Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Seeks Investors For New Company (vanityfair.com) 108
There's a new surprise from the Wall Street Journal's John Carreyrou (author of the Theranos expose Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup). An anonymous reader shares Vanity Fair's summary of their newest podcast interview:
According to Carreyrou, Holmes is currently waltzing around Silicon Valley, meeting with investors, hoping to raise money for an entirely new start-up idea. (My mouth dropped when I heard that, too....) I'm sure she will somehow succeed in convincing someone to hand over millions of dollars, especially if venture capitalists like Tim Draper (an early Theranos investor) are still out there saying the stories by Carreyrou were wrong (they weren't), and that Holmes was on the precipice of saving the world (she wasn't) before the media came after her.
You would think that seeing Holmes's duplicity wrapped up in a neat bow in Carreyrou's book, and in the S.E.C. settlement -- which, incidentally, mentions the term "fraud" seven times -- would force Silicon Valley to perform its own due diligence, and question whether the way C.E.O.s, investors, and the media interact should be re-evaluated. But alas, the tech world doesn't see Theranos as a tech company, but rather a biotech outlier... Of course, there is still a major criminal investigation underway by the F.B.I., one that could end with Holmes behind bars.
Carreyou tells another interviewer that Theranos "is a cautionary tale about the hubris in the Valley... there's certainly a lot of innovation there, but there's also an unbelievable amount of arrogance and pretending."
You would think that seeing Holmes's duplicity wrapped up in a neat bow in Carreyrou's book, and in the S.E.C. settlement -- which, incidentally, mentions the term "fraud" seven times -- would force Silicon Valley to perform its own due diligence, and question whether the way C.E.O.s, investors, and the media interact should be re-evaluated. But alas, the tech world doesn't see Theranos as a tech company, but rather a biotech outlier... Of course, there is still a major criminal investigation underway by the F.B.I., one that could end with Holmes behind bars.
Carreyou tells another interviewer that Theranos "is a cautionary tale about the hubris in the Valley... there's certainly a lot of innovation there, but there's also an unbelievable amount of arrogance and pretending."
Freudian Slip (Score:5, Funny)
Why is it that every time I see "Theranos", I read it first as "Thanatos"?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I guess this is why the settlement mentions the term Freud seven times.
Re: (Score:2)
The first and last letters are the same, the length is the same, the "era" and "ana" are visually similar, and people don't phonetically read things that are familiar to them. You either read Greek mythology or Marvel comics for years before someone came up with a name that is so similar,it practically had to be based on Thanatos.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he is just flying a Thanatos in Eve Online.
Pro tip: Try an ICO (Score:1)
Why would anyone trust that person with any money whatsoever? Explain please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Encouraging random assassination is disruptive, so why don't you get the ball rolling by shooting yourself.
Re: Taking more money? (Score:3, Funny)
I would but I like to talk big behind a computer safely pseudo anonymous. This encourages others to act on my behalf. Sort of like a worse version of Alex Jones
Some people... (Score:5, Insightful)
The phrase "A fool and their money are soon parted" is supposed to be a warning, not a lifestyle goal.
Re:Some people... (Score:4)
The phrase "A fool and their money are soon parted" is supposed to be a warning, not a lifestyle goal.
But you have to also consider "There's a sucker born every minute"
Re: Some people... (Score:2, Interesting)
No she has an established MO. She patiently develops relationships with reputable older gentlemen she has access to because of her family connections; she gets them by playing the bubbly granddaughter card. Then she uses those relationships to convince investors. That's how people like George Shultz or Henry Kissinger gave her the credibility to get money from people like Rupert Murdoch. And so on.
Everything is fake about her, including her low pitch voice, but as she gets older the "bright young woman" asp
Re: Some people... (Score:5, Interesting)
But the thing is, she didn't have the "bright" part. She dropped out of Stanford as an undergraduate, so no degree beyond high school. Unlike Zuckerberg or Gates, you don't just become an expert on your own in advanced biochemistry and medicine. There was no one with degrees in medicine or biology or a related build on the Theranos board. The employee turnover rate at Theranos was extremely high, so there was no one senior at Theranos with the relevant background either.
Her relevant background was essentially that she worked in a lab at Stanford with a respected engineering professor (not medical), and she later worked in a lab where she filed for a patent (b.f.d., it's so easy to get a patent these days).
The entire thing appears to have been a sham from start to end. Investors used to working for the typical Silicon Valley startup whose brilliant idea is "it's a social media web site, but the feed is on the left instead of the right!" were duped into thinking that could shift to a medical startup without knowing anything about the field.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this works because the fool thinks he's more clever than the fools that came before him.
Fools aren't put off by a sharp dealer's history of path ethical lapses because they imagine that attitude being put to work for their benefit... this time.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Anyone who invests in her this time around only has themselves to blame.
She should be in a cell next to Bernie Madoff (Score:5, Informative)
What she did was fraud, pure and simple.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t... [cbsnews.com]
Re: She should be in a cell next to Bernie Madoff (Score:1)
Because the politicians and the wealthy get a free pass.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The narrative will become: "The Patriarchy prevents women from becoming CEOs, and punishes them for emulating their male counterparts when they do."
Just watch...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
She wasn't just 'in business', she was in a business regulated by the FDA. That's where it turns bad for her.
Lying to investors, eh, call it optimism. Lying to the FDA, producing unreliable results for real patients, not optimism.
She will get off lighter than a man would. Female privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
If you count startups, most of them have incompetents CEOs. It's not at all a big deal to become a CEO, just get a friend and declare yourself a startup, and voila you are a CEO. Sure, she talked a big game and got some funding, but that's not really being the same thing as a business leader. She clearly showed how terrible she was at business leadership.
