Gifted
Any feelings about this. I’m personally very conflicted and the comments I’ve seen on Twitter are all over the place. Would love to hear what others think
I think she is in denial about how much control she has over whether she will end up serving time or not.
2 Likes
I’m not. She committed fraud and endangered people’s lives by running fake medical tests.
I realize she’ll garner much more sympathy from the public than perpetrators of a different demographic. But adults are supposed to be accountable for their decisions and actions.
23 Likes
Have you read Bad Blood? If not, I recommend it. You probably won’t feel conflicted after that.
15 Likes
I should expand my thoughts. Sorry I’m talking about the article that was written.
I started thinking about the New Yorker article about Prince Harry’s ghostwriter. About the process of writing and the part the writer plays in the story.
I’m conflicted about how the writer inserted herself into the story.
Elizabeth Holmes is a con artist.
I’m conflicted how the writer showed us how she herself is being conned. Or not.
Call me unforgiving, but I don’t like how this story has the effect of showing what a materially nice life can be led by someone who has committed a moral and financial crime (that in this case had real-life health implications for real people). Sets an unfortunate precedent promoting the “fake it ‘til you make it” path of deception, because even when it all goes wrong, you’re living a kind of California dream life.
She says she’s in debt. When less fortunate folks are in debt (a lot less debt), they can’t enjoy this relaxed “mommy time” situation she has right now (while waiting, granted, to hear when she starts prison time).
12 Likes
Yes! Exactly!
Fake it till you make it. Seems like the purpose statement of Silicon Valley.
And the privilege of a white upper middle class woman. And the gullibility of the reporter to believe all that privilege. Or con. Or grift.
Elizabeth Holmes is living the dream. Except for that little old jail sentence hanging over her head. Or is it? Maybe there will be no jail. Because Liz Holmes has convinced more people that she doesn’t deserve jail.
7 Likes
She has shown herself to be a serial liar and likely a narcissist. I don’t buy this poor little rich girl act for a minute and I think this piece of journalism is handled irresponsibly. Living in the lap of luxury deeply in debt. This woman only cares about herself.
I also never understand when people describe her as brilliant. I don’t doubt she was pushy, ambitious and could test reasonably well. She also had high profile connections and parents that don’t hurt admissions to a school like Stanford. She’s obviously a chronic liar, what makes anyone think her college application was honest and straightforward. I think she probably spent her life having people tell her she was brilliant every time she opened her mouth.
As someone with a couple STEM degrees, every quote of her talking about tech/science sounded like a marketing word salad. It’s crazy to me she is still talking delusionally like she could “save the world”. Maybe get a bachelor’s degree and work in a repuable lab and learn a few things instead of creating an echo chamber and subservient groupies to surround yourself with. Sounds like she is still doing that.
Put her behind bars already. I do feel sorry for those young kids. Awfully convienent to show up pregnant to court twice. She was 32 I believe when theranos shut down. She wasn’t a child and this deceoption went on for many years. Everyone who commits a crime has a back story. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a debt to society. She ruined a lot of lives. Which this article convienently brushes over.
Also highly recommend the book “Bad Blood” and the podcast “The Drop Out”. As someone who has worked for innovative STEM companies, this was quite the train wreck to follow.
19 Likes
I detest the woman, but have no doubt that she is highly intelligent and perhaps brilliant. She attended a very academic high school with a median SAT score of 1500 where most of the class wants to attend Stanford-she must have impressed the faculty there greatly and obtained sterling recommendations. That doesnt excuse what she did in any way.
6 Likes
She went to St. John’s high school where year over year they have the most National Merit Semi-Finalists in the city. This year 23% of the senior class was a finalist. I think the school is ranked very high nationally as well.
2 Likes
Brilliant at marketing herself. Her grasp of science was always weak, and her idea was based on a fear of needles (according to her own backstory) rather than any earthly reason why it might actually be possible to use such small amounts of blood. Her illustrious board of donors (Murdoch, Mattis, Schultz etc.) were not scientists, for good reason.
3 Likes
I expect her grasp of science was uneducated, as she had just 1 year of college. Few corporate directors are experts in the underlying industry.
1 Like
I will concede she is gifted at grifting, lying and manipulation. That does require a reasonably high level of intelligence. Being able to jump through the right hoops as a teen when raised in the lap of luxury with every privlege at your fingertips does not equate to brilliance or innovation. It’s not surprising she had access to a very high quality private school. She also did a summer Stanford program as a high schooler.
I’m not convinced she has more than a passing understanding of basic science or tech having painfully followed this story for many years as someone with a STEM background. She didn’t even complete 2 years of undergrad. This Stanford prof thought her blowing smoke years earlier.
6 Likes
I do not understand why the level of her intelligence matters in this event. She was capable of understanding what she was doing; the rest does not matter. I can concede that she is highly intelligent, attractive and articulate while still believing she is a criminal who should be behind bars. Presumably her other qualities may have helped her pursue this fraud.
3 Likes
What is there to be conflicted about? This was not’ a grey area crime. It was massive fraud. There was complete intent. The entire product and business model was fake. She spent the better part of a decade lying about that, fabricating results, deceiving regulators, giving real patients fake results, etc. She didn’t exaggerate or “fake it until you make it,” she committed a huge, extended fraud. Eventually the only part of the business that actually produced a result did so by secretly using competitors equipment. She’s a sociopath. Who only took an interest in motherhood (which is totally irrelevant to the consequences of her crimes) after she was caught and hired millions of dollars worth of image consultants, who helped place this article.
11 Likes
Speaking as someone very familiar with the medical diagnostics field, EH’s “fake it till you make it” approach, in addition to harming patients, severely damaged diagnostics startup funding. Thankfully, there was a silver lining to the pandemic as it brought the diagnostics back into the VC’’s spotlight. However, EH’s fake patent portfolio might continue to haunt legitimate companies for a few more years until the patents expire. A patent tr…l already made some waves earlier in the pandemic, and I suspect this kind of stuff might continue.
4 Likes
IMO, an embarrassing article by the NYTimes, and indication that their reporters aren’t above being duped.
9 Likes
NYT has gone brain-soft if you ask me.
5 Likes
The author of the article is Amy Chozick, who was one of the lead NYT reporters following Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. I am not commenting on the political left/right dynamic itself, but I noticed in 2016 that Chozick’s reporting on Clinton read much more like propaganda promoting her subject’s viewpoints (far beyond what is usual in reporting these days).
I was not surprised to see her name as a byline on another credulous article. It gives off that same feeling, where you wonder if you are reading an article or a press release.
5 Likes
I haven’t formed a complete theory yet, but I can’t help but notice that it was mostly old guys that fell for her scam, and mostly young males and females that blew the whistle. Why would the old guys be so much more gullible?
Having comparatively less experience with females in the workplace than younger generations, were they so eager to prop up a rising female that they forgot to do their due diligence with researching their investment? After all, it wasn’t only technically-minded people raising the red flag. The investors could have, and probably should have known.
2 Likes