I remember discussing Theranos with clinical pathology colleagues in 2014 and 2015 (before the WSJ stories broke), and we all uniformly agreed there was no way her technology could work as described. It was simply fiction, and a bare minimum of due diligence asking any content expert would have confirmed that. Outrageous to see people in the media get suckered by the Elizabeth Holmes PR charm offensive *again*! Until tech reporters can adopt a more distanced and critical stance, we're going to keep seeing fraudulent Silicon Valley start-up meltdowns that "nobody saw coming" (except folks with any amount of knowledge of the product)
I remember asking a researcher about this when it first came out (2016?), and asking if their machine was possible. They replied only if she has 5 years of research on everyone else, found some tricks no one else had thought of, and they didn't think that was feasible. They wouldn't go on the record because even back then researchers were worried about being sued (this was before the WSJ story).
Elizabeth Holmes is a sociopath. She continues to show no remorse for all of the people she has harmed, putting the blame squarely on Sunni. I would not put it beneath her to give birth to her children as a ploy to get a more lenient sentence. There were red flags all over the place that people chose to ignore... no true scientist/medical practitioner/bio-engineer thought the vision could be real. Capillary blood is simply not going to produce those miracles. No one on her board is remotely qualified to be on a biotech board.
I fully agree with your assessment of Holmes, but I read the NYT piece to convey the sense that the reporter realized - and reported - that the "Liz" persona could be just another con.
Given the scale and the brazenness of the fraud, the Times would not have been wrong to run the piece under a more pejorative headline or to edit it to be more critical. But there is also a public interest served in framing the story that Holmes wants to tell now, so that some future "Liz" won't be dissuaded from talking to a reporter after the reckoning.
I found it newsworthy, for example, that Holmes finally concedes that the entire husky-voiced and be-turtlenecked "genius" was entirely a fabrication, although it also strikes me as pathological (and kind of creepy) that she doesn't seem able to bear any responsibility for the consequences of her deception.
An important lesson of the whole affair is that successful and intelligent people can be taken in by even transparent lies. The piece could have been more declarative on that count; instead, it was left as an implicit (and perhaps too subtle) point.
Part of what scientists can communicate to the public is that skepticism is an essential tool of the trade. (And along with that, they face the need to counter a popular perception that improperly conflates skepticism with the concepts of distrust or discrediting.) It's a point of vital importance not just for how the general public regards and reacts to scientific information, but for how people respond to purported facts in any sphere of their experience.
Definitely a poor effort from a newspaper which should have plenty of journalists with critical thinking skills. Especially sad after the way it covered the death of Jordan Neely.
Holden, we don’t often agree, but I read the NYT piece on Elizabeth Holmes, and I believe you have hit the nail on the head with your article here. Holmes is shameless, and yes, the NYT got played by her just like so many other (seemingly wise and educated) people also did.
I remember discussing Theranos with clinical pathology colleagues in 2014 and 2015 (before the WSJ stories broke), and we all uniformly agreed there was no way her technology could work as described. It was simply fiction, and a bare minimum of due diligence asking any content expert would have confirmed that. Outrageous to see people in the media get suckered by the Elizabeth Holmes PR charm offensive *again*! Until tech reporters can adopt a more distanced and critical stance, we're going to keep seeing fraudulent Silicon Valley start-up meltdowns that "nobody saw coming" (except folks with any amount of knowledge of the product)
Skinny white lady for the win.
I remember asking a researcher about this when it first came out (2016?), and asking if their machine was possible. They replied only if she has 5 years of research on everyone else, found some tricks no one else had thought of, and they didn't think that was feasible. They wouldn't go on the record because even back then researchers were worried about being sued (this was before the WSJ story).
Another sympathetic article you may find of interest, Holden. https://innovationnation.blog/p/why-elizabeth-holmes-is-going-to?r=4n7zl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Elizabeth Holmes is a sociopath. She continues to show no remorse for all of the people she has harmed, putting the blame squarely on Sunni. I would not put it beneath her to give birth to her children as a ploy to get a more lenient sentence. There were red flags all over the place that people chose to ignore... no true scientist/medical practitioner/bio-engineer thought the vision could be real. Capillary blood is simply not going to produce those miracles. No one on her board is remotely qualified to be on a biotech board.
I fully agree with your assessment of Holmes, but I read the NYT piece to convey the sense that the reporter realized - and reported - that the "Liz" persona could be just another con.
Given the scale and the brazenness of the fraud, the Times would not have been wrong to run the piece under a more pejorative headline or to edit it to be more critical. But there is also a public interest served in framing the story that Holmes wants to tell now, so that some future "Liz" won't be dissuaded from talking to a reporter after the reckoning.
I found it newsworthy, for example, that Holmes finally concedes that the entire husky-voiced and be-turtlenecked "genius" was entirely a fabrication, although it also strikes me as pathological (and kind of creepy) that she doesn't seem able to bear any responsibility for the consequences of her deception.
An important lesson of the whole affair is that successful and intelligent people can be taken in by even transparent lies. The piece could have been more declarative on that count; instead, it was left as an implicit (and perhaps too subtle) point.
Part of what scientists can communicate to the public is that skepticism is an essential tool of the trade. (And along with that, they face the need to counter a popular perception that improperly conflates skepticism with the concepts of distrust or discrediting.) It's a point of vital importance not just for how the general public regards and reacts to scientific information, but for how people respond to purported facts in any sphere of their experience.
Definitely a poor effort from a newspaper which should have plenty of journalists with critical thinking skills. Especially sad after the way it covered the death of Jordan Neely.
If she were a man, she'd be in jail now, or very very soon.
People could have - and may have but unknown - DIED because of her faulty machine.
--Elizabeth Thomas MD
1000%! Turns out You can be a parent and love your children, own a dog, take lovely photographs, AND commit heinous, unethical acts.
She's the tech founder who has it all!
https://alyssaburgart.substack.com/p/dont-forget-elizabeth-holmes
Holden, we don’t often agree, but I read the NYT piece on Elizabeth Holmes, and I believe you have hit the nail on the head with your article here. Holmes is shameless, and yes, the NYT got played by her just like so many other (seemingly wise and educated) people also did.