Theranos was transparent about the overhyping from the very beginning to somebody with an understanding of bio. It&#x27;s more shocking that so much of the &quot;tech&quot; media bought it.<p>Imagine a bunch of old-school bankers or Fortune 500 CEOs from the 90s trying to pick a winning software business. They know &quot;business&quot; so they should be able to apply their knowledge to the software world easily, would be their reasoning. Silicon Valley&#x27;s picks in biotech, like Theranos, have fairly transparently misapplied &quot;knowledge&quot; in the same way. They look for all the wrong things, attributes that work well in software but not other places: 1) confidence bordering on arrogance, 2) dismissal of experts and standard knowledge disguised as an attempt to &quot;innovate.&quot;, and 3) a chance to &quot;hop on&quot; to a rising founder&#x2F;CEO before they&#x27;ve proven themselves and become super expensive. Similarly, be skeptical of other SV health efforts (such as Google&#x27;s) unless there are real scientists behind it and also real experience in biotech (not tech).<p>Complete Genomics (next to LinkedIn and Google) is an example of what happens to a biotech company that has really great tech, but runs the business like a tech company rather than a biotech company. Scale goes completely sideways, they miss the market, and get sold off to a bigger fish and most likely will languish.