Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes jailed for fraud
Discussion
julian64 said:
You are completely ignoring the grey and looking at the white/black. If I adopt your style I would say that no financial institution should invest in something they don't understand, and then put pressure on a scientist to falsify results, then scream blue murder that they aren't getting a free ride on someone else's ideas with virtually no due diligence done.
But if I want to go back to my gray and probably difficult to understand position I would say it was a meeting a scientist over egging her work, with incompetent financial institutions unwilling to admit their error.
As for your comments about no basis in current technology you may want to look at recent strides in blood testing for advance detection of non specific cancer markers. There is a revolution in medicine coming, its just that its not a great mix with greedy investors, or less than transparent scientists
I think you're wrong tbh, and are possibly getting suckered in by the attractive blond like many of her victims did!! But if I want to go back to my gray and probably difficult to understand position I would say it was a meeting a scientist over egging her work, with incompetent financial institutions unwilling to admit their error.
As for your comments about no basis in current technology you may want to look at recent strides in blood testing for advance detection of non specific cancer markers. There is a revolution in medicine coming, its just that its not a great mix with greedy investors, or less than transparent scientists
You say she "may have something that she can contribute to society", well whoopy do, so do 99% of the planet in one way of another. But on that basis, hardly anyone would go to prison for doing wrong, and that is not right nor proper, as there needs to be deterrent to doing bad things to others.
She was a scammer, a fraud, a deluded liar who conned her way into millions and millions and ruined lives along the way.
And part of the "front" she developed to do that was because the punishment for such actions is traditionally so light, and coupled to the White Knight syndrome of the judiciary, press and public opinion, she thought "why not?"
You say she may be able to contribute to society, but what has she "actually" contributed so far? Cos i reckon if you add up the costs of her wrongdoing and constant lack of acceptance of her wrongdoing and desire to avoid any meaningful punishment, society is likely "well down on the deal" at the moment.
poo at Paul's said:
I think you're wrong tbh, and are possibly getting suckered in by the attractive blond like many of her victims did!!
You say she "may have something that she can contribute to society", well whoopy do, so do 99% of the planet in one way of another. But on that basis, hardly anyone would go to prison for doing wrong, and that is not right nor proper, as there needs to be deterrent to doing bad things to others.
She was a scammer, a fraud, a deluded liar who conned her way into millions and millions and ruined lives along the way.
And part of the "front" she developed to do that was because the punishment for such actions is traditionally so light, and coupled to the White Knight syndrome of the judiciary, press and public opinion, she thought "why not?"
You say she may be able to contribute to society, but what has she "actually" contributed so far? Cos i reckon if you add up the costs of her wrongdoing and constant lack of acceptance of her wrongdoing and desire to avoid any meaningful punishment, society is likely "well down on the deal" at the moment.
I'm not really understanding the suckered in by an attractive blonde. Firstly she's not very attractive, secondly happily married, and thirdly near sixty years of age so not really in a 'thinking with my dick' demographic.You say she "may have something that she can contribute to society", well whoopy do, so do 99% of the planet in one way of another. But on that basis, hardly anyone would go to prison for doing wrong, and that is not right nor proper, as there needs to be deterrent to doing bad things to others.
She was a scammer, a fraud, a deluded liar who conned her way into millions and millions and ruined lives along the way.
And part of the "front" she developed to do that was because the punishment for such actions is traditionally so light, and coupled to the White Knight syndrome of the judiciary, press and public opinion, she thought "why not?"
You say she may be able to contribute to society, but what has she "actually" contributed so far? Cos i reckon if you add up the costs of her wrongdoing and constant lack of acceptance of her wrongdoing and desire to avoid any meaningful punishment, society is likely "well down on the deal" at the moment.
And that was just your first sentence opinions which were wrong.
You may be right with the rest of it but you are just reiterating an opinion that she was out to defraud, and despite having watched the documentary on how this all happened I still maintain I'm not convinced.
Honestly if you are 'blonde obviously presents as attractive to you', and has a brain on her shoulders, and wants to defraud she could do it perfectly legally and profitably but simply opting to work in finance the city. Why would you start your evil defrauding empire as a scientist.
