related to diagnostics in any way, because she&#x27;ll have to not contest the proposed ban, but instead embrace it.<p>She can keep that con going long enough to get out of the ban, and go back into diagnostics, hopefully after buying a viable idea (or more than one) from someone who actually knows what they&#x27;re doing. Going forward, she could still end up running the biggest company in the U.S.. It&#x27;s super-awesome to be white and rich.<p>A good partner for her would be Bill Gates, a similarly ethically empty person who has elevated themselves into secular saint status by writing checks.