What she did wasn't really standard business practice. I know we like to talk that way, but what she did went way beyond fudging some numbers and doing
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there are likely upcoming criminal charges as I heard it. As of now, only the SEC has made a settlement, which forbids Holmes from being an executive at any company for several years. So I suspect she's not at all allowed to collect money for a new startup.
And who would work for one of her companies? As reported, Theranos was a terrible place to work, Holmes and her boyfriend were abusive, firings were sudden and often, and past employees were sued. This was done to maintain total secrecy in order
Why the hell not? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's 2018 and there's no reason why someone who has committed fraud shouldn't believe they deserve to have more people give them money.
Crimes don't matter, fraud doesn't matter, lies don't matter. We're living in the post-truth age.
Re: (Score:2)
This is of the same order as preachers who ask their flock to give money to buy a new airplane.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Crimes don't matter, fraud doesn't matter, lies don't matter. We're living in the post-truth age.
Especially since Holmes was a big Clinton supporter, even going so far as to host a Hillary 2016 fundraiser at her company Theranos headquarters in Silicon Valley.
http://fm.cnbc.com/application... [cnbc.com]
I don't know that Holmes was particularly liberal or progressive, she probably just figured if she became a well-connected Democrat insider like her buddy Hillary Clinton, she would be safe from prosecution for whatever crimes she committed. And she's probably right.
Re: (Score:3)
So was Donald Trump.
http://time.com/3962799/donald... [time.com]
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
https://www.vanityfair.com/sty... [vanityfair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
“I’m a businessman. I contribute to everybody,” Trump said. “When I needed Hillary, she was there. If I say ‘go to my wedding,’ they go to my wedding.”
No more needs to be said about Trump's glowing statements of the Clintons. He knew they were for sale, and having powerful politicians in your pocket via legal payments is a great thing for a businessman. Trump loved the Clintons as long as they did what his money demanded. This is just proof of how corrupt the Clintons really are...
Re: (Score:1)
A Trump-lover calling someone corrupt? Your tongue should swell up, turn black and fall right out your mouth.
Re: Why the hell not? (Score:1)
The theranos board was a whos who of conservative icons so im not sure where you are going with this? She hosted the Hillary event because everyone thought she would win and that would be a good look for her, nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 2018 and there's no reason why someone who has committed fraud shouldn't believe they deserve to have more people give them money.
If you're not doing your due diligence, then you shouldn't be an investor. Part of that due diligence means looking into the entire executive team's background (google makes this easy, unless you live in places without free speech, or pretend free speech, like Europe.) If you see ANY indication of fraud among any of them, then walk away. Only the individual investors decide whether somebody gets money.
connection with politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting company she keeps. [recode.net]. It's not just the Clintons, but also other Washington power brokers, Republicans and Democrats alike. These politicians publicly denounce crony capitalism and nepotism, and privately are huge beneficiaries and promoters of it. And you can bet that every single one of her board members and political cronies made off like a bandit in her fraud. When these politicians tell you that the system is rigged, they are speaking the truth; what they don't tell you is that the very people who claim they want to fix it are the ones who are rigging it in the first place.
And pollsters wonder why voters reject both the Democratic and the Republican establishment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The most obvious where the Clintons.
The 'Clinton Global Fund' was openly taking bribes. Their defenders are in denial to this day.
Nobody can come up with an innocent explanation for why the bribe flow went to 0 after she lost. But they continue to defend it.
Tattoo that defense on their foreheads. Make them live the rest of their lives, embarrassed by their stupidity.
Re:Trump is also a traitor (Score:4, Insightful)
Get your tattoo. Be proud of your willful ignorance.
O.M.F.G. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who gives so much as a cent to this criminal deserves to lose it.
Fair enough, but unfortunately the "post-truth era" mentality PopeRatzo mentioned in his post isn't limited to investment. And you can't say "anyone who gives so much as a vote to this criminal deserves to lose it", because when this happens we all lose.
Can she run a successful startup from prison? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She did lose all her money as well apparently. She had common stock (whoops!) and when the company was revalued her shares lost all value. And since she exercised her options, she was in debt because of it (in any startup, get some cash compensation even if you're CEO).
There is a sucker born.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She's also in a settlement agreement with the S.E.C. that she won't be an officer or director of a company for ten years. So I'm unsure how she's raising money now, who would raise money for a company they can't be a part of? But she's going to jail soon enough I think, there are criminal charges pending.
Ah the American Ruling Class (Score:3)
Seriously, these guys were faking blood tests. People could have died. They should be in jail.
Part of human nature (Score:2)
I'm sure she will somehow succeed in convincing someone to hand over millions of dollars, especially if venture capitalists like Tim Draper (an early Theranos investor) are still out there saying the stories by Carreyrou were wrong (they weren't), and that Holmes was on the precipice of saving the world (she wasn't) before the media came after her.
People don't like (or want) to admit were/are wrong -- themselves or about others. example [politifact.com]
The chutzpah (Score:2)
Bad Blood (Score:2)
I thought this was really good coverage of Holmes and the Theranos story: Here [youtube.com], Nick Gillespie interviews John Carreyrou, the investigative reporter from the Wall Street Journal who broke the Theranos scam story and has a new book out about it called Bad Blood [amazon.com].
Proving yet again... (Score:2)
SEC barred her from being director/officer (Score:2)
... of a public company (SEC statement [sec.gov], but I guess that doesn't mean she can't wander around and raise money for anything else as a private company representative...?
Infinity Wars (Score:2)
Oh sure (Score:2)
Sure, I've got a million or two I can afford to throw away on this con-woman's pie-in-the-sky bullshit.