So I think at least at some point she had science best interests at heart. But what do i know, its only an opinion, if I'm swayed at all, its not by her genitalia, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt
julian64 said:
So I think at least at some point she had science best interests at heart. But what do i know, its only an opinion, if I'm swayed at all, its not by her genitalia, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt
Might want to read up on Ian Gibbons and the stress he was put under by Theranos management (including Elizabeth Holmes). My benefit of doubt reserve was insufficient to cover that aspect of the story.pquinn said:
And here we see the reason that scammers can exist, and that some people will still believe in the scam even after their pocket is empty and the whole thing is collapsed.
Julian64 was perhaps taken in by her convincing deep voice.If you think she has something positive to contribute, I have some magic beans you may be interested in.
dukeboy749r said:
pquinn said:
And here we see the reason that scammers can exist, and that some people will still believe in the scam even after their pocket is empty and the whole thing is collapsed.
Julian64 was perhaps taken in by her convincing deep voice.If you think she has something positive to contribute, I have some magic beans you may be interested in.
Its interesting though. Thread starts, stick wielding lynch mob starts to assemble, with successive posts becoming more dogmatic. Then someone posts with a slightly different view to the mob, and the counter posts are
Is he a sex pervert
Has he got both oars in the water, in other words a gullible fool.
...............sometimes its hard to be me..............
julian64 said:
I wouldn't characterize myself as gullible. Spent too long working with the general public for that. But if it fits your narrative.
Its interesting though. Thread starts, stick wielding lynch mob starts to assemble, with successive posts becoming more dogmatic. Then someone posts with a slightly different view to the mob, and the counter posts are
Is he a sex pervert
Has he got both oars in the water, in other words a gullible fool.
...............sometimes its hard to be me..............
If you said you thought she started off with good intentions and got trapped in her web of lies, only turning to downright criminal acts when Sunny joined the company you might have got people on side. But "I believe she has stuff she can contribute to the overall benefit of society." goes way beyond that.Its interesting though. Thread starts, stick wielding lynch mob starts to assemble, with successive posts becoming more dogmatic. Then someone posts with a slightly different view to the mob, and the counter posts are
Is he a sex pervert
Has he got both oars in the water, in other words a gullible fool.
...............sometimes its hard to be me..............
julian64 said:
I'm not really understanding the suckered in by an attractive blonde. Firstly she's not very attractive, secondly happily married, and thirdly near sixty years of age so not really in a 'thinking with my dick' demographic.
And that was just your first sentence opinions which were wrong.
You may be right with the rest of it but you are just reiterating an opinion that she was out to defraud, and despite having watched the documentary on how this all happened I still maintain I'm not convinced.
Honestly if you are 'blonde obviously presents as attractive to you', and has a brain on her shoulders, and wants to defraud she could do it perfectly legally and profitably but simply opting to work in finance the city. Why would you start your evil defrauding empire as a scientist.
So I think at least at some point she had science best interests at heart. But what do i know, its only an opinion, if I'm swayed at all, its not by her genitalia, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt
Well based on you're inability to come up with anything to back up your assertion that she may well have something for society with anything she has actually done, before on since, I will stick by my opinion on the first sentence. And that was just your first sentence opinions which were wrong.
You may be right with the rest of it but you are just reiterating an opinion that she was out to defraud, and despite having watched the documentary on how this all happened I still maintain I'm not convinced.
Honestly if you are 'blonde obviously presents as attractive to you', and has a brain on her shoulders, and wants to defraud she could do it perfectly legally and profitably but simply opting to work in finance the city. Why would you start your evil defrauding empire as a scientist.
So I think at least at some point she had science best interests at heart. But what do i know, its only an opinion, if I'm swayed at all, its not by her genitalia, but I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt
I mean after all, you've not said the same about her accomplice, Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani..?
Anyway, if you are ok with her not doing prison time, so be it, you'll likely be calmer than most others when she ends up avoiding visiting "Bryan"!
julian64 said:
I wouldn't characterize myself as gullible. Spent too long working with the general public for that. But if it fits your narrative.
Its interesting though. Thread starts, stick wielding lynch mob starts to assemble, with successive posts becoming more dogmatic. Then someone posts with a slightly different view to the mob, and the counter posts are
Is he a sex pervert
Has he got both oars in the water, in other words a gullible fool.
...............sometimes its hard to be me..............
You are entitled to your view point. She's a complicated character and I can see why people were taken in, and why people rationalise what she did, in their own way. Its interesting though. Thread starts, stick wielding lynch mob starts to assemble, with successive posts becoming more dogmatic. Then someone posts with a slightly different view to the mob, and the counter posts are
Is he a sex pervert
Has he got both oars in the water, in other words a gullible fool.
