Many in SV find it hard to grapple with traditional startups not penetrating health care to a greater degree; in Rise of the Robots (one of the Financial Times and The Economist books of the year) it&#x27;s lamented for an entire chapter.<p>Traditionally the level of fundamental research and development displayed by Theranos - in areas of health or national defence - are done for years behind closed doors and then slowly rolled out to the public to mitigate any questioning of the underlying tech since the standards are understandably higher (i.e - it has to work from the start). This stands in contrast to the &quot;move fast, break things&quot; attitude pervasive in start-up culture.<p>I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s anything necessarily fraudulent about Theranos, from what I&#x27;ve read, which seems to be the not-so-subtle undercurrent in much of the commentary. Rather they flipped the model startups should use in health, which is establish a business model that works and then work on preparatory tech in the background until it&#x27;s ready to be rolled out. This seems to be largely what Theranos has done, but not what it&#x27;s purposely chosen to articulate to the public and investors as it surely would have garnered less attention&#x2F;funding. At this point Theranos seems to be playing the waiting game; waiting for their technology to reach a point where they can make a more transparent case for their business model and change the narrative once they&#x27;ve reached a point that&#x27;s more aligned with the aspirations that have been articulated by Holmes for the past decade.<p>Once again, Peter Thiel&#x27;s approach with Palantir looks to be extremely well executed and one that perhaps Theranos should have emulated.