...............sometimes its hard to be me..............
If you have not had the chance, then the podcast is well worth the investment in time. It’s 35 episodes and a good 30 hours of play, but it is an exceptional piece of investigative journalism and it fleshes out the story, and both her and Balwani, fully.
My view is that she is a sociopath, with a personality disorder, most likely narcissistic. It seems to fuel her drive and both her culpability issues and her seemingly cognitive dissonance when it comes to her abilities.
There may well be a case of getting so far into her own reality that she thought she could fake it out, but there is very much a dark side to her actions. she destroyed several of her key staff with one taking his own life. She also pursued those who questioned her.
Then there is the greed.
She reminded me of Lance Armstrong - someone who is both ruthless and deluded and who willingly destroyed those who questioned him or attempted to stop him.
Of course, life is always shades of grey and I am sure at times she really did think she was "eventually" going to deliver something that be groundbreaking, but it does not absolve her of her actions. Mitigates? Maybe.
Her jail time is both for her actions but also a message to the wider Silicon Valley and tech industry, that when you take money and fail to deliver and knowingly, then you have to prepared to face the consequences
not all her investors were wealthy and many smaller investors lost money. Of course, there is an element of caveat emptor, but if you engage in fraudulent and misleading activity the naiveite of your victims should not be your defence.
julian64 said:
I wouldn't characterize myself as gullible. Spent too long working with the general public for that. But if it fits your narrative.
It happens in many threads.No problem with airing your opposing view but her avoiding jail would be tragic for the victims. And yes, there are victims here and in a just society, justice demands that she pay the price with her freedom.
Holmes settling down and having children just to help get her off the hook of enforcement of a custodial sentence is in-keeping with her suspected mental issues i.e. she probably does not want kids or, a fella at all but obtained them for her own legal expedience.
In terms of comparing her to Lance Armstrong, I think this situation differs on the basis that Holmes committed really awful criminal acts that did a much higher level of societal damage than what Lance did. Yes, you could argue that the 'victims' of Lance Armstrong were his competitors but, time has shown that all of them, without exception, were all juiced to the eye-balls as well. It's just that Lance's genetic limit was higher.
Carl_Manchester said:
It happens in many threads.
No problem with airing your opposing view but her avoiding jail would be tragic for the victims. And yes, there are victims here and in a just society, justice demands that she pay the price with her freedom.
Holmes settling down and having children just to help get her off the hook of enforcement of a custodial sentence is in-keeping with her suspected mental issues i.e. she probably does not want kids or, a fella at all but obtained them for her own legal expedience.
In terms of comparing her to Lance Armstrong, I think this situation differs on the basis that Holmes committed really awful criminal acts that did a much higher level of societal damage than what Lance did. Yes, you could argue that the 'victims' of Lance Armstrong were his competitors but, time has shown that all of them, without exception, were all juiced to the eye-balls as well. It's just that Lance's genetic limit was higher.
Agree with a lot of that, especially the have kids get out jail card.No problem with airing your opposing view but her avoiding jail would be tragic for the victims. And yes, there are victims here and in a just society, justice demands that she pay the price with her freedom.
Holmes settling down and having children just to help get her off the hook of enforcement of a custodial sentence is in-keeping with her suspected mental issues i.e. she probably does not want kids or, a fella at all but obtained them for her own legal expedience.
In terms of comparing her to Lance Armstrong, I think this situation differs on the basis that Holmes committed really awful criminal acts that did a much higher level of societal damage than what Lance did. Yes, you could argue that the 'victims' of Lance Armstrong were his competitors but, time has shown that all of them, without exception, were all juiced to the eye-balls as well. It's just that Lance's genetic limit was higher.
My Lance analogy was more personality type, he destroyed a lot of people who were not riders but stood in his way, as she did with anyone who questioned her.
b
hstewie said:
That New York Times PR piece on Holmes is being laughed at all around the world.hstewie said:julian64 said:
As for your comments about no basis in current technology you may want to look at recent strides in blood testing for advance detection of non specific cancer markers. There is a revolution in medicine coming, its just that its not a great mix with greedy investors, or less than transparent scientists
There might be a revolution coming but that's future rather than current technology, surely?She went a lot futher than being a naive optimist, allegedly she defrauded people & risked others' lives. If found guilty then she deserves what she gets